A conversation of wedding styles

Swartzy · December 31, 2008

Since Ivar, our new moderator has created a new thread pertaining to wedding photography... in general, I thought possilby continuing in the same vein by starting a new thread. I sincerely hope many of you (if not all) to participate in this conversation. I respect the incredible talents that post on this thread to share their insights and approaches to this aspect that we all may learn and grow.

As it may be difficult to articulate concepts on an internet forum, allow me an attempt to begin. I, like most of you, never want to become complacent, dull or mediocre in work or vision. I'm convinced a great deal of the "final" image is about "how" it is processed, more so than how it was shot.

Upon viewing many current movies, websites, images here and on other forums, the trend seems to be more of a PJ style. Images no longer have to be in focus, nor color balanced, nor sharp for that matter. I write this as a photographer who is a "traditionalist" under the hood but realize one needs to continue expanding their vision, stretching out and emulating new and improved concepts.

Here, below, is one such example. Many of you know my style...it's clean, sharp, in focus and pops....but upon viewing many bridal magazines I've been seeing something different...odd colors, textures, out of focus images and overall.....basically, all that I've learned from years of photography...things have changed. Now granted, these images are cool, radical and often times beautiful..but in a different sense.

My hope is to awake your inner perceptions that you would share thoughts as well as explain how you see things, that others in this forum could possilby grasp those concepts and implement them in their own work. When I look at Jeff's, Angies, Heatherfeather, Urbanaries....(the list goes on...and don't take offence that I didn't mention you..cause your stuff is on the list) I see such a unique take in which it was processed. Some make comments on the "lighting". Well, in reality, with today's software tools, we can make our own lighting to an extent....case in point, look at NIK filters or say Viveza.

This particular image I wanted to "try" to emulate some of the interesting ways of processing. Please, provide some examples of your work and explain why you did what you did and hopefully "how". Since we all are from different parts of the country (and world for that matter), it shouldn't be a "trade secret" thing but rather lifting one another that we all may benefit.

I could have processed this at least 50 different ways but chose this route...why?..to attempt something out of my comfort zone. Does it work? If so, why? Your involvement is greatly appreciated! Thanks!

ChatKat · December 31, 2008

Excellent Subject
Dave this is a very good subject and for me sort of a recent topic with a client that I shot for a year ago.

First I think that clients really aren't educated as to style. I think for the sake of "art" we each have a style that varies. Sometimes I shoot wide and other times I crop tightly. My vision might include black and white work when it fits the mood. Some weeks lots of bokeh feels good and other times I want the flavor of super crispy.

Then again there is the issue of equipment. We might have similar gear and hardware but software could easily vary. I shoot Canon 5d's and if I could do only one lens it would be the 24-105L for a zoom and the 50 1.2 for a prime. And then there is the one piece of gear that is unique to each of us - our eye and our thoughts. Our background and personal history play into that too.

For me, I love visual storytelling. It's a theme in my travel work, in my parties, and in portrait work. I want to capture a mood and a moment in time.

This image is straight out of the camera. No PP. Her face glows from the sun - shot at high, harsh sun. Her last minute of singlehood.

Last year I did an event. I took photos to design the invitation. I went though my portfolio with my client. I told the story of the event. It was moved from a big popular venue to a home with nearly no light but my flash. The space was tight and in my style I shot tight. I got multiple photos of the attendees and their interaction. I made a press printed book and put it on my website. Never heard a word. Then I called so I could close the file and to say hi. After all the talk and showing and shooting the client told me they were okay with the images but they didn't want the 16x20 that was part of the package. They didn't like the tight shots I did. I showed them my work - mostly tight. They never said anything before the event to hint that they wanted a wide style. There is no way to shoot that in a room that is 15x20 wiht 10 talbes in it. If they'd stayed in the original venue, I'd have had some. But this was 100 people moved to a three bedroom house in cold December weather.

What I learned is to go over client expectations very closely. Show them my style. And if they don't comment, I think I am writing it into my contract. Clients affect our style more tha we can ever imagine by their own choices.

angevin1 · December 31, 2008

Hi Swartzy,

Awesome thread idea!

I think your photo works. The Why? There are probably as many whys' as there are folks in this forum.

It works for me due to its coloring. Its soft enough to be easy to view and yet still retains enough clarity to view it.

Symbolically: Groupings of pairs within one scene shared. Shared by the Main couple. The pairs on the whole have their bodies facing the main couple or pointed in that direction, reminding the viewer of the main. Social, couplings, togetherness.

