Gritty Bridal Textures...

[mizuno]

I've been checking out some Jesh de Rox (http://www.jeshderox.com/) action of late, and am digging some of his tasteful use of textures... Totally inspired.

The thing is, if your images aren't great to start with, no amount of photoshop trickery is gonna elevate them to greatness. Jesh is obviously as talented behind the camera as he is behind the computer.

SO with that inspiration in mind, I decided to experiment for myself with some random textures I shot outside the studio in the cold and rain.

This was an untraditional treatment of a traditional bridal portrait.

Not sure if there's any sort of commercial application or merit in it for me and my client base, but I had heaps of fun experimenting with it! :cool:

http://blog.dancripps.net/blog_images/gab_texture.jpg

Anyone else mess with this stuff at all?

[liza]

Not yet, though I've considered buying his actions. I like the look, but I think the Boutwell's Totally Rad set would be more usable for me.

[liza]

And that's a great image, btw. :)

[sblais]

How come that when I look at this picture, I can't help but think it may work for the next poster of "Saw"? It's an excellent shot, outstanding PP, and creepy result (in a good way ;))!

[mizuno]

How come that when I look at this picture, I can't help but think it may work for the next poster of "Saw"?

Nah, that would be this one: :cool:

http://www.zeke.com.au/stuff/gabsaw.jpg

[sblais]

:lol:

Yeah, that's the one! ;)

[Toogy]

back to the first image, I like the texture, but think it may be abit too much? Maybe lowering the opacity of the texture layer a little might help?

[mizuno]

back to the first image, I like the texture, but think it may be abit too much? Maybe lowering the opacity of the texture layer a little might help?

I tried that Toogy! But as I reduced the opacity I found that I kept lowering it so far that it was just the original image - because I love the original image on it's own.

I think I wanted to make a statement with this one. It's all or nothing. :cool:

[tlc]

you should try nicole van's texture actions - it allows you to change the opacity on the image or anywhere you select without lowering hte opacity of the rest of the pic - i am sure this could be accomplished on its own, but its much easier this way.

[mizuno]

you should try nicole van's texture actions - it allows you to change the opacity on the image or anywhere you select without lowering hte opacity of the rest of the pic - i am sure this could be accomplished on its own, but its much easier this way.

I find it easier to do it manually in my own layers. Plus I get to use my own textures. :cool:

[picturecrazy]

Hey Dan!
A beautiful original pic. So beautiful in fact, that it looks more than strong enough to stand on it's own.
I don't know why, but textures is just something that I've found to be... well... I dunno... weird? I just don't know if it will still look nice in 10, 15, 30 years? Kinda like how smoky backgrounds lit with coloured gels was so darn cool in the 80's and everyone wanted it, but looks cheesy now. I think your photography is wonderful on it's own with your standard PP, and it would hold through the test of time.

Don't get me wrong. I think textures can look really cool, and I see it's use a lot on commercial, promotional, and movie posters to great effect. But these guys are trying to be ultra hip and modern with no consideration of the future. Wedding photos.... well... I think they need more of a classic theme to them so they STILL look wonderful decades later.

Just an opinion, don't let me sway you off of texturizing or anything.

[Tish]

Hey Dan!
A beautiful original pic. So beautiful in fact, that it looks more than strong enough to stand on it's own.
I don't know why, but textures is just something that I've found to be... well... I dunno... weird? I just don't know if it will still look nice in 10, 15, 30 years? Kinda like how smoky backgrounds lit with coloured gels was so darn cool in the 80's and everyone wanted it, but looks cheesy now. I think your photography is wonderful on it's own with your standard PP, and it would hold through the test of time.

Don't get me wrong. I think textures can look really cool, and I see it's use a lot on commercial, promotional, and movie posters to great effect. But these guys are trying to be ultra hip and modern with no consideration of the future. Wedding photos.... well... I think they need more of a classic theme to them so they STILL look wonderful decades later.

Just an opinion, don't let me sway you off of texturizing or anything.

I agree...BUT....

I think having one or two images of this type in an entire wedding won't date things that badly. Let's face it--the dresses & hairstyles date things pretty darn specifically anyway. My mother's weddings pictures are very clearly late 1960's (platinum hair & dark eye makeup), my own first wedding is very early '90s (puffed sleeves, way too much beading, big hair), and I'm sure my second wedding last year will scream of the sleeveless dress trend!

To me, it's the same thing with strict PJ work versus traditional wedding photography--it all has its place. The ideal wedding should probably have a mix of posed & candid, and yes, even trendy images, with the overall look being a classic one.

Mizuno--I like it for the most part, you started with a terrific shot. I think I'd want to see it lightened (not obliterated) just over her face, with the edges showing the heavier texturing. But it's a great experiment!

[sando]

One or two in an album would be cool. But a whole album of these would do my head in.

[forcebender]

I love the image, but I'll ask the question - does this actually sell?

[liza]

Sure. Look at Jesh de Rox's stuff. He does extremely well.

[mizuno]

I'm thinking of doing a couple of these quite large and getting them printed on canvas.

I reckon that would be a great medium for the gritty textured shots. I'll post pics when I get 'em back.