Another fall e-session (12 imgs)

urbanaries

Engagement shoots are my absolute favorite...and Michelle & Scott's session last night was no exception! They're getting married next month at my favorite Indy venue. And a fellow dgrinner is reported to be travelling cross country to shoot it with me....ivar

1. I wish it didn't look like she was pulling away from him, but here was my try at the star-kiss...



2. Hi, my name is Lynne, and I'm a flareaholic.


3. I am not sure what the deal is. But my shots look really plasticky from the 40D this session. I believe it is the in-camera noise reduction, but don't remember it being an issue with my other shoots this week. Given their mature faces, I think the added softness is flattering, but it's still too soft for my liking...



4. If you look close you can see Scott's "engagement ring"...he wears a paperclip around his ring finger. From such a man's man like him, I think it's the cutest most romantic thing I've ever seen!


5. Of course, a man so romantic is a fantastic dancer!


6. And he liked stealing kisses every chance he got!


7. I have a lot of various compositions of this scene but I'm posting this one just for you Scott!


8. the puppy dogs!!! I need to tone down the contrast in this one I think.


9.


10. Peeping tom shots!



11.


12. And the close up to wrap up...


Thanks for looking and giving it to me straight!

Swartzy

These are quite wonderful Lynne. The processing on these are indeed different than the last set which shows your ability to choose a conducive style for the couples. These really show the "essence" of the couple and am amazed at how well you capture them in an elegant yet PJ style. Excellent work.

#3. Yes a bit soft. Simply revist that shot and give it some more clarity before "slight" skin softening....make sure the hair, eyes, eyebrows, lips and clothing are not affected.

#6 & 12 are classics. They will be thrilled with everyone of these. thumb

urbanaries

Swartzy wrote:

These are quite wonderful Lynne. The processing on these are indeed different than the last set which shows your ability to choose a conducive style for the couples. These really show the "essence" of the couple and am amazed at how well you capture them in an elegant yet PJ style. Excellent work.

#3. Yes a bit soft. Simply revist that shot and give it some more clarity before "slight" skin softening....make sure the hair, eyes, eyebrows, lips and clothing are not affected.

#6 & 12 are classics. They will be thrilled with everyone of these. thumb

Thanks Dave, you're so sweet! I've been blessed with relaxed and very-much-in-love subjects this week (as those of us who shoot couples a lot, the second is NOT always a given!). I appreciate and am flattered by your comments. I do try to let the people and context guide me rather than the other way around. The flip side of this is that I feel like my clients want more guidance from me, and while shooting I come off like I don't have a clue what I'm doing, which is pretty close to the truth!

3 is pretty much straight out of camera with WB adjusting and cropping. Do you think it's lens softness vs NR softness, his cheek area makes me think the latter. Probably a combination of both...what do you think?

Antonio Correia

Hello Lynn

The picture I like most is the last one.

It doesn't mean that I don't like the others, no. The others are also very nice but I like best the last one as I said.

Excuse me but I sugest something for this picture:
I use LR and I would - what is the name of that command ??!!! I am at work and I don't have LR here, it is not blur, no. Well I'll post the name at home in the evening - apply a "blur" all over but making a mask on the teeth, mouth, little hair and eyes of both to make them pop.
I would even apply a filter to make the background darker. No, not vigneting.

You used the tele didn't you ?

You know, since I am using LR, I feel - and I hope that it is true - that I just jump a step on working the photos.

The water mark is too strong but that is for other understandable reasons.

You used the flash brilliantly. The picture is very powerfull. Strong and captivating.:D

I just looked again: they both have blue eyes. Good. Make them a little brighter. Not too much.

Cheers

urbanaries

Antonio Correia wrote:

Hello Lynn

The picture I like most is the last one.

It doesn't mean that I don't like the others, no. The others are also very nice but I like best the last one as I said.

Excuse me but I sugest something for this picture:
I use LR and I would - what is the name of that command ??!!! I am at work and I don't have LR here, it is not blur, no. Well I'll post the name at home in the evening - apply a "blur" all over but making a mask on the teeth, mouth, little hair and eyes of both to make them pop.
I would even apply a filter to make the background darker. No, not vigneting.

You used the tele didn't you ?

You know, since I am using LR, I feel - and I hope that it is true - that I just jump a step on working the photos.

