Shots as assistant at wedding.

[thebeatles]

the troll surfaced again..didn't he.. neways

1. the beatles rock

2. that advice on the cross processing...man you've extended my ps skills for life...thank you much!!

3. please save this artsy topic for discussions..i think the photos here were really great and the photographer (artist) is responsible for creating and manipulating these images.kudos to you OP.

Thanks a million meccalli! :mrgreen:

 

[Moe]

The first doesn't do much for me. I like the composition of the second, but not the processing. The third is nice.

As far as the processing goes, the market will decide. If people want it, photographers will do it. It's as simple as that. 30 years from now, the processing won't date the photo any more than the hairstyles, fashion, etc. Their grandchildren will look at the photo and love it anyway. I look at my parents' wedding photos, and they are dated for sure, both processing/lighting and otherwise. But that's what makes them cool.

 

[thebeatles]

The first doesn't do much for me. I like the composition of the second, but not the processing. The third is nice.

As far as the processing goes, the market will decide. If people want it, photographers will do it. It's as simple as that. 30 years from now, the processing won't date the photo any more than the hairstyles, fashion, etc. Their grandchildren will look at the photo and love it anyway. I look at my parents' wedding photos, and they are dated for sure, both processing/lighting and otherwise. But that's what makes them cool.

Thanks for commenting Moe!

 

[photosbybritni]

Totally agree with Moe, I read most of everyone's replies and some of the harsh critiquing was like "nails on a chalkboard" Indeed its best to know the right way and the wrong way of exposing the "perfect" image, but that's what separates us from them. We as artist see things differently, what we may not like, the clients will LOVE. I have seen horrible images taken from the "so called photographer" (not trying to be rude, but they do exist) and people praise their work. Rules can be broken, you did a great job with these, keep it up!

 

[Petraio Prime]

The first doesn't do much for me. I like the composition of the second, but not the processing. The third is nice.

As far as the processing goes, the market will decide. If people want it, photographers will do it. It's as simple as that. 30 years from now, the processing won't date the photo any more than the hairstyles, fashion, etc. Their grandchildren will look at the photo and love it anyway. I look at my parents' wedding photos, and they are dated for sure, both processing/lighting and otherwise. But that's what makes them cool.

I disagree, totally. If your work is good, people will buy it. If you're just following fads, what kind of person are you? You need to look inside yourself and ask: what is the purpose of wedding photography? If you think it's to 'show off' your ability to use some manipulations you're in the business for the wrong reasons. Your customers deserve better than that.

 

[Petraio Prime]

The first doesn't do much for me. I like the composition of the second, but not the processing. The third is nice.

As far as the processing goes, the market will decide. If people want it, photographers will do it. It's as simple as that. 30 years from now, the processing won't date the photo any more than the hairstyles, fashion, etc. Their grandchildren will look at the photo and love it anyway. I look at my parents' wedding photos, and they are dated for sure, both processing/lighting and otherwise. But that's what makes them cool.

But is this 'dating' in the best interest of the client?

Do we not notice, in those 1930s glamor portraits, a certain lack of dating? Don't the ones from just a few years earlier look incredibly hokey, with the diffusion everywhere?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/138/321484265_e51b012652_o.jpg

Not the overall lack of contrast, the lack of dramatic shadows, the overall softness.

Another example, of actress Lillian Gish:

http://drnorth.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/annex-gish-lillian_10.jpg

another of Miss Gish:

http://www.fathom.com/feature/121581/2148_sidebar_lg.jpg

Compare that to this portrait of Joan Crawford:

http://annehelenpetersen.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/joancrawford.jpg

or this:

http://ohhellnoyoudidnt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/JoanCrawford.jpg

or this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CVIRFDlxku0/SVjPhl33cfI/AAAAAAAAAlc/yPYCnYDvC40/s400/JoanCrawford2.jpg

It hardly seems possible, but they were made within a few years of each other!

Why not give the client something of lasting value, instead of showing how 'hip' you are? Are you trying to impress your clients or serve them?

 

[Petraio Prime]

But is this 'dating' in the best interest of the client?

...

Why not give the client something of lasting value, instead of showing how 'hip' you are? Are you trying to impress your clients or serve them?

It's not like the client is a patient in a hospital who refuses to have a kidney transplant even thought it's going to add a good 30+ years to her life... I don't really think there *is* a "in the best interest of the client" type situation. The client is fully capable of knowing what they want.

If they want a classic look, they'll find someone with that style... if they want something more edgy, they'll find someone with that style. The bride is able to view the photographer's (in this case Beatles') work before hand and decide for themselves if that's the kind of look they want... if not... Beatles isn't holding a gun to their head... and then they can go find you. :greenpbl:

You would **hate** my wedding photos... in 10 years... I'm still going to love them, because they fit mine and my husband's personality. Personally that "timeless trendyless" look you keep describing is increadibly boring to me and I tried like *hell* to get away from that with our wedding photos.

My senior portraits were non-traditional as well... and over 6 years later... I still love them... in another 4 years after that... I'll still love them... and another 10 years after *that*... I'll still love them. It's going to be the same with my wedding photos... I know what I wanted and I got it... most brides do.

