The look

[Alexajlex]

Let me begin by saying that I'm not in any way trying to bash Yervant (he is a million miles away better in skill from where I am). He is one of the best wedding photogs in the world and one of the people I look at for inspiration.

I'm simply trying to see what processing styles people use.

I was looking for something completely different (good BW wedding pics)
when I ran into this:

http://yervant.wedshooter.com/2006/09/03/wedding-album-production

I looked at the before and after and I liked both.

Now the after is very pleasant and I want to know how people go that far with the editing.

My main thing is the skin tone.

I've been working on my editing skills and while I like boosting the saturation and skin smoothing and painting with light I like to keep the skin tone as close as possible to real life.

I know that a warmer picture looks better to some people then a natural look.

The question is what do you prefer:
-natural
-saturation boosted but not too the point where a medium fair skin tone looks tanned.
-the works (like in the link I posted).

[DStanic]

Regarding that link- I like the first picture better. Her skin looks "plasticy" to me, like something you'd see on a big poster in the GAP in a mall. Weddings should be about remembering the day as accuratly as possible. Sure, if someone has a nasty zit or something remove it, but no need to eliminate every wrinkle from the face is just doesn't look natural. Adjusting the color temperature to achieve a slightly warmer look is always nice though IMO.

[conbu19]

I'm with you DStanic,the original is fine,she looks relaxed and natural. The second to me is way over worked,and makes her look like a stage performer.

[opus13]

if my wife had rec'd one of our wedding photos back lookng like that... someones house would be burned down O_o

that second image is precisely what gives photoshop a bad name. its a travesty and affront to good taste.