The water mark is too strong but that is for other understandable reasons.

You used the flash brilliantly. The picture is very powerfull. Strong and captivating.:D

I just looked again: they both have blue eyes. Good. Make them a little brighter. Not too much.

Cheers

Hi Antonio! I unwatermarked so refresh and you can see the whole shots...

I am not sure what you mean by jumping a step on working the photos...do you mean you are not needing to bring them in to Photoshop? (I for one appreciate that!)

You are correct that I used the telephoto, this was shot at about 125mm (on 1.6 so about 200mm in 35mm). I agree their eyes should be brightened, good suggestion. Also, glad you liked the flash, when I used it I had it gelled 1/4 CTB with a Cloud Lightsphere.

Thanks for commenting Antonio!

Swartzy

Lynne...that shot looks soft anyway for some reason. Give this a try....without NR...in PS duplicate the layer (cmd J), then set the blending mode to "overlay", go to filters then down to "high pass". Choose 3 pix then hit OK. Lower overall opacity to taste and see if it doesn't help a bit.

mmmatt

whoa... these are really nice!!! 10 is my fave! I guess it's the voyeur in me! I also like 4... he seems dominant but respectful and she seems coy but responsive... really nice stuff here!!!


Matt

heatherfeather

Oh gosh.... these are so good. love LOVE LOVE #7! The colors are just beyond stunning! But actually each one is so beautiful! Lynne you are someone to look up to!

#2 is just incredibly romantic! Fall shots always get me, though.

Love the doggie ones!

This couple looks so sweet and like you said, mature! Makes me want to go and find a couple to shoot like this.

Well done! No amazingly done!

Scott_Quier

For the "pulling away" look in number one - could a slight rotation of the image solve that problem?

#3 is soft - way too soft. Almost like it's OOF but I don't see the tell-tales of that either.

#7 - Funny! I love the colors!

Liking #10 as well - the B&W just blows me away!

#12 - On-camera flash - very flat and blah. And it looks a touch over-flashed as well. This is the only one (aside from #3) in the whole group that isn't a complete and absolute 10 (it comes in at about 8.5 on my OMG-I-Love-It! scale).

Llywellyn

Squee! They are so cute! And this is an awesome set.

I love #8, but I am a fan of contrast. I also really like #11.

urbanaries

mmmatt wrote:

whoa... these are really nice!!! 10 is my fave! I guess it's the voyeur in me! I also like 4... he seems dominant but respectful and she seems coy but responsive... really nice stuff here!!!


Matt

thanks Matt! It's ok to look re: 10!!! After letting them alone for a few minutes and snapping away, I walked around to talk to them and I startled him, he said, "oh, I kinda forgot you were here!" I just wish there was something I could do or say to get people who CAN'T forget i'm there to forget that I'm there.

Thanks for taking the time to comment!

urbanaries

heatherfeather wrote:

Oh gosh.... these are so good. love LOVE LOVE #7! The colors are just beyond stunning! But actually each one is so beautiful! Lynne you are someone to look up to!

#2 is just incredibly romantic! Fall shots always get me, though.

Love the doggie ones!

This couple looks so sweet and like you said, mature! Makes me want to go and find a couple to shoot like this.

Well done! No amazingly done!

7 is a bit of an illusion (shhh!) the leaves were still pretty green but I changed that with a 2 second lightroom slider.....

Glad you like #2! Wish they were on the farther right side of the flare but I'll take it.

The doggies were sooooo good. I was shocked!

And you're just crazy for looking up to me...I can't even get shots in focus!

urbanaries

Scott_Quier wrote:

For the "pulling away" look in number one - could a slight rotation of the image solve that problem?

#3 is soft - way too soft. Almost like it's OOF but I don't see the tell-tales of that either.

#7 - Funny! I love the colors!

Liking #10 as well - the B&W just blows me away!

#12 - On-camera flash - very flat and blah. And it looks a touch over-flashed as well. This is the only one (aside from #3) in the whole group that isn't a complete and absolute 10 (it comes in at about 8.5 on my OMG-I-Love-It! scale).

Re:1...rotating the slightest bit cuts off even more of their heads....I must confess that shooting into that much sun had (predictable) negative effects on my ability to see what was in the viewfinder.

