Wedding photograpy training offer.

To be honest my interest in this forum has been decreasing over time. I have been a member since 2008 and I still check the forum every day, but I am finding less and less that I am interested in. I enjoy the equipment discussions and some of the technical aspects are stimulating.
But my bottom line is still a desire to get the best images that I can. I really enjoy the discussions that get directly to image quality, image composition, and technique for image capture.
My specialty is weddings, I find members dabbling with weddings here and there and I have been impressed with some of the results. But there is so much more to being a wedding photographer.
I’ve seen a few of you struggle with your first wedding and you seem to be getting a lot of technical feedback on cameras, and lenses, and lights, when to be honest you need to spend more time on the nontechnical aspects of this art.
I would be glad to start a series of discussions related to the wedding business if there is enough interest on this forum. I would like to bring back the ‘art’ of wedding photography and prepare you for your first or third or tenth event. I will be honest and tough on the images you post but only in attempt to make you better.
Thanks

That sounds like a great idea!

I do not think I will ever be a wedding photographer (I do not think I have the personality for it), but I would love to learn more about shooting people. Currently I shoot things, and landscapes; but I suck at shooting people. There is more to wedding photography than just portraiture, but it is a big part of it and I would certainly enjoy the learning experience.

iND....thanks for the generous offer. First of all, I've gotten away from asking for C&Cs on any photos I post, but feel free to give feedback to any of my photos.

I attended two weddings last fall where I took a fair number of photos. The first one, I was very impressed with the Pros. Not only did they have good gear (5DII with 24-70 f/2.8 and a 1DIV with a 70-200 f/2.8 with warmer gels on their flashes, etc), but they worked hard. Constantly shooting, working on unique angles (ladders at the reception, shooting from the floor), etc. Second wedding, the pros were ok. Not as impressive as the first group, but still good.

But I took this as a good chance to gauge my photography and compared my shots to the pros. In the comparison, some of the gear differences were obvious (at the time, I was shooting with the 7D/EFS 15-85 or 50 f/1.8 with a EX 580 II), and of course a skill difference, but I also noticed a distinct "style" to the post processing of both sets of pros and I was wondering if you could comment. The pros photos certainly "popped." I believe they increased contrast and color saturation, slightly overexposed most imagines (although, sometimes I think I underexpose), and went with slightly "cooler" white balance.

I am sure there is a lot to individual style here, but I did find it interesting that there were similarities between the pros (one in NH and the other in AZ). I was wondering if you could comment on post processing style and the general look you go for in wedding photos.

After that, +1 with what Pat said and being interested in learning more about shooting people.

Thanks,
Brant

Wow, could I have used this last fall! I don't have any plans to ever shoot a wedding again but am still very interested in reading the thread. I don't post much here anymore mainly because #1 my gear has dwindled down so much and so #2 I've gotten more into learning various post-processing techniques which I don't think there are too many fans here for that.

I still pop in every day and look forward to reading what you post!

Good topic. I am an engineer by day and a wedding/portrait photographer by weekend. I have been doing this since since 1999. I have improved a great deal over the last few years thanks in part to this forum. Being an engineer I do tend to focus on the technical side. My wife helps a great deal with the posing. She refuses though to learn any of the technical side. I am a person of few words so I do not give critique much on images I see here. I like anyone here have plenty of room to learn more and look forward to some great discussions.
Let me start it off :cool:
One of the hardest is a bride that is overweight and to make matters worse, a strapless dress :eek:. What are some of these brides thinking when they pick out a dress :confused:.
Also to make it even more difficult she forgot her flowers. From now on I will be bringing some nice fake flowers just in case. It helps break up the large dress :rolleyes:.

Critique away :)
Attachment 1794
For this next one I was on a ladder. For overweight people it helps to shoot from above
Attachment 1795

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

I've gotten more into learning various post-processing techniques which I don't think there are too many fans here for that.

---

ME! :rolleyes:
I have seen some fantastic PP from you and are sometimes jealous:). I have learned a lot lately but still have a long way to go. We probably need a thread on this as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

ME! :rolleyes:
I have seen some fantastic PP from you and are sometimes jealous:). I have learned a lot lately but still have a long way to go. We probably need a thread on this as well.

---

Really???? I have shunned away from here because I just feel I don't have the equipment or skills to post anything close to the great shots I see here but if anyone else is interested in a thread on more artsy-craftsy type of post-processing using textures, layers, brushes, etc. please let me know. I would love to put an ongoing type thread (blog) here if there is interest for it. Keep in mind though I am still learning also so input would be appreciated. I have even started making my own textures and can post them for free downloading and usage if anyone wants them as they become available..

Denise

EDIT: I should add that if anyone would like to see what Mark & I are referring to, please feel free to view my flickr pages, they have more of this than my personal website.

