How to create soft bright pastel wedding photography?

[mtuffy]

Hey Everyone,

This might be a standard question that a lot of people know answers too, so any help would be greatly appreciated. I've been doing wedding photography for a couple years but recently i have seen the latest trend is to have bright/soft/pastel type wedding photos. I've tried recreating this with my Canon 40d but I am probably using the wrong camera setting and/or Photoshop effects.
Would anyone have any ideas or tips on how to create these sorts of images? is my camera good enough for this type of effect? What do people recommend as a good camera/lens for weddings? I've attached a couple websites that display this type of photography if that is of any help.
Thanks in advance to anyone who can help and share some tips
Matt.

foxe_homepage » ninamaree.com

{joost & kirsty} ~ wedding ~ berry | Melbourne Wedding Photographer | Jonas Peterson | Australia | Worldwide

Brisbane Wedding Photographer - Matilda Beezley - Australian Destination Wedding Photographer* -

 

[Derrel]

The last shooter is using a Canon fullframe and favors a lens that has a LOT of magenta and green chromatic aberration, so she appears to have a Canon 85mm f/1.2-L, and I'd wager she ALSO has a 50/1.2-L as well. The shallow-shallow-shallow DOF and the very blown-out (meaning wayyyy out of focus) backgrounds and the oftentimes too-shallow depth of field show me that she is shooting FF, and often very close to wide-open, which in my opinion, looks less-good than a more-experienced shooter who thinks of shallow DOF at 10 feet as being f/4, not f/1.8 or f/1.4...the out of focus HEADS on some of her frames look very...unstudied...there is shallow DOF, and there is also such a thing a DOF that is too shallow, and gimmicky. She slips into the latter once in a while. You will NOT get the same "look" using a 1.6x sensor camera and shooting from 1.6x farther back...that's why FF exists, and why so many high-enmd people shooters prewfer 24x36 format sensors over smaller sensors for THIS specific kind of work.

But yeah...a crop-frame body will NOT give you the "look" that Matilda's work has...that is full-frame territory, using very specific, fast, high-end lenses.

If I wanted to emulate Matilda's look, I would buy a Canon 5D-III, Canon 24mm f/1.4-L, a 35mm f /1.4-L, a 50mm f/1.2-L, and an 85mm f/1.2-L, and of course the 135-2 L lenses. And a 24-70 and 70-200 f/2./8 L-series zooms as well.

Another thing that I as a North American see immediately in her portfolio is the fabulous LIGHT QUALITY that exists in Australia and Fiji and those other amazing "south seas" places! WOW--the light there is... fabulous!!! With all that light, and all that light-colored sand, there is HUGE amounts of fill light everywhere; this is far, far different from where I live, where it is gray and overcast seven months of the year.

 

[KmH]

The first 2 links are mostly post processed using image editing software.

That look can be achieved by lowering mid-tone contrast and vibrance.

 

[Mike_E]

You might play around with the gradient tool as well.

 

[dsiglin]

I'd guess the photographers are also exposing for the midtone or shadow of the skin since the highlights are often blown out. Set your metering to spot, meter the midtone on someone's face and lock exposure. That should give you the bright look that is popular. Some people hate blown highlights. I think they can work well especially if a person doesn't have great skin.

Not using a lens hood can also give you a more washed out "soft" look. That lowers the contrast. Much like how the light is in my avatar which was shot with a large flash umbrella directly behind me straight into the camera. I upped the exposure until the midtones of the skin was where I wanted them.

And yea, that light in south pacific is gorgeous. I hear Lapland has amazing quality light as well. I'd rather go there.

 

[kim_kennedy]

Pastels are possible with any digital camera, but some color palettes simply translate better to pastel hues. In my opinion, the Canon color palette works better for pastels than the Nikon. For obtaining pastels with digital, you need the right exposure as well. If you expose for zero, or what your camera interprets as "proper" exposure, you may have difficulties getting pastels in your final result. Colors are based on your original exposure, because your camera renders shadow tones differently than mids or highlights in-camera. If you brighten up shadows later, that base shadow tone still remains – it's just artificially brighter. This can often produce a very unflattering result. The same concept applies for exposing portraits.

 

[JoeW]

Derrel, I just wanted to say that....

DAYAM...you're a real resource on this site. Your experience and especially your background with such a wide range of bodies/lens/gear and historical perspective is just invaluable. For instance, I can talk about Nikon...but not Canon (never been a Canon shooter) and I suspect this is true for most photographers. Your breadth and depth on technical knowledge amazes me. I don't know if this is from your background selling cameras decades ago or you're just a gear fanatic, devouring magazine reviews as the come out or what. But the info you provide (and this thread is a good example) just shows what a tremendous resource you are.

 

[Pejacre]

Derrel, I just wanted to say that....

DAYAM...you're a real resource on this site. Your experience and especially your background with such a wide range of bodies and historical perspective is just invaluable. For instance, I can talk about Nikon...but not Canon (never been a Canon shooter). I don't know if this is from your background selling cameras decades ago or you're just a gear fanatic, devouring magazine reviews as the come out or what. But the info you provide (and this thread is a good example) just shows what a tremendous resource you are.

I second that.

 

[pjaye]

Derrel, I just wanted to say that....

DAYAM...you're a real resource on this site. Your experience and especially your background with such a wide range of bodies and historical perspective is just invaluable. For instance, I can talk about Nikon...but not Canon (never been a Canon shooter). I don't know if this is from your background selling cameras decades ago or you're just a gear fanatic, devouring magazine reviews as the come out or what. But the info you provide (and this thread is a good example) just shows what a tremendous resource you are.

I second that.

And I'll third it.

 

[NORTHERNGAL]

Following. Great info here.

 

[gsgary]

Why follow the crowd do something different and set yourself ahead of the rest