Doug and Diana | Wedding

Moogle Pepper

Superman has landed!

==>>As always the blog has much more.<==

1.


2


3


4


5



6


7


8


9


10


11


11


12


13

Dan, you are next. ... horded the rest of the beer after the bar closed...:dunno

14.


15.

glee?

Thanks for looking!

Qarik

good stuff agian ted! hey for shot #11 can you psst SOOC? did you use flash?

Moogle Pepper

#11 was by chance. The sun was setting at that moment and I got doug to rush up to the bridal suite to get her. I didn't do too much to the edited version actually. ha!

From the same series:
SOOC


I left this one out from the series cause... the sun blew up all of Doug's head. Though... I kinda like that.

image in question:


Also part of this series:

Qarik

interesting..I am womdering how you kept the couple fairly well exposed. exif?

Moogle Pepper

exif

Qarik

ahh..so you spot meter on face or something neutral. That is something I had never really tried for backlit shots..I am always matrix.

Moogle Pepper

Yeah! We were all drinking in the lobby when I saw that light. Did some test shots, I was fiddling with some settings with Doug as my actual subject. hehe

trevorb

#11 is stunning; I really like the reflection in the door.

Matthew Saville

I know that it's really popular these days and I'm VERY alone on this opinion, but I never understood the whole flare-y, "faces-almost-totally-blown-out" thing. It's a subtraction from the viewer's ability to focus on the subject, NOT an addition.

In my personal opinion, backlight is like a sharp object, and lately there are a lot of toddlers running around with it like a toy.

I much prefer taking the time to turn backlight into *rim* light.

But, like I said, I know that I'm very alone on this, and that's okay. Just wanted to state my opinion. I predict that in 10 years, flare and stuff will be "SO 2008"... Oh, and so will the "clarity" slider. Oy...


=Matt=

Ed911

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I know that it's really popular these days and I'm VERY alone on this opinion, but I never understood the whole flare-y, "faces-almost-totally-blown-out" thing. It's a subtraction from the viewer's ability to focus on the subject, NOT an addition.

In my personal opinion, backlight is like a sharp object, and lately there are a lot of toddlers running around with it like a toy.

I much prefer taking the time to turn backlight into *rim* light.

But, like I said, I know that I'm very alone on this, and that's okay. Just wanted to state my opinion. I predict that in 10 years, flare and stuff will be "SO 2008"... Oh, and so will the "clarity" slider. Oy...


=Matt=

Not by yourself...I echo your sentiments...

smurfy

Not by yourself...I echo your sentiments...

That makes three of us.
But I love number 10! Real emotion, perfect exposure; it's a lovely capture.

Qarik

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I know that it's really popular these days and I'm VERY alone on this opinion, but I never understood the whole flare-y, "faces-almost-totally-blown-out" thing. It's a subtraction from the viewer's ability to focus on the subject, NOT an addition.

In my personal opinion, backlight is like a sharp object, and lately there are a lot of toddlers running around with it like a toy.

I much prefer taking the time to turn backlight into *rim* light.

But, like I said, I know that I'm very alone on this, and that's okay. Just wanted to state my opinion. I predict that in 10 years, flare and stuff will be "SO 2008"... Oh, and so will the "clarity" slider. Oy...


=Matt=

haha..I like to get good a technique before I can "get over it". Part of the attraction for me is ..cool..how do you do that?

mpaulie

I really like how the reception dancing photos came out, love the mix of ambient(the tiny amount you had to work with from the string lights) and the flash.