Engagement session from today

urbanaries

Shooting their wedding later this fall......definitely having trouble with her skintones (new monitor this week so I can rework before releasing to her!). Also, after Jeffreaux's redux of the girl with the half-opened eye, I can't believe I shot the ENTIRE shoot without realizing that she had a bad case of it 1 and 2...I was positioning her on the wrong side all day. Argh! Anyway, C&C always welcome and appreciated!

Oh, and i got some new color actions from Design Aglow this week. They look a lot more "extreme" after uploading to SM than in CS2. You guys ever have that problem?

1. (a good example of the action)



2.


3. I opened her left (your right) eye....can you tell?


4. Sky was nasty...... :cry


5. The "scott quier" kiss shot


6. reeeeally like this one just wish her expression was better!



7. My try at "posing" them


8. And yeah.......I'm repeating....I did this shot last year.


Thanks always for looking and giving it to me straight!

ShepsMom

These are great Lynne!!

I really really like number 2!!
This couple will enjoy all of these shots

urbanaries

ShepsMom wrote:

These are great Lynne!!

I really really like number 2!!
This couple will enjoy all of these shots

Wow thanks Marina! I liked that one too as it showed off the details in her gorgeous blouse nicely, and I don't have many that do! Thanks for lookin'!

Moogle Pepper

#3 she looks like she has biceps! Nice!

I like the Scott Quier shot! I am not too sure I like #1 very much, it's very high key.

urbanaries

Moogle Pepper wrote:

#3 she looks like she has biceps! Nice!

I like the Scott Quier shot! I am not too sure I like #1 very much, it's very high key.

Thanks for the feedback! She is pretty buff, but her arms do look like they mean business in #3, you're right!

Thanks for the comment on #1, too....I too think it needs toned down based on the view here.

Photosbychuck

Great Photos!

I like #4 the best.

Take Care,
Chuck,

urbanaries

Photosbychuck wrote:

Great Photos!

I like #4 the best.

Thanks, Chuck!

heatherfeather

You know it seems that a lot of the color pop actions do that- either over expose or crank the yellows. I have often thought it was just me and my
pp failure but, I think that is what I am seeing in your #1. (Which I love #1 a bunch, it just needs toned down, like you said)

All of these are so fantastic. I have jealousy about your city skyline pic. If I had to pick a favorite....
Nah, too hard to do. I tried during the .... pause. I like them all!

Well done Lynne!

urbanaries

heatherfeather wrote:

You know it seems that a lot of the color pop actions do that- either over expose or crank the yellows. I have often thought it was just me and my
pp failure but, I think that is what I am seeing in your #1. (Which I love #1 a bunch, it just needs toned down, like you said)

All of these are so fantastic. I have jealousy about your city skyline pic. If I had to pick a favorite....
Nah, too hard to do. I tried during the .... pause. I like them all!

Well done Lynne!

Thanks for the validation on the action trouble....I toned it down some do you think it's an improvement?


And here's the (just about) SOC shot for reference:

ian408

The pose of the first is very nice. That picture seems to say something.

ChatKat

Reruns for me
Well, my favorite is the last with the silhouette. Very nice capture - even if it's a recycled posing and lighting. Sometimes things work well and they bear repeating.

The reworked action I like too. Reality is overrated, isn't it?

dangin

ian408 wrote:

The pose of the first is very nice. That picture seems to say something.

"pull my finger?"
i know this whole color popping thing is popular these days, but i personally am very selective with the number of images that i apply the additional pp to. clients like it for its artistic value but oftentimes lose interest in it very quickly when they show the prints to family and they get comments like "why's the picture look funny?" just out of curiosity, do you pop all of the images from an engagement session? and if so, how do your clients take to the results?

jeffreaux2

Lynne,

These are very well executed! With the exception of #1 I like them all!

-1- I am not liking any of the iterations of it. The couples pose and expressions are great, but aside from the processing issues, the background is pulling my eyes all over the image. I find it distracting.

-2- Love it- The pose is similar to #1, but really works here with no distractions behind them. I also am really digging the treatment. It looks a lot like a preset I have been tuning that I have named "LOMO". Very nice!