What I was talking about was what appears to me to be a kind of 'war' among photographers trying to out-do one another in their technical manipulations and 'styles', as if that in itself made them better wedding photographers. I didn't hear anyone saying they were focussed on the client...

It seems everyone is worried they'll be left behind...that they have to keep up with 'trends' in the business...

I say do the best job with your attention to detail and fill your photos with emotion...that never goes out of style...

It will appeal to almost everyone, and forever...

 

[Petraio Prime]

What I was talking about was what appears to me to be a kind of 'war' among photographers trying to out-do one another in their technical manipulations and 'styles', as if that in itself made them better wedding photographers. I didn't hear anyone saying they were focussed on the client...

It seems everyone is worried they'll be left behind...that they have to keep up with 'trends' in the business...

I say do the best job with your attention to detail and fill your photos with emotion...that never goes out of style...

It will appeal to almost everyone, and forever...

I don't get the feeling that anyone is trying to outdo anyone... but that may just be me. I do indeed see different styles... but that is where I feel the music analogy **is** appropriate.

Why can't a photo have both the "photographer's style" *and* emotion? I thought my wedding photographer did a great job with both of those things... which is why we used her.

That's great!

I just am getting the impression from the work I see here and elsewhere that digital cameras have changed the way people are handling the photos after they are taken, and the emphasis seems to have shifted away from the emotional content to the displaying of all kinds of manipulations and tricks and effects.

For a long time, there was a fad of doing a portrait of one person with the other person 'inside their head' (done with a double exposure). It was so tacky....I imagine they're still doing that in Iowa or Arkansas...

The point I'm trying to make is that most so-called 'creative' techniques rapidly become dated and call undue attention to themselves. Quality work never becomes dated.

In other words, don't be concerned with what 'everybody else' is doing.

Some people attend seminars that teach certain approaches or techniques. These are taught generally by 'big names' in the industry. The trouble is that everybody takes the same seminars and everybody's work tends to have the same 'look'. Then everybody belongs to the local pro organization (in Ohio, the PP of O) and they all get together and critique each others' work at competitions...and again the tendency is to copy and imitate one another, to judge based on what's 'in'.

http://www.ppofohio.org/

The PP of O is basically for portrait and wedding photographers.

 

[Naphtali14]

They all look great to me! Good job!

As far as having a different look for different photos shot in the same location I think it's perfectly fine and should probably be left up to the bride/groom.

Well done!

 

[Petraio Prime]

I don't get the feeling that anyone is trying to outdo anyone... but that may just be me. I do indeed see different styles... but that is where I feel the music analogy **is** appropriate.

By what I see on here...people asking "how did you do that?" etc...

It seems everyone is insecure, and worried that somebody else out there has some technical advantage...when in fact the 'technical' is probably the least important thing on the minds of prospective brides and grooms...basic technical competence is assumed since you are a 'professional'; what differentiates you is the way you treat customers and the emotional impact of the final product.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I don't get the feeling that anyone is trying to outdo anyone... but that may just be me. I do indeed see different styles... but that is where I feel the music analogy **is** appropriate.

By what I see on here...people asking "how did you do that?" etc...

I see the same thing happening in *any* art... Dance, Music, Theater...and Photography.

We all learn the rule of thirds... and then break that rule.

So someone sees something they like... they learn it... they change it into something else.... maybe something more subtle... maybe more boisterous.

Art spawns from people learning from and being inspired by others... Mozart had to "learn how to do that" from someone... then he took that and did his own thing with it.

Think what you will though, it's not really going to change anything... but then again that's why you're not a "photographer". :greenpbl:

I edited my post, which explains better what I meant...

I have been a 'pro', but I didn't want to continue to do it...I did a few weddings for friends and cousins, next thing I knew I was getting referrals...I did one more then decided I didn't want to continue.

I just feel that photographers are too worried about what everyone else is doing technically....they think that's what their customers are looking for...

 

[lunaaa]

I love no3 ,B&W works really great .I enjoyed reading the thread too, lots of valuable info.

 

[Petraio Prime]

It seems everyone is insecure, and worried that somebody else out there has some technical advantage...when in fact the 'technical' is probably the least important thing on the minds of prospective brides and grooms...basic technical competence is assumed since you are a 'professional'; what differentiates you is the way you treat customers and the emotional impact of the final product.

I am sticking with my original statement of, I don't get that feeling from anyone.

I edited my post, which explains better what I meant...

I have been a 'pro', but I didn't want to continue to do it...I did a few weddings for friends and cousins, next thing I knew I was getting referrals...I did one more then decided I didn't want to continue.

I just feel that photographers are too worried about what everyone else is doing technically....they think that's what their customers are looking for...

This made no sense to me.

But don't worry about explaining it because I just got home and I'm about to continue my work from yesterday and I don't care enough about whatever the answer is to check back.

And before someone calls me a b*tch for saying so... hey... at least I'm honest.

OK, it s my experience over many decades that:

1) Photographers tend to be very insecure people.
2) They are worried that some technique someone else has mastered, or some equipment or material that another uses, will steal their business or show them up.
3) Photographers love bashing others' work.

As a result of this there tends to be a lot of imitation. Someone comes up with an original idea and before long everyone is doing it.