3 is going to get ditched. I have similar of that series that are sharper but I loved the composition and expression in this best. Pooh!

I thought for sure you'd dig me on the racoon eyes in #10! No real way to flash that shot, well I guess I could with some radio poppers and duct tape, but it would have likely spoiled the mood.

I agree on the "flashiness" of 12. Somewhere between the dark eyes of #3 and the flashiness of 12 would be the right amount. Mea culpa!

I can't believe you're throwing absolute 10s out there....on 11 of 12 shots!!!??? I'll take it, but methinks you're pulling my leg!

Antonio Correia

The comand I couldn't remember in the afternoon when I was writing is the Clarity.
Scott says

Scott_Quier wrote:

...#12 - On-camera flash - very flat and blah. And it looks a touch over-flashed as well. This is the only one (aside from #3) in the whole group that isn't a complete and absolute 10 (it comes in at about 8.5 on my OMG-I-Love-It! scale).

and I agree regarding the power of the flash, but I do like the picture.

I dared to work on it a bit and I came up to this. You do know that I am no prof so ...
Lynn please tell me if you want me to remove it from here.

urbanaries

Antonio Correia wrote:

The comand I couldn't remember in the afternoon when I was writing is the Clarity.
Scott says and I agree regarding the power of the flash, but I do like the picture.

I dared to work on it a bit and I came up to this. You do know that I am no prof so ...
Lynn please tell me if you want me to remove it from here.

I really like what you have done! Very nice! You can leave it up as long as you use it to educate the rest of us on the repairs D

Also went back to the shot you liked so much in Lightroom. Lo and Behold, the Noise Reduction was set to 100 and the Color NR to 100, as well. I'm not sure how but maybe one of my presets is the culprit. At any rate, wonder if one of these are passable now or still too soft?

Swartzy

Both are much gooder Lynne

urbanaries

Llywellyn wrote:

Squee! They are so cute! And this is an awesome set.

I love #8, but I am a fan of contrast. I also really like #11.

I am so glad you approve, you

Squee is right...they are a blast!

Seriously though, Michelle is even more gorgeous in person than what I've captured. I'm not sure how but I've managed to make her look even more mature than she is? She looks 35 in person but I think these photos make her look 45.

What do you guys make of that?

urbanaries

Swartzy wrote:

Both are much gooder Lynne

thanky!

Antonio Correia

Lynn, good morning.
Thank you for letting my work stay here in your thread.
Your two photos are also very nice now. Better than before.
They look in the 40.ies indeed and they both look good.
Health to you and to them.:D

Scott_Quier

urbanaries wrote:

I can't believe you're throwing absolute 10s out there....on 11 of 12 shots!!!??? I'll take it, but methinks you're pulling my leg!

Actually, if you read my post closely you will note that I gave you 10s on only 10 of the 12 shots .... but who's counting? As for pulling you leg - not even. I feel it's much too important to keep the critic unambigious.

Scott_Quier

Antonio Correia wrote:

Lynn, good morning.
Thank you for letting my work stay here in your thread.

Yes, but you didn't complete the contract urbanaries said it could stay if you revealed the magic secrets for how you "fixed" the image

Antonio Correia

Scott_Quier wrote:

Yes, but you didn't complete the contract urbanaries said it could stay if you revealed the magic secrets for how you "fixed" the image

Now you are pulling my leg

Scott_Quier

Antonio Correia wrote:

Now you are pulling my leg

urbanaries wrote:

I really like what you have done! Very nice! You can leave it up as long as you use it to educate the rest of us on the repairs

I was trying to be funny, but I am seriosly interested in how you did that.

Antonio Correia

Scott, good evening.

How I did it ? OK Here I go:
I have seen that when applying the Graduated Filter (M) the photo becomes very nice even with all the settings to their defaults.
I have seen that Shift keeps the filter parallel and Alt make it smooth.

1. I made two graduated Filters over the picture and payed with Exposure and Brightness trying to get only the back not the faces.

2. I made one Adjustment Brush (K) with Clarity to minus n (can't remember) only on the face of the lady but not on her eyes and lips and teeth. Oh, and hair also. I played with the slide Clarity watching the result.
Here I could have exported to CS3 via PSD to clone the imperfections of the skin - which she almost has not - but I did not as this was not the final work and not the original file.

