Wedding photograpy training offer.

[clemmb]

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

[eldarhau]

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

[clemmb]

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 .

[Busted Knuckles]

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

+2 Well said.

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

[conropl]

...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.

[C.R.S.]

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

[UmiKaibutsu]

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.

[clemmb]

I tried the liquify tool for the first time to fix a little back fat.

Before-After by clemmb60, on Flickr

Here is the final

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.