Funnest Wedding

Stumblebum

I was the 2nd on Qarik's Winery wedding shoot! Never shot wedding before, but enjoyed the experience. These are shots that I hesitantly think are worth sharing......I like shots that are not overly conventional and have something dynamic about them, so I know my future in Wedding photography is limited.

1) Waiting for the reception guests to show up



2) Here they come.....



3) Ceremony begins.....bridesmaid walking down......



4) Bride [in case you are not sure already ;o) ]



5) Ceremony



6) Hugging dad after the ceremony



7) Hugging mom after the ceremony



8) Group shot with fellow Marines



9) Putzing around...



10) Reception guest #1



11) Happy Grandma



12) Mariachi band serenading Mom and Dad



13) Who needs a pro-photographer when you have got an iPad?



14) Hello......



15) More band....with Uncle singing along...



16) Toast given by the sister...



17) Lets break some boards



18) Cake



19) Bouquet throw



20) First dance with dad..



21) Lets dance



22) Party



23) Dance some more..



24) Lets walk into the sunset....



25) Happily ever after...

Matthew Saville

The images are good, but I think you have a little bit of an issue with yellows and greens in your post-production and overall the faces / skin tones are a little bit un-flattered by the level of contrast and clarity. Are you post-producing on a calibrated display? How many images with skin tones have you processed, in your day?

=Matt=

Stumblebum

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The images are good, but I think you have a little bit of an issue with yellows and greens in your post-production and overall the faces / skin tones are a little bit un-flattered by the level of contrast and clarity. Are you post-producing on a calibrated display? How many images with skin tones have you processed, in your day?

=Matt=

Thanks! Sincerely appreciate helpful and incisive comments, pointing in specific direction. Part of the objective of posting here is to learn!

I usually shoot outdoors, so this was something different. I don't have calibrated display. I could have softened the skin tones by reducing details and clarity, both of which I did keep lower than my usual. I also used more masking than I normally use to soften em up a bit more.

I saw other postings here and got some idea what the norm or expectation is from portraits/wedding photos. Some felt overly soft, super back-lit, and it was hard for my eyes to focus. Maybe people in general want it that way, but I am not sure if almost perfect skin is necessarily beautiful. I like imperfections. However, I would definitely try mellower tones, as probably target audience prefers them, and to have another tool in my back pocket for future.

Thanks again!

Matthew Saville

Stumblebum wrote: »

Thanks! Sincerely appreciate helpful and incisive comments, pointing in specific direction. Part of the objective of posting here is to learn!

I usually shoot outdoors, so this was something different. I don't have calibrated display. I could have softened the skin tones by reducing details and clarity, both of which I did keep lower than my usual. I also used more masking than I normally use to soften em up a bit more.

I saw other postings here and got some idea what the norm or expectation is from portraits/wedding photos. Some felt overly soft, super back-lit, and it was hard for my eyes to focus. Maybe people in general want it that way, but I am not sure if almost perfect skin is necessarily beautiful. I like imperfections. However, I would definitely try mellower tones, as probably target audience prefers them, and to have another tool in my back pocket for future.

Thanks again!

I don't know which program you're processing in, but to give you an idea if you're using Lightroom 4, I actually almost NEVER increase Contrast for portraits, and Clarity / Vibrance is often dialed down to -10 for general portraiture. Saturation is never ever touched for portraits. I get all my "pop" from simply manipulating highlights / shadows and whites / blacks. I bump contrast up maybe 10-20% of the time, and usually only for further away candid type portraits, not the closer up ones.

The images turn out like this: http://www.linandjirsablog.com/associates

Just a bit of info for you to consider, not a perfect method or anything...

Stumblebum

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I don't know which program you're processing in, but to give you an idea if you're using Lightroom 4, I actually almost NEVER increase Contrast for portraits, and Clarity / Vibrance is often dialed down to -10 for general portraiture. Saturation is never ever touched for portraits. I get all my "pop" from simply manipulating highlights / shadows and whites / blacks. I bump contrast up maybe 10-20% of the time, and usually only for further away candid type portraits, not the closer up ones.

The images turn out like this: http://www.linandjirsablog.com/associates

Just a bit of info for you to consider, not a perfect method or anything...

Thanks! This is awesome! I am going to try it out. I use LR4. Its great to be using same software so can talk about exact sliders.

I used strong contrast and +4 to +7 on orange and yellow but a bit higher on luminance. I do like warmer temp though, seems more lively (same reason for strong contrast). But I will leave it alone and see what comes out.

Matthew Saville

Stumblebum wrote: »

Thanks! This is awesome! I am going to try it out. I use LR4. Its great to be using same software so can talk about exact sliders.

I used strong contrast and +4 to +7 on orange and yellow but a bit higher on luminance. I do like warmer temp though, seems more lively (same reason for strong contrast). But I will leave it alone and see what comes out.