Denise.....you have a great eye and great creativity. Don't sell yourself short. I vote you start the thread.....I love almost all types of unconventional processing;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Really???? I have shunned away from here because I just feel I don't have the equipment or skills to post anything close to the great shots I see here

---

:eek:
And how many people here have had their images published in Popular Photography :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

:eek:
And how many people here have had their images published in Popular Photography :confused:

---

Twice...wasn't it?

Denise...you could have a pinhole camera and take photos worthy of posting.....com' on, stop depriving us.....

Mark, perhaps try to find an old forest with wide trunks, and just change the aspect a bit in post, to thin everything out.

Denise, your post-processing and texture work is usually quite good. As others said, don't sell yourself short.

@Mark - I'm the last to give any wedding photography advice but one thing I do remember reading about through all the research I did when I was going to shoot my one and only was to not ever shoot the bride straight on. She should always be angled to the camera or it just makes any bride appear heavier than what she is. Or you could try the liquify tool in photoshop, thinning people is one of the main things it is for and by the time you are done applying it to 300 photos of the bride, you will be an expert at using it! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

not ever shoot the bride straight on. She should always be angled to the camera or it just makes any bride appear heavier than what she is.

---

I try to find a comprimise here. When a bride is heavy and in a strapless dress, straight on she looks wide and angled her upper arms look large. I have had brides complain about how big their arms look when I have angled them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Or you could try the liquify tool in photoshop, thinning people is one of the main things it is for and by the time you are done applying it to 300 photos of the bride, you will be an expert at using it! ;)

---

Looks like our first topic for photoshop:rolleyes:. I have never used this. I'll have to look it up in my books and see what I can learn.

[QUOTE=clemmb;82171]I try to find a comprimise here. When a bride is heavy and in a strapless dress, straight on she looks wide and angled her upper arms look large. I have had brides complain about how big their arms look when I have angled them.
QUOTE]

Yep, that is where the liquify tool would be of great help I believe. I have not had much experience at all using it but from the videos I have watched, it can be a miracle worker. I just wasn't blessed with patience and this is one tool that requires a great deal of that IMO.

There are tons of videos online showing how to use the liquify tool. Here is one quick example of what it can do. Granted, it's not a cure all but used in moderation and again, with patience it can shed a few pounds off of a person. There is just a great deal of controversy amongst people on how far should one go in editing photos of people. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and some may get offended when you start messing with what makes them who they are by removing "character" lines, laugh lines, moles, scars, etc. but from what I've read though, brides love this tool!

Here's just a quick show of what it can do ...
http://blog.photoframd.com/2009/07/2...he-plus-model/

I have skills in Photoshop, and have used the liquefy filter many times. However, I don't agree on its use with people.

It makes no difference if it's a bride, or any other person. Apart from lens corrections, the person should be left alone when it comes to their shape.

Okay, the bride is overweight. Or, the groom is overweight. Big deal. That's who they are. Changing their physical shape is making them into something they aren't.

I'm perfectly okay with small adjustments, such as contrast, color (we're all a little pasty looking and could use some saturation in the face, especially if the camera doesn't do well with it), or some other modifications (pimples removed, scratches, etc. which are "snapshots" at the time).

I was asked by the mother of the bride to make one of the bride's maids thinner. Yes, the woman was overweight. But, it wasn't the bride's maid asking me this, it was the mother of the bride. She was embarrassed by the woman's weight. I refused. I was tempted to tell the mother that it wasn't only the bride's maid that needed thinning out, it was something she also needed. But, I restrained myself.

A good photographer will use posing skills to change the emphasis to where he/she wants the observer to look, but beyond that, it's all they should do with shapes.

Anything more is obviously false, and everyone, including the people looking at the pictures will soon realize the photos were manipulated.

I caution against the use of the liquefy filter for such occasions.

Personally, I fully agree with you "shutterdown". The only things I edit out on people are things that won't be there a week after the photos were taken such as the pimples, scratches, dry lips, cold sores and such.

With all of the ways portraits can be edited. I think it is wise to ask the bride and groom at the initial consultation exactly what photo manipulations that are going to want and to what extent. Do they want full editing of any wrinkles, large pores, etc. Do they have any moles, scars, tattoos that they will want removed from the photos. Explain to them this all takes time ...and time is money. Show before & after photos to them of past clients that requested full glamour editing and others that went natural. Some don't even realize what their options are and how far editing can go.

IMO, in the end, it is all about what the client wants and wants to pay for.

Denise, I'm sure most bride and grooms wouldn't mind having those temporary things "fixed." Maybe even a mole, though, often times, this is the sort of thing that is characteristic of the person (e.g., Cindy Crawford).

Glamour filters? Sure, if they want them. But, none of this involves the liquefy filter. It's all cloning or healing brush.