-3-I feel the same about this one as #2. The treatment is perfect for it. One nit here....the watermark may work better at the top as you have done with a couple of the other images. Just a thought!

-4-The background here is busy...yes...but doesn't take me away from the subjects as in #1. Nice DOF, and I dig her smile!

-5-Well done! Scott might even applaud them himself for executing so well. I am seeing a few light colored specks above her head...and some other light colored something at the very top edge and to the right side of the photo.

-6-I love the colors here. Where was it taken?

-7-again...very nice...

-8- Sheesh.....what can I say .... I agree that some things are worth repeating. Nothing wrong with a signature styled shot or two in your repertoire....especially if you can execute it like this on command!

Thanks for sharing. I am sure they will be floored with them. BTW is this the skin tone challenge you said you had coming up?

urbanaries

ian408 wrote:

The pose of the first is very nice. That picture seems to say something.

Thanks! I just wish now I would have caught that moment with a cleaner background...it definitely wasn't posed. Ah well. Thanks for commenting!

urbanaries

ChatKat wrote:

Well, my favorite is the last with the silhouette. Very nice capture - even if it's a recycled posing and lighting. Sometimes things work well and they bear repeating.

The reworked action I like too. Reality is overrated, isn't it?

Thanks, Kathy! I hope I did a better job executing this time. But yeah, that spot is really popular with my clients! And I'm still not sure about the action in the first, but I agree with you that sometimes the real/accurate colors don't live up to the full potential of the image, if that makes sense. Maybe that's why I've gravitated toward BW conversions for so long?

urbanaries

dangin wrote:

"pull my finger?"
i know this whole color popping thing is popular these days, but i personally am very selective with the number of images that i apply the additional pp to. clients like it for its artistic value but oftentimes lose interest in it very quickly when they show the prints to family and they get comments like "why's the picture look funny?" just out of curiosity, do you pop all of the images from an engagement session? and if so, how do your clients take to the results?

To be honest, this is my first session I've used the color popping actions per se. I do tend to use vivid, contrasty color conversions (although never THIS contrasty) in general. I think you raise a good point with clients and their friends/family. I've definitely had parents blow the wind out of the sails for me and my client....."But you guys aren't even looking at the camera!!!" Different strokes for different folks. I like to empower my clients to like whatever they want, and it's ok if that's different than what their friends or their parents want. Everyone has their day, and their vision.

That said, I think there are (very famous) photographers out there that punch the processing even further than I did in #1, and I do wonder if in 10 years the oversaturated/overpunched images will be among the first to date themselves. (Like puffed sleeves, white vignetting and ruffled tux shirts.)

Nikolai

I like #2 and #8 (great idea) a lot.

urbanaries

Nikolai wrote:

I like #2 and #8 (great idea) a lot.

Thanks Nik! I think (hope) I did a better job of separating the silhouette from their cast shadows this go round! Thanks for commenting!

urbanaries

Replies in bold ::D

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Lynne,

These are very well executed! With the exception of #1 I like them all!

-1- I am not liking any of the iterations of it. The couples pose and expressions are great, but aside from the processing issues, the background is pulling my eyes all over the image. I find it distracting.

So.....how do you really feel Jeff? J/K. I have gone from not liking it because it was too busy, to loving it after the action "popped" the emotion and energy into focus, then now back to hating it for the overprocessed look. I wonder if a tigher crop of their torso's might save it!? I do wish I had shot from a different angle....the weeping willow could have worked wonders to separate them from the background, but I am not sure. Thanks for weighing in on this one!

-2- Love it- The pose is similar to #1, but really works here with no distractions behind them. I also am really digging the treatment. It looks a lot like a preset I have been tuning that I have named "LOMO". Very nice!

Thanks so much! I am liking this treatment, too and glad it's registering as the right look for the photo. I like the way it retains some color and adds texture and drama. Glad you like it too!

-3-I feel the same about this one as #2. The treatment is perfect for it. One nit here....the watermark may work better at the top as you have done with a couple of the other images. Just a thought!

Good suggestion! I think it might cut off her head though.

-4-The background here is busy...yes...but doesn't take me away from the subjects as in #1. Nice DOF, and I dig her smile!

I tried duping in a blue sky but couldn't get it to look real. Glad you still like the photo! It was the toughest exposure of the day, with the bright but overcast and foggy skies. I, too love her natural smile here!