There are or appear to be multiple vignettes within this photo. Many of the gals have their hands on the their partner.

Nicely done, nicely posed and great thread!

cheers, tom

PS: I'll defer to others for posting theirs~

jeffreaux2 · December 31, 2008

While I do not tout myself as a wedding photographer, it is part of what I do. I am envious of "the look" of those old 1960's wedding photos. The smooth black and whites, the bare bulb flash, even the styles of the clothing, hair, make-up, etc. Certainly any wedding photography I have done has a more modern look, but I at least think my affinity for that classic style has influenced my work. My lighting method for receptions, for instance, is very nearly a bare bulb flash albeit a much more advanced system than those employed in the 60's.

While I like "retro" processing....bleach bypass, cross processing, and even my own "lomo" preset for some of my other work, I tend to shy away from those for wedding photography. Even in those other situations though, I am aiming my sights on creating images that will look as great in 15 or 20 years as they do today.

If I am conservative with my other work, I am even more so with wedding photographs. There I stick to basics. Black and whites, duo-tones, and color. Nothing fancy, though I do use a lot of vignettes.

I will soften an image now and then....some, but usually toss them right-off if they are soft out of the camera.

Swartzy, the example you began the thread with is nice in its coloring, though it is probably not something I would personally do for a wedding. That certainly doesn't mean that it is THAT bad( I actually think it looks good)....but rather that I am THAT conservative. Maybe in this new year I can learn to let go of some of those conservatisms and mix things up some in my own wedding photography.

divamum · December 31, 2008

(NB: All of the photos linked are publicity photos on agent and promotional websites, so as far as I know i'm not violating any copyright by linking them here. Where credits were indicated on the main site I have copied them here exactly as found on the parent page)

Random musings from the sidelines...

Isn't the approcah you've taken in the first photo the pj style which I sometimes wonder is the trickle-down influence of grunge photography and film styles/lighting? (I like it very much, btw - it's a style I personally adore - it has energy, movement.... I love the look and prefer it to the static formalised shots of yore)

I don't think the trend is isolated to weddings, because I know that in performer headshots (the thing I know most about, so I'll stick with what I know for examples) it has gone from a formal studio style like this:

or this

(photograph: Lisa Kohler)

To a much more naturalistic, or sometimes even "urban" look... just as wedding photography seems to be doing. Iow, I think it's an overall shift in "fashion" - we see it on screen, in magazines and even in newspapers, so it's not surprising that clients see that as a possibility now, I think.

And even a downright pj/grunge look

Exactly as I see in wedding photography styles. It's definitely running parallel with other branches of "formal" photography situations, I think.

Ok, back to the sidelines... I'll be interested to read what others say on this - very interesting discussion (and the relevance is not limited only to wedding photography!)

Edited to add: All of the examples above are singers. While the natural light shots of the second set of examples have long been the style for *actors*, for classical musicians the Formal BW Studio Shot was the norm until as little as maybe 5 years ago. FWIW.

Blurmore · December 31, 2008

I'll add my 2 cents about processing. First I will state that I am a traditionalist too. I'm firmly in the digital age as I CAN process an image in a variety of ways, but for me there has to be a reason. I notice a lot of photographers who through heavy processing of EVERY image try to make silk purses out of sows ears. This tires me. 2 BIG quibbles I have with much of what I see as the NUschool are images SO contrasty as to lose fine gradation (what i would call web processed) and shots SO super saturated that they are out of Gamut for any printer in the world. I process my images to look natural and as "film like" as possible. Why do people make such a huge deal about bits per channel and raw headroom if they are going to get all crunchy with the contrast anyway? I heavily manipulate (desaturations, selective color, softening, diffuse glow layers) 3 images per wedding and I proof those on metallic paper. I don't understand how people have the time to work over EVERY image from a take. I do understand that many of the images posted are worked over specifically for use in an album. I don't offer a designed album as a part of my services, but if I did I could imagine working on each image more. To me, color consistency, exposure consistency, and proper sharpening are paramount and everything else is gingerbread. I also understand that gingerbread and sizzle sells. Swartzy I like your shot, I would consider this type of processing what I would do to the 1 of the 3 images I choose to manipulate, it is very stylish, very current, it sells. The not poses posed feel of the shot gives you away as a traditionalist, and the happy tilt does little to further the deception, but the processing really works.