I end up using photoshop to clean, floss and whiten teeth, plastic surgery, dermatology, electrolysis, haircuts (including coloring and highlights), makeup and a host of other things. I'm more of an electronic cosmetologist and dentist. Only on certain photos, since as you mention, it's costly in terms of time and effort.

I leave the weight loss to the client.

Raymond

To get back on the original post: Great idea iND! I used to really enjoy and appreciate the C&C part of this site when I joined here. Which has gone missing a bit I think. Also because not everyone knew/knows how to give and take constructive criticisms.

Will gladly follow this thread.

How much Photoshop is appropriate to use in photographing overweight people is an important and necessary debate. Here are my two cents:

The job of the wedding photographer is to make the bride and groom look their best. (Who am I kidding? It’s mostly the bride.) It is not to make the bride and groom look like people they are not or to make them unrecognizable. Fat or thin, beautiful or homely, the wedding photographer has an obligation to use whatever tools he has at his disposal to make the bride look like she is having a really good day.

The arsenal of tools a wedding photographer can use to flatter an overweight bride and/or groom includes technique (e.g. posing, use of camera angle, use of lighting, in-camera cropping), equipment (e.g. compressive attributes of telephoto lenses), and post processing (e.g. digital cropping, narrowing all or part of a photo to slim, adding shadow to deemphasize, lightening/darkening to emphasize [sculpt] features that might be lost such as chins and cheekbones, and using the liquefy filter). Any post processing techniques should be subtle enough that no one should notice that they have been done.

I do not believe that any post processing tools should be dismissed on principle due to the live nature of the wedding event. The photographer does not have complete control over the models or the lighting as he would in other circumstances. Key moments move quickly and there is no reshoot, so you are stuck with whatever you shot at the time. Photo editing software helps the photographer correct images to help bring them on par with what could have been achieved if the photographer had been able to carefully pose and light the bride and groom when they were exchanging rings, walking down aisles, cutting cakes, making toasts, dancing, throwing bouquets and garters, climbing into cars, etc.

Again, the goal is not to change what the bride and groom fundamentally look like, but to help them look their best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Dog

How much Photoshop is appropriate to use in photographing overweight people is an important and necessary debate. Here are my two cents:

The job of the wedding photographer is to make the bride and groom look their best. (Who am I kidding? It’s mostly the bride.) It is not to make the bride and groom look like people they are not or to make them unrecognizable. Fat or thin, beautiful or homely, the wedding photographer has an obligation to use whatever tools he has at his disposal to make the bride look like she is having a really good day.

The arsenal of tools a wedding photographer can use to flatter an overweight bride and/or groom includes technique (e.g. posing, use of camera angle, use of lighting, in-camera cropping), equipment (e.g. compressive attributes of telephoto lenses), and post processing (e.g. digital cropping, narrowing all or part of a photo to slim, adding shadow to deemphasize, lightening/darkening to emphasize [sculpt] features that might be lost such as chins and cheekbones, and using the liquefy filter). Any post processing techniques should be subtle enough that no one should notice that they have been done.

I do not believe that any post processing tools should be dismissed on principle due to the live nature of the wedding event. The photographer does not have complete control over the models or the lighting as he would in other circumstances. Key moments move quickly and there is no reshoot, so you are stuck with whatever you shot at the time. Photo editing software helps the photographer correct images to help bring them on par with what could have been achieved if the photographer had been able to carefully pose and light the bride and groom when they were exchanging rings, walking down aisles, cutting cakes, making toasts, dancing, throwing bouquets and garters, climbing into cars, etc.

Again, the goal is not to change what the bride and groom fundamentally look like, but to help them look their best.

---

Well said Black_Dog :)

Just back from two weeks on Hawaii (lucky me) and back on reading the threads. This one I like!

I have my fair share of experience with trying to shoot weddings, confirmations, birthdays etc. A few fair number of successes and a similar number of disasters. Coming from the old world of film, I am used to trying to think of the finished product at the time of releasing the shutter. There were clear limits to what I could do in my amateur darkroom. Normally it was using B&W as a more artistic expression, where I also had my strength in the darkroom. Today I see too many photographers rely on image volume rather than quality, because of all the post processing capabilities we now have and the fact that an extra image (or a hundred) cost nothing. Such an approach will never produce the product you or the bride&groom are hoping for.

I fully agree with those who have stated that you should not alter the physical appearance of (especially) the bride. I think Black_dog said it well. The main objective is to make the bride & groom and indeed the entire event, look their best. And for that we have some great post processing help. But we also have some really horrible ones. (Some of the Portrait SW adds I see turn beautiful and live women into porcelain doll replicas.) But the important thing is to make sure you have the image material to work with first. And that brings the challenge back to what you do prior to releasing the shutter.