-5-Well done! Scott might even applaud them himself for executing so well. I am seeing a few light colored specks above her head...and some other light colored something at the very top edge and to the right side of the photo.

She wanted some sexy ones, he wasn't in to it, so I am very surprised and grateful we pulled this off. I did some quick cloning work to clean up the bg and need to take a second look here, thanks!

-6-I love the colors here. Where was it taken?

This (and 5 nd 7) were taken at the NCAA national headquarters at White River State Park. I knew I wanted to use that space for some of the shots, but we stumbled upon this (copper?) wall by accident:



-7-again...very nice...

-8- Sheesh.....what can I say .... I agree that some things are worth repeating. Nothing wrong with a signature styled shot or two in your repertoire....especially if you can execute it like this on command!

I am very pleased with how this one came out. We were walking on the canal mid-shoot and mentioned that shot that she saw in another gallery and it just so happened we were about 50 yards from turning a corner to that very bridge (the canal is several miles long) so it was meant to be for me to give it another shot! Glad you like the results!

Thanks for sharing. I am sure they will be floored with them. BTW is this the skin tone challenge you said you had coming up?

Yep!

Elaine

Love seeing your stuff, Lynne! And aren't they cute?!
My faves of this set are:
2 - great connection between them here...lost in their own little world. Simple bg.
6 - love that wall!
7 - again, great bg and nice relaxed poses.
8 - lots of great elements here...pose, location, light...

More great work from the LH!

urbanaries

Elaine wrote:

Love seeing your stuff, Lynne! And aren't they cute?!
My faves of this set are:
2 - great connection between them here...lost in their own little world. Simple bg.
6 - love that wall!
7 - again, great bg and nice relaxed poses.
8 - lots of great elements here...pose, location, light...

More great work from the LH!

thanks for your comments Elaine! I am glad the early morning fog was still there in 2 (we started at 7:30 and this was one of the first frames! )

And yeah, I'll definitely be using that wall again! That set (5-7) was totally natural light...no flash. Very rare for me to find such a great light absorbing background at the right angle for using the sun as a key light.

Thanks for stopping by!

Swartzy

#2 & #8 are fabulous! Those are so sweet! I sometimes have issues with brightness differences between LR & CS3. I make it look right in CS3 only to find it much darker in LR...beats me....I simply reboot.

These are all very nice Lynne. Actually, much different style than usual and well done. #1.....is most likely a preferrence thingy. Most clients wouldn't know the difference and really like the shot. We as photographers seem to see all sorts of additional stuff

urbanaries

Swartzy wrote:

#2 & #8 are fabulous! Those are so sweet! I sometimes have issues with brightness differences between LR & CS3. I make it look right in CS3 only to find it much darker in LR...beats me....I simply reboot.

These are all very nice Lynne. Actually, much different style than usual and well done. #1.....is most likely a preferrence thingy. Most clients wouldn't know the difference and really like the shot. We as photographers seem to see all sorts of additional stuff

Looking fwd to new monitor to calibrate before getting to the bottom of the brightness issue. I'm not having so much of a difference btw LR and CS2 as CS2 and Firefox/Smugmug.

And thanks for the comments on the style. I know my last set was a little "out there" for ya! (although that orange skintone was not on purpose, but a byproduct of my Huey Pro misleading me!)

(Did you notice not one BW in this whole set? *pats self on back* )

Thanks again Dave!

Scott_Quier

I’m a little late to the show, but here’s what I think (FWIW )

1. It’s fun, and they are having fun and the composition is pretty much working for me, but I think the image background is just a touch busy. I’m with Jeff on this one – my eye wonders all over the image. The PP – well, I’m not a huge fan of the original, but the toned down version is quite nice.
2. The compo on this one rocks! There seems to be a glow/halo around the couple and I’m wondering if that’s not a vignette?
3. The huge blown area in the upper right – not working for me. Love her smile and the way he’s into her in this one!
4. Sky was nasty – why not capitalize on that? I would be very tempted to a mild de-saturation of the background – not all the way to B&W, but just a bit. This way it might look like it was on purpose!
5. ”My” kiss shot! The lips are right and there’s enough light coming between them (their lips) that you know it’s about to happen. Their relative postures is causing me problems – it’s almost like he’s pulling away from her a bit. Is that them, or is that camera tilt?
6. That rust-red metal wall is sooo cool! I agree this one is really nice. Her expression is alright – she’s into him and his focus is all on her. Not really liking the hand in the pocket though.
7. Same smile on her – just huge!!! Love her expression.
8. This one ROCKS!!!!! You plagiarized “my” kiss shot. I’m going to steal this one from you! I’ve even got a place or two around here where I might be able to execute something very similar – though we don’t have canals, we do have rivers with bridges. I’ll find something!

