Just curious

InsuredDisaster

I've got a question for all of the pro's out there:

Some people are very photogenic. I've actually met people who look better on camera than in life. So naturally, I would think that even poor quality shots are sort of overlooked if these really super good looking people are the subjects (and even good shots look better with good looking people in them.)

What do you do if the bride or the groom are pretty ugly? Do they normally not care? Do you PS the pounds away? I know that you can smooth wrinkles and minimize ugly shadows, but you can only do so much.

There are lots of shots of lovely women or cute children in the people forum. Nobody posts picturs of Bigfoot's mother.


So, do you guys have touble selling photos to unphotogenic people or do they not care, being their wedding an everything?

Chrissiebeez_NL

InsuredDisaster wrote:

.. Nobody posts picturs of Bigfoot's mother.

rofl

well that wouldnt fit into the all american image now would it?

just kidding! I think good light and the right angles can make a lot of difference. i recently saw a sexy photo of uma thurman.. who would have thought?? it was all in the angle, crop and DOF.

not really practical tips but maybe something to play with to see what results you get.

zacker

Dont be talkin' bout my momma!


Yeah, youre right.. but.. most photogs will prolly shy away from shooting the not so blessed when there are alot more of the "lucky" ones around.. i dunno though, I definetly wouldnt "erase" the pounds away unless a bride asked me too.. imagine if she saw the shots then asked you why? all she would here is: "Because your as big as a house" in any answer you could give her... lol

InsuredDisaster

zacker wrote:

Dont be talkin' bout my momma!


Yeah, youre right.. but.. most photogs will prolly shy away from shooting the not so blessed when there are alot more of the "lucky" ones around.. lol

Interesting. Anyone done that? Fess up.

Scott_Quier

I've not (yet) done it, but I know one or two that will, sometimes, stretch the vertical aspect of a photo by 2% or 3% - this has a minimal but preceptable impact on a subject's appearance. Of course, they don't mention it to the client and the client walks away a little happier 'cause the photog is soooo good with the camera.

InsuredDisaster

Scott_Quier wrote:

I've not (yet) done it, but I know one or two that will, sometimes, stretch the vertical aspect of a photo by 2% or 3% - this has a minimal but preceptable impact on a subject's appearance. Of course, they don't mention it to the client and the client walks away a little happier 'cause the photog is soooo good with the camera.

The camera givith, the photoshop taketh away.

heatherfeather

The only thing that I really do is minimize doublechinitis with a few tricks I know and go for great light and flattering angles. Don't shoot from below, stuff like that. Sometimes I'll do an armpit tuck or things like that, but the only time I am tempted to erase the poundage is on pictures of me, ! But as of yet, Bigfoot's mom never asked me to take pictures of her.

I am not sure if there are unphotogenic people or just photographers that don't know how to maximize potential beauty.

Flyinggina

Echoing what Scott Quier said, Scott Kelby tells a story of doing a portrait session of a woman in his early years as a photographer and making various touchup changes in post. The woman was thrilled with the results and told him that no one had every captured her so well in a photograph. She was eager to purchase prints. Scott says he was so excited about the work he had done that he started telling her about each little touchup. He said her face looked sadder and sadder as she listened to what he had done to the photo. By the time he was finished she had lost all of her enthusiasm and said she guessed she wouldn't buy any pictures after all. (I may not have the exact details right in this story, but that is the gist!)

So, whever I am tempted to ask a subject if they feel I overdid the photoshop work, I admit to doing light touchup (which I almost always do) and keep quiet about the rest. So far, no one has complained - well, except my son who thought I overdid it on some portraits of him. I made them a bit grittier and we were both happy. I am usually able to say in all honesty that the finished photograph reflects the way I see them.

Keep it subtle. Crop if possible to remove or minimize lumps and bumps, use shadow creatively, try to get the sparkle in the eye or wonderful smile, the hugh foot or whatever good feature they have, use creative blur and vingnetting, carve a bit off of a tummy or thigh (if you are good with the liquify filter), etc. And never, ever give the details of what you did.

