Shots as assistant at wedding.

[thebeatles]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I figured I am still "brushing up on the basics" so...

C&C are welcome. :thumbup:

Thanks for looking! :hugs:

 

[Robin Usagani]

I like them. My only comment is that when you have a series at the same location, I would make my WB identical when it is in color. Thats just my newbie oppinion though

 

[Bombers]

I like them. My only comment is that when you have a series at the same location, I would make my WB identical when it is in color. Thats just my newbie oppinion though

Agreed.

 

[meccalli]

Hey could you tell me what type of post processing went into 1 and 2 if you don't mind? I really enjoy that look you pull out in those images. Thanks*

 

[thebeatles]

I like them. My only comment is that when you have a series at the same location, I would make my WB identical when it is in color. Thats just my newbie oppinion though

Thanks for the advice! I did shoot everything at that location with the same WB by setting it manually with a white piece of paper. The difference in tones and curves between those shots were deliberate, and created in photoshop. I was trying to emulate cross processing and film effects. I suppose that these adjustments were my "artistic" take on the originals. The shots he sends out to the bride will be a little more straight forward (in regards to processing).

Thanks again for the comments and advice! :thumbup:

 

[Robin Usagani]

Yeah, thats what I mean. When you PP it, make them identical when they are in color. There's always exceptions though!

 

[thebeatles]

Hey could you tell me what type of post processing went into 1 and 2 if you don't mind? I really enjoy that look you pull out in those images. Thanks*

I am horrible at explaining my methods in a detailed manner, so I will suggest a google search on digital faux cross processing techniques. I have always loved the look of film, especially the cross processed or lo-fi/expired film look. Hope this helps.

 

[Petraio Prime]

The color is screwed up. Why?

If you did it on purpose, you did not use good judgement.

This is wedding photography, not rock-band photography.

Sigh.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Color is screwed up? All photo's have screwed up color.

 

[SecondShot]

For wedding photography, this look is what a lot of brides are going for when they look for a 'wedding photographer'. So, I don't think the color is screwed up, per se.

I will say that the first two photos are very aesthetically pleasing, but look like they were taken by two different photographers. The lighting is different, though I don't know the terms to explain it - maybe the first has more saturation from the grass and wood (?), but the second looks different stylistically.

 

[KmH]

I did shoot everything at that location with the same WB by setting it manually with a white piece of paper.

Which shade of "white" was the paper?

The vast majority of copy papers that are called "white" have a slight blue hue to them. Georgia-Pacific list 13 different shades of "white" for just their copy & multipurpose papers.

A custom white balance really needs to be set using a known target like a good 18% grey card (WhiBal - www.rawworkflow.com) or better yet a system like X-RITE's ColorChecker Passport - www.xrite.com.

 

[burstintoflame81]

They look decent on my phone, aside from mixed wb but stand alone they look great.#2 is my fave....2 and 3 really need the hair crossing the face gone though.

 

[KmH]

I did shoot everything at that location with the same WB by setting it manually with a white piece of paper.

Which shade of "white" was the paper?

The vast majority of copy papers that are called "white" have a slight blue hue to them. Georgia-Pacific list 13 different shades of "white" for just their copy & multipurpose papers.

A custom white balance really needs to be set using a known target like a good 18% grey card (WhiBal - www.rawworkflow.com) or better yet a system like X-RITE's ColorChecker Passport - www.xrite.com.

I'm confused... I thought a grey card was for setting exposure, not WB??? :scratch:

Any value of true gray can be used to set white balance because it has equal values of red, green, and blue.


Pure white in RGB is 255, 255, 255.

240, 240, 240 is a light gray tone.

200, 200, 200 is also a grey tone. But a darker gray tone than 240, 240, 240.

Any of those 3 can be used in post processing to set the white balance, 200, 140, 180 cannot.

The 18% part of a grey card has to do with reflectance and the way a camera's light meter is configured. The in-camera meter is programed to average out, to 18% reflectance, that part of a scene used for metering. How much of the scene gets metered is determined by selecting the metering mode: Spot, Center-Weighted, or Evaluative (Matrix for Nikon)

 

[Ryan L]

yes they are for setting your exposure. but also for white balance! I used to think the same thing until googling "white balance grey card" and found the secret use...lol. It really does work well.

 

[thebeatles]

The color is screwed up. Why?

If you did it on purpose, you did not use good judgement.

This is wedding photography, not rock-band photography.

Sigh.

Thanks for the...advice? :er:

Sighhhhhhhhhh

The color is screwed up. Why?

If you did it on purpose, you did not use good judgement.

This is wedding photography, not rock-band photography.

Sigh.

Brides in 2010 tend to like that sort of thing... :greenpbl:

I dig Beatles

Thanks Emily! :hug::

I did shoot everything at that location with the same WB by setting it manually with a white piece of paper.

Which shade of "white" was the paper?

The vast majority of copy papers that are called "white" have a slight blue hue to them. Georgia-Pacific list 13 different shades of "white" for just their copy & multipurpose papers.

A custom white balance really needs to be set using a known target like a good 18% grey card (WhiBal - www.rawworkflow.com) or better yet a system like X-RITE's ColorChecker Passport - www.xrite.com.

Unfortunately, just a white sheet the photographer usually uses. I will have to check into that, thanks for the links!

The photos generally looked something like this sooc before editing.

They look decent on my phone, aside from mixed wb but stand alone they look great.#2 is my fave....2 and 3 really need the hair crossing the face gone though.

Thanks for the feedback, I will have to look into cloning(?) tonight. Would that be the standard method for getting the hair off of the face? *off to youtube to check out cloning tutorials*