NeilL

Lynne, I have to confess being made a little uncomfortable by these shots, #1-5. It's that something which I don't think I should be part of I am made part of. A level of intimacy between two people which shouldn't include me looking on. Most of these shots cross a line for me. The out-in-public locations accentuate the dissonance for me.

On the other hand, 6 & 7 are too bland.

#8 is the most successful for me, though I am not taken with the silhouetting, and the one-leg-up stance of the girl is a hair's breadth from a stock porn idea.

Crikey, I'm sounding grumpy

You know, when I look at engagement photos of my own family (older) members I find myself mining them for signs of the feelings between them, and imagining them being intimate and finding happiness in each other. The photos are the start of a kind of imaginative discovery of the two people. In the first lot of your pics here I am not required any more than as a passive observer. It's movies. It's a performance. I have the impulse to look out of the frame for a couple of dogs in the park who are similarly taken with each other. Outrageous comment, I know. But there it is!

I have done nothing like this kind of photography to establish my credentials to comment. I am giving you my raw reactions, gratuitously you might think :cry

I do admire the work you have done with these shots. Your own commitment to sincerity and quality is very clear in them and in your comments about them. When I look at these images from your perspective the challenges become palpable. For example, how do you give the customers what they want but at the same time keep them from unwise demands? How do you make a story satisfying while not revealing all. How do you maintain distances and roles for subjects and viewers when you depict intimacy?

My impression of these images, from a compositional and technical point of view (and a very inexperienced one, I hasten to add!) is that they don't have good answers yet to those challenges.

Do you feel comfortable with these images yourself, let me ask? How different would these images look if your were comfortable with your solutions to those challenges? There is a relationship between approach and technique/look.

I would hate to have been too unbearable, Lynne. I might be having to draw on our reserve of goodwill.

Neil

urbanaries

NeilL wrote:

Lynne, I have to confess being made a little uncomfortable by these shots, #1-5. It's that something which I don't think I should be part of I am made part of. A level of intimacy between two people which shouldn't include me looking on. Most of these shots cross a line for me. The out-in-public locations accentuate the dissonance for me.

On the other hand, 6 & 7 are too bland.

#8 is the most successful for me, though I am not taken with the silhouetting, and the one-leg-up stance of the girl is a hair's breadth from a stock porn idea.

Crikey, I'm sounding grumpy

You know, when I look at engagement photos of my own family (older) members I find myself mining them for signs of the feelings between them, and imagining them being intimate and finding happiness in each other. The photos are the start of a kind of imaginative discovery of the two people. In the first lot of your pics here I am not required any more than as a passive observer. It's movies. It's a performance. I have the impulse to look out of the frame for a couple of dogs in the park who are similarly taken with each other. Outrageous comment, I know. But there it is!

I have done nothing like this kind of photography to establish my credentials to comment. I am giving you my raw reactions, gratuitously you might think :cry

I do admire the work you have done with these shots. Your own commitment to sincerity and quality is very clear in them and in your comments about them. When I look at these images from your perspective the challenges become palpable. For example, how do you give the customers what they want but at the same time keep them from unwise demands? How do you make a story satisfying while not revealing all. How do you maintain distances and roles for subjects and viewers when you depict intimacy?

My impression of these images, from a compositional and technical point of view (and a very inexperienced one, I hasten to add!) is that they don't have good answers yet to those challenges.

Do you feel comfortable with these images yourself, let me ask? How different would these images look if your were comfortable with your solutions to those challenges? There is a relationship between approach and technique/look.

I would hate to have been too unbearable, Lynne. I might be having to draw on our reserve of goodwill.