When I have been happy with my work, I have always been well prepared. When I have failed, I have not, for all the right and wrong reasons. For an amateur this is probably more important than for a pro, because they are able to improvise based on their more extensive experience. What church, where´s the dinner & party, what season, what weather, event organization, number of people, available light ... If you don´t have most of that under control, it is very difficult to avoid being stressed when you are trying to make the bride&groom look their best.

And, as my old father always said, there is no substitute for practice. To me it has been very important to learn the camera and the pros and cons of my lenses properly, so I can spend my time focusing on what I´m shooting. And since I don´t have a new wedding event every weekend to improve my skills, I use every available family/friend occasion to practice.

Eldar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eldarhau

And, as my old father always said, there is no substitute for practice.
Eldar

---

Most people practice till they get it right.
The professional practices till they can't get it wrong :rolleyes:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

Most people practice till they get it right.
The professional practices till they can't get it wrong :rolleyes:.

---

+2 Well said.

Not that I have practiced much at all - several very good nuggets from this site - I also like Fast Glass signature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

...I also like Fast Glass signature.

---

Since the arrival of the new forum, he changed to FastGass. It is just an "L" missing, but I thought it showed some good humor.:D

This is a good thread. I like the discussions going here. Very helpful.

I did a lot of studying on wedding photography back when I was operating a (very) small photo studio. I'm interested in doing more of that, but I'm in a completely different area now and difficult market in my opinion. My photo company was great, licensed, tax compliant and very very small. I did aerial, real estate, events and portraits. I used a PO Box from a rural hole in the wall to obtain developing from one of the best labs in the country, delivered as 5x8 matte white border "thumbnails" that were freebies and used to choose prints ;) then the negatives were shipped elsewhere in the country for up to 20x30s (on fuji 100 or 200 at most although I had 800 for low light 8x10s). I think I got into the event sort of thing from my previous days as a high volume souvenir photographer and the aerial photography from my Navy experience. My business model undercut prices absurdly and increased quality extremely, but I did not wish to live in that area so I let it go and moved.

By study, I mean that I read every book on wedding photography that was available at the rather small local library. That was about 8 or 9 books. I had more work that I would have needed, but I knew there was more to learn. I was successful in that I had a 100% customer satisfaction rate and I had never shot a wedding. I liked that 100% satisfaction rate and no it was not just 1 customer or some silly nonsense. If someone was not happy, it was free, no questions asked. But with weddings, you cant do that. Wedding photography is right up there with brain surgery. it is not something you fool around and take chances with.

Shooting 35mm film with a rebel + Sigma 17-55, lumiquest softbox on my seigelite flashbracket and a cheap tripod I knew I could outdo most of the local photographers regardless of their gear, with exception of some of the serious pro studios. I knew this because I had seen their awful work sitting on many peoples mantles and office desks. I was so small that I carried all of my gear with me at all times, including a cheap telephoto lens.

In the NY market I think it would suffice to 2nd shoot for half a dozen weddings before feeling up to speed again. Learning from a forum, meh, maybe not too easy. I think it would be a great place to share ideas though.

I have better gear now, a mixture of the best and most expensive to the cheapest and mediocre, but like I said, this is a different market and different area...

Anyone need a second shooter? I've done 1 wedding (2nd shoot) here thus far but making connections seems far and in between.

***Edit: I felt like editing to mention that nobody ever got their photos, frames or service for free, as they were happy. I did have to replace things that were damaged in shipping sometimes though. I often provided poster frames and contacts to purchase frames and photo albums, shipping glass frames sometime broke. On 1 occasion, someone was unhappy... a B&W picture of a big church, they didn't like the perspective so I didnt sweat it and said no worries, you dont have to pay for it, I don't have capabilities to eliminate that and no boom truck on hand to shoot from several stories up. they wanted to make a big deal out of it even though it was free, just sort of whiny not letting it go big deal every time they saw me in town. One of my friends on the city council told me about how they were obnoxious to everyone and it was apparently the norm. Anyhow.... I'm sure they were just trying to get me to improve myself but it wasnt the right time for that type of coercion.


***My first suggestion sort of involves organization of the wedding and its photo opportunities, whereas walking down the aisle is a good shot obviously, so is the hair salon with the bride getting her hair done, hours before the wedding, with some bridesmaids perhaps, showing some nervous joy and excitement before the big event.

I tried the liquify tool for the first time to fix a little back fat.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3697/9...c388cc238a.jpg
Before-After by clemmb60, on Flickr

Here is the final
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3716/9...6ab34b2280.jpg
Final by clemmb60, on Flickr
Before-After by clemmb60, on Flickr
I think I like this tool. I agree I do not want to alter someones appearance but I think this is a perfect example of where it is appropriate. :o