3. I apply another AB (K) but this time with a little bit of Exposure and Brightness, positive values, to the right. Very little not to over do it.

4. Went back to Basic mode and adjust Exposure and Brightness.

5. Export.

That's it. Too much work ? May be.
But these days I don't care if the pictures give me a lot of work or if I have to spend longer on them. I want them to be sharp, clear and perfect.
Zero tolerance. If I don't like them trash they go.

A luxury, you professionals, can't afford as you do have - no, must - show your work.

I sometimes am more enthusiastic than usual and tend to go easy on the work of the pictures.
Then I stop and think: No, I am not doing for pleasure any more, I am not doing perfect work so I have to stop.

I have compared both pictures. "Mine" is less brilliant, less 3D.
Oh well ... Just a try.

Have a nice week-end.

Scott_Quier

Thanks for that, Antonio. There are things there that I think I can use, combining with other things I do.

And, a good week-end to you as well!

Shima

1,2,7,9 and 11 are my faves

I love their doggies

Also, nothing wrong with being a flare a holic when you pull it off as nicely as you do And I can't tell that she's pulling away from him in the first one. I love the amazing colors of 7!

urbanaries

Shima wrote:

1,2,7,9 and 11 are my faves

I love their doggies

Also, nothing wrong with being a flare a holic when you pull it off as nicely as you do And I can't tell that she's pulling away from him in the first one. I love the amazing colors of 7!

aw thanks, Shima! I'm still not "there" on the flare shots compared to what I like and see from other photogs. I just can't pull it off quite yet, but I'm trying!

(open invite to come down the Saturday after Thanksgiving and shoot their wedding with Llewellyn and I. The more the merrier! )

Oh, and I rented the 85 1.2 from Roberts for this weekend (wedding tomorrow) and you were so right...that boy is HEAVY! I'm hoping it comes in useful, everyone raves about it. I was really hoping to rent the 35 1.4....prime-aholic!

DavidS

Wow! Beautiful set.

zoomer

Very nice set. Like the composotions, very creative.
I don't like 1 (creative shot but my personal taste says no to me) and the lighting in the last one ruins it....flat...flat...flat...with just a little shading it would have been an awesome shot.
On the flip side your clients will probably love it.
The rest of the shots are very nice.
The contrast in the dogs shot is not objectionable.

Shima

urbanaries wrote:

aw thanks, Shima! I'm still not "there" on the flare shots compared to what I like and see from other photogs. I just can't pull it off quite yet, but I'm trying!

(open invite to come down the Saturday after Thanksgiving and shoot their wedding with Llewellyn and I. The more the merrier! )

Oh, and I rented the 85 1.2 from Roberts for this weekend (wedding tomorrow) and you were so right...that boy is HEAVY! I'm hoping it comes in useful, everyone raves about it. I was really hoping to rent the 35 1.4....prime-aholic!

Yeah I felt that puppy at roberts and was like "haha that's funny, too heavy" (though it takes awesome photos from what I've seen online) I've heard AWESOME reviews about the 35 1.4. I've decided not to get another close range zoom for my 5D MkII whenever that decides to ship (though I do wish the 17-55 would work on a FF). I'm contemplating getting the 135 f2/L first for it (need a few more dollars to get to that goal....) the 35L was certainly another consideration but on a the body of the 5D I figured the 135 would be a great portrait lens and every single shot I looked taken with it on PotN forums were just amazing. Plus it gets a 9.9 rating on Fred Miranda, yowzers! The 35L was close behind though on peoples rating radar, but I can't remember the ratings for it off the top of my head.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what photos you are able to take w/ the 85 1.2. While researching primes since I decided on that for the 5d... I kept reading about the "holy trinity" of primes and they were the 35L, 85L and 135L.

Oh and I'd *love* to come down the Saturday after thanksgiving, but I'm not flying back here until midday on Saturday. My dad's getting surgery 2 days before thanksgiving, so I'll be on Long Island with him ALL week. Satudray before through Saturday after. Plus we always do a traditional thanksgiving w/ my dad's family the day after (Friday) so I couldn't even consider coming home a day early to make it!

Ah well, maybe next time. Indy's not that far away....

Twisted Image

wonderful set....