Neil

Hey Neil, thanks for weighing in. I don't find your comments unbearable, but I am definitely curious (as others are) for examples of the kind of images that marry (pun intended) the right combination of characteristics you are suggesting.

On one hand I understand that these are images unwelcoming of an outside viewer/intrusion. You're saying their voyeuristic? I would agree some of them are by design. Yes they are staged, but they're (hopefully) not static or stiff/forced, which is what I try NOT to do. I am trying hard to understand then what you ARE looking for:

You know, when I look at engagement photos of my own family (older) members I find myself mining them for signs of the feelings between them, and imagining them being intimate and finding happiness in each other.

I know you don't know these people, but for the sake of argument, are you not able to imagine this couple finding happiness in each other when you look at, say #2 or even #1 (minus the distracting compositional and processing tastes, but looking purely at interaction?)

I am trying to capture the energy they have together, as a couple.... with a visually complimentary context. This is, as you correctly surmised, definitely a challenge. People expect to be captured in a flattering way, yet they rely mostly on the photographer's direction and technical ability to accomplish that.

I would love to see some examples so I could understand better how you would balance the connection of the two without showing any intimacy, and avoid looking like a performance yet un-voyeuristic?

NeilL

urbanaries wrote:

Hey Neil, thanks for weighing in. I don't find your comments unbearable,

:whew thanks Lynne

but I am definitely curious (as others are) for examples of the kind of images that marry (pun intended) the right combination of characteristics you are suggesting.

On one hand I understand that these are images unwelcoming of an outside viewer/intrusion. You're saying their voyeuristic? I would agree some of them are by design. Yes they are staged, but they're (hopefully) not static or stiff/forced, which is what I try NOT to do. I am trying hard to understand then what you ARE looking for:


No, not voyeuristic. That would mean the viewer is seeking to look. I feel, and it's not something I am doing by choice, that I don't want to see this couple's intimacy beyond a certain point.

Yes, I agree, success would lie in bringing off suggestiveness, rather than documenting/staging an enactment.

I know you don't know these people, but for the sake of argument, are you not able to imagine this couple finding happiness in each other when you look at, say #2 or even #1 (minus the distracting compositional and processing tastes, but looking purely at interaction?)

I am trying to capture the energy they have together, as a couple.... with a visually complimentary context. This is, as you correctly surmised, definitely a challenge. People expect to be captured in a flattering way, yet they rely mostly on the photographer's direction and technical ability to accomplish that.

I would love to see some examples so I could understand better how you would balance the connection of the two without showing any intimacy, and avoid looking like a performance yet un-voyeuristic?

Well, I will honor my obligation, and I am happy to for the sake of our discussion, to follow up my comments with finds of what I like. Give 's a little time.

Thanks for acknowledging my irritating post. I'm glad to have the chance to explore these ideas with you, a far more advanced practitioner than myself.

Neil

NeilL

Lynne, what's your reaction to these quick finds re level of intimacy displayed (disregarding technical issues, and sexual preference!)?

http://www.nytimes.com/library/photos/leibovitz/paltrow.html

http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/big.asp?photoID=1088432&catID=&style=&rowNumber=17&memberID=115273

http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/big.asp?photoID=1212923&catID=&style=&rowNumber=41&memberID=115273



Neil

Awais Yaqub

These are great as usual loved the presentation style too !

Elaine

NeilL wrote:

Lynne, what's your reaction to these quick finds re level of intimacy displayed (disregarding technical issues, and sexual preference!)?

http://www.nytimes.com/library/photos/leibovitz/paltrow.html

http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/big.asp?photoID=1088432&catID=&style=&rowNumber=17&memberID=115273

http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/big.asp?photoID=1212923&catID=&style=&rowNumber=41&memberID=115273



Neil

That first one is mother and daughter, by the way. Might change the perspective a bit, since the discussion is regarding photos of couples.

Scott_Quier

Neil, I have to admit that your initial post kinda threw me off stride for a bit but, the photo examples you provide are very thought provoking. I think I can see what you are talking about.

I also see a lot of similarity between Lynne's #5 and your second example. A part of the difference is a matter of degree, but this difference is very significant changes the entire tone of the image.

Very thought provoking!