I love warm images as well, however I never tweak individual colors separately unless it is to tone them *down*, actually. If I want an image to be warm, I'll just bump up the Temp a tiny bit more than usual. Avoid any HSL increases to oranges or yellows at all costs, in my opinion, during general photojournalism.

=Matt=

Stumblebum

Matt, earlier when you said you don't increase contrast, I don't either in the main "basic" window, but in tone-curve I choose strong contrast. The other two choices are medium and linear. Which one do you choose? Also, most of the images I posted are not close up portraiture variety and are sort of candid at a distance. I still want to pick one and try your suggestions. I checked out the link you provided. Pretty pictures. Simple and lively! So basically I am going to take one of the picture here and...
- move vibrance and clarity to 0 or -10
- saturation is untouched in main window, I would try linear setting in tone-curve
- pull individual saturation sliders to 0 (probably leave luminance alone as that falls in category of highlights)
- In the basic window, for highlights I pull them down as usually overexpose, shadows are pulled down a bit, whites are about +20 and blacks are -20
- I add vignetting

I want to get one mellow picture just to know I can get there! Thanks.

Stumblebum

This is what I get after applying the suggested recipe......

-warming minimum
- Clarity -10
- Vibrance -10
- Saturation (none in main basic window, Linear in tone curve)
- All HSL sliders at 0
- Details reduced slightly
- Vignetting left same
- highlights/whites/lights/shadows/blacks maninpulated

heatherfeather

SO much better.

The processing was killing the first set by a bunch. Glad you are getting some awesome suggestions! I love when C&C actually helps people gain!

Matthew Saville

Stumblebum wrote: »

This is what I get after applying the suggested recipe......

-warming minimum
- Clarity -10
- Vibrance -10
- Saturation (none in main basic window, Linear in tone curve)
- All HSL sliders at 0
- Details reduced slightly
- Vignetting left same
- highlights/whites/lights/shadows/blacks maninpulated

Yep, that skin looks much more timeless, now. You could go a little warmer if you wanted, or a little brighter, or even a little bit more contrasty, but I definitely like it just the way it is. Consider this a "proof" edit, for the client's printing use and general archival purposes. Even if you decide to punch it up a little bit more for a specific printing use, THIS is how I would leave it in general.

Notice that the bouquet still "pops" plenty, too! Try it on photos #9, 11, and 14 and see how those look too.

BTW, I do leave the tone curve at "linear" for close up portraits, and usually just "Medium" for detail shots / wides. If I need to really make a photo "punch", I'l just bump the contrast up in the Basic panel to +10-30... This seems to do the trick very nicely, as long as you adjust your Whites / Blacks in conjunction to make sure you don't clip too much.

Good luck!

=Matt=

VayCayMom

Good post, good CC !

Stumblebum

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Yep, that skin looks much more timeless, now. You could go a little warmer if you wanted, or a little brighter, or even a little bit more contrasty, but I definitely like it just the way it is. Consider this a "proof" edit, for the client's printing use and general archival purposes. Even if you decide to punch it up a little bit more for a specific printing use, THIS is how I would leave it in general.

Notice that the bouquet still "pops" plenty, too! Try it on photos #9, 11, and 14 and see how those look too.

BTW, I do leave the tone curve at "linear" for close up portraits, and usually just "Medium" for detail shots / wides. If I need to really make a photo "punch", I'l just bump the contrast up in the Basic panel to +10-30... This seems to do the trick very nicely, as long as you adjust your Whites / Blacks in conjunction to make sure you don't clip too much.

Good luck!

=Matt=

Can't say thanks enough! Have been hoping to poach this kind of knowledge for a long time!

Stumblebum

Thanks for other for kind comments as well!

Danspage

Stumblebum wrote: »

This is what I get after applying the suggested recipe......

-warming minimum
- Clarity -10
- Vibrance -10
- Saturation (none in main basic window, Linear in tone curve)
- All HSL sliders at 0
- Details reduced slightly
- Vignetting left same
- highlights/whites/lights/shadows/blacks maninpulated

Nice, Better then the 1st one .

Blurmore

I think high contrast/low contrast is one of those style things people "stumble" into, what really matters is what you can sell, and how the prints look. Historically portrait films like NPH and Kodak Portra NC were lower contrast films which are kind to all skin tones. That isn't to say that they are the ideal, just something to work from. In general in the digital age, contrast has gone up, and especially in reception pics that is a good thing. Getting higher contrast images in a dark reception no longer involves so much added light, and the venue light can be utilized. In general though, turning on the contrast in portraits isn't very flattering. I work on a calibrated monitor, and so should anyone who is doing images professionally, but I no longer color correct stuff myself, it is all outsourced. I think you got some quality shots, but that last one you posted is the weakest of the bunch.

dawssvt

Great sharp images! Nice work!