Jen & Gary

Jeremy_22

Taken at our late summer workshop in Des Moines. We brought in Jen and Gary as models to show how we work with couples. A very fun duo, we got in some shooting during a "watch the mentors" part of the workshop...

1


2


3

VayCayMom

Oh I just love the color and feel of the last two. wonderful !

VayCayMom

I have to ask, are the whites blown in those photos? A lot of my photos lean this way, I wonder is it ok if they just look blown? Or could it be ok if they are blown? I personally don't mind if it is within reason, but sometimes in my photos it is commented on. just wondering if it only matters what the eye sees or what the data tells you?

Elaine

They are gorgeous. The photos are gorgeous. Thanks for sharing!

Jeremy_22

Appreciate the compliments!

VayCayMom wrote: »

I have to ask, are the whites blown in those photos? A lot of my photos lean this way, I wonder is it ok if they just look blown? Or could it be ok if they are blown? I personally don't mind if it is within reason, but sometimes in my photos it is commented on. just wondering if it only matters what the eye sees or what the data tells you?

Always a fun question/critique - right?

My thought has always been and likely will always be this...

Strong highlights rock. We almost always shoot hot for a variety of reasons. We love the look. Also, we know that light that is a bit hot is great beauty lighting - it helps hide flaws. If we create a portrait of someone that has some acne and underexpose or even "properly expose" it - it'll show. If we shoot it a bit hot, it's not gonna disappear but it will certainly hide some of it. We know we can bring the recovery/exposure back a touch in Lightroom and we're set.

Another reason, and a very big one - we know prints will come out a touch darker than what we see on the screen - regardless of calibration (unless we "improperly" calibrate to the darker end). It's not a noticeable difference for many - but the print usually looks a bit darker.

A number of photographers underexpose their images...which makes it even worse when the prints come back. In our class, all but one of the students was previously underexposing. Took some work and convincing to show them that image on the back of their LCD screen was not blown out.

Majority of the time if the light meter reads 4.0, I'm shooting at 3.5 or even 3.2 - sometimes 2.8 if I'm going for a certain look.

As far as these images, there are parts that are blown - but not the subjects. Pushes the edge, but detail is there on the print.

As you can tell - "too hot" is a big subject for me as I do hear it enough. A lot of the time I don't worry about it - and there have been times it's justified. At the end of the day, you have to decide what your style is and if your clients like it - and then invest in it.

Darren Troy C

The last 2 are super.

VayCayMom

Thanks for the answer! One more question... will photos with some blown highlighting print the same with a photo with some highlighting that just looks blown?

Jeremy_22

VayCayMom wrote: »

Thanks for the answer! One more question... will photos with some blown highlighting print the same with a photo with some highlighting that just looks blown?

Depends on the lab and also your monitor calibration.

If it is in fact a blown highlight (aka, whites at 255), that means no data is there and no ink will go on the paper.

I love printing images with strong and blown highlights on metallic photo paper - has a very cool pearl look!

briandelion

All 3 are great, but I find #2 especially stunning.