Ann McRae · December 31, 2008

I will enjoy reading this conversation. I am NOT a wedding photographer, but love to look at all of the work displayed here and at FM. There really is a trend to show PJ and grunge styles, which are visually pleasing and interesting, but I wonder whether this really serves the client well. I guess my question is, should basic, traditional, well exposed and brilliantly composed shots be part of every wedding photography package. Will the bride & groom be disappointed 10 years down the road if all they have are photos with cut off heads (I do not get those!) and huge lens flare across the peoples faces?

ann

heatherfeather · January 2, 2009

What a great idea for a thread.

I think it is pretty interesting to look at all the different takes on a photo. That is why I love DGrin - You get to hear lots of different view points.
But one thing is for certain: different processing sells. Be it selective coloring:sick or cross processing. I often have presented brides with the choice, and they almost always choose the more unique look. Which surprises me every time. I bring it forward with a timid little... what do you think of this... and they snap it up (and hand over their checkbooks!)

I am so right beside Jeff in that I love the look of classic photography. A warmish b & w is like dark chocolate on my sunday. I REALLY dig it.

The cross processing and even vignettes to some extent will date a photo in years to come. But for now, they are really "in" so I am going to enjoy them right alongside the retro look that everyone is wearing these days.

If you think about it, which style is going to be more likely to last?
Between B & W, classic process and cross process, I bet classic color and B & W will win every time.

Classic Color Processing...

A warm b & W...

The Cross Process...

-But- there is a balance we have to make. We need to deliver what the client wants and will buy... and what they will want in 10 years... regardless if they know it or not! So, this being said, I always give them a mix. (Though I try to avoid the selective coloring unless they ask ahead of time, blech.)

As to photos that are out of focus... they are always the first to get dumped as I do my photo triage. Some photographers can pull it off as "art" but for some reason I can't get past it when there is blur in wrong places. (I love a shallow DOF, but it better have at least one crucial element in focus, or don't bother in my book.)

Whatever the case, it is our responsiblity to our clients to stay up with the times in regards to processing and be the best photographers and pp we can be.

Swartzy · January 2, 2009

You all bring up some very valid points. Thank you. Yes, what will they really want in say 10 years? Will the processing stand the test of time? Now, answer me this....do you go ahead and say "cross process" or "Old Timee", etc. even shots that would possibly look better "standard"? for the sake of defining your style and vision?

I typically let the photograph determine what may work best. A glorious settting with the right colors and light.....a no brainer in my book....it's getting the "elegant" treatment. A pose like the one above...there we can have some fun.....but still want it "memorable". So, I guess, another question is, can we actually change our inate style? or because of who we are, how we envision things, the processing will still give us away? Blurmore 's example of me with "the happy tilt" (a great one...

) did little to further the deception that I was a "traditionalist".

:D:D....I don't know.....hopefully, it's not a bad thing.

My analogy is this: As a musician (yea, I am) and songwriter, I always want my stuff "fresh", unique, different than the last piece......unlike so many "80's" bands....you hear 3 notes and you'll know the band kind of thing. So in a way, the approach to photography could possibly mirror this endeavor, no? Being well versed in many styles..the ability to "change hats" at any given moment or shoot per se. Do you think this is possible?

Thanks for your feedback in advance.

Shima · January 2, 2009

My style tends to be a very realistic looking one. There are a few things I'm anal about I find when I'm processing afterward... correct white balance (I have to fight the urge to fix a stylized wrong white balance if it works better... I often just want to fix it) ... a good pop is something I like in my photos (by way of increasing blacks and / or contrast usually)... and I am a focus nut. Soft / out of focus photos bother me immensely though I know others are started to do some stylized shots like that, I can't bring myself to do it. Unless I nail focus I'll be overly critical of my own shot and end up not using it. I use flash about 90% of the time at weddings. I too like a PJ style...my favorite types of shots being the ones where you get the raw emotion of the moment, be it joy and laughter or tears.

Scott_Quier · January 2, 2009

I think I'm still working to define "my style". I like good solid, "traditional" photos - in focus, "correct" coloring, B&W, the occasional sepia toned, a little vignette. I can appreciate some of the post processing that moves an image away from reality, but I can't get very comfortable with the result.

Like some others here, those that are fuzzy, blurred, OOF, dark, blown - these almost always fall to the editing room floor.

These are a few of the "lucky" shots that I've captured that I think best define the target I'm shooting for (no pun intended:D).

1.

2.

3.

4.

A conversation of wedding styles

Comments