Just my 2 cents worth. I confess that I'm not a wedding photog, but I assume the same kind of thinking applies, even for those using a pj style. I also have to confess I've never photographed BigFoot's mama.

Virginia

dadwtwins

heatherfeather wrote:

The only thing that I really do is minimize doublechinitis with a few tricks I know and go for great light and flattering angles. Don't shoot from below, stuff like that. Sometimes I'll do an armpit tuck or things like that, but the only time I am tempted to erase the poundage is on pictures of me, ! But as of yet, Bigfoot's mom never asked me to take pictures of her.

I am not sure if there are unphotogenic people or just photographers that don't know how to maximize potential beauty.

I am one that made a huge mistake of over fixing a photo of a bride when i first tried shooting weddings. She was so upset that I over touched some of her photos that she felt i made her look like someone else. The sad thing is that she was right. There was no need to over fix anything about her because she knew what she looked like and she was happy for that.

I tend to stick with some rules of mine which are; get rid of blemishes, 50% of the shadows in the wrinkles of the face, a little embellishing of the eyes and teeth colors and I always try to achieve good WB for the skin tones.

This seems to work out great and it keeps me from "over fixing" the subjects to change what they really look like.

Well, there you go. I long answer for saying, keep the post processing to a minimum.

Scott_Quier

heatherfeather wrote:

I am not sure if there are unphotogenic people or just photographers that don't know how to maximize potential beauty.

Well said

jeffreaux2

Scott_Quier wrote:

Well said

I agree!

...and...

I think it is an insult...or could easily be taken as one to just take liberty with someones appearance in photoshop. I won't do it unless specifically asked by the client to do so.

I have seen many, many over processed portraits that...frankly...look like plastic...or claymation figures. I am un-impressed.

Flattering angles, flattering light, correct skin tones. Thats the ticket!

There is something beautiful in us all....finding it...and capitolizing on that in a photograph...well that is the art of portraiture.

divamum

Coming out of lurkdom to say....

This is something that comes up all the time in my world as a professional opera singer. We all *must* have headshots (which get sent out with resumes to companies for audition requests, casting callsetc etc) and one of the big discussions is about how MUCH the photographer, makeup artist and hairstylist "should" do to enhance the resulting photos; how good "should" they make the person look? These are not the kinds of pix you see on album covers, or even in programs (many folks have two sets), but pictures used by the companies in their casting process. They need to serve two purposes: 1. project the personality and "look" the company may be seeking and 2. Act as an aide memoire after the audition as they complete their casting.

I think a good photographer can bring out the natural beauty in even the most homely person using clever angles, light and their ability to capture that "unique something"; in fact, that's probably my DEFINITION of a good photographer, because that's a big part of what a good portrait is (wedding, headshot or any other kind): it captures the person's essence above and beyond their physical attributes.

As to post-processing etc: obviously, you want to look your most attractive, BUT, imo, you also need to look like *you*. It was once described "your headshot should look like you on a really, REALLY good day, but not like the makeup artist or photographer" but a lot of administrators complain that they can't recognise somebody from their headshot when they walk in the door to the audition. THAT is when it's too much, I guess - when you can't look at hte picture and say, "Wow you look great" but instead, "is that YOU?!". Another administrator said, "if I can tell who shot your photo and did your hair, it's probably not a great headshot, because it's no longer about YOU".

I realise I'm using non-wedding examples here, but I think the principle is probably the same. Photograph the person's unique "something special" in the most flattering way, tweak blemishes, soften wrinkles and make the person's skin "glow" but beyond that? I'm not so sure.

Interesting discussion.

ShepsMom

You've got to go natural, people know what they look like, i hope.
If they ask to be "re-touched" do it, if they don't, then leave it alone.
You need a good eye to find beauty, if you're good photographer, you will find it with no problems.