Help with wedding photographer and exposure issue.

[JohnnyEgo]

I joined the forums a few months back and I have been quietly trying to absorb some of the immense amount of knowledge that is on here. Now, I am hoping someone can share a little bit more of it with me.

I believe the problem is one of exposure, and it requires a little bit of back story:

I am white. Not mauve, tan, peach, but bright, incandescent white. My fiance is black. Very, very black. Generally speaking, pictures taken of us on cheap autofocus cameras come out with her looking normal and myself looking like I am haunting the place, or me looking normal and her appearing to be a void with eyes and teeth. For our wedding, which is outdoors, mid afternoon in November, and in Florida, we would really like to have some good pictures.

My fiance hired a very nice young woman who has the equipment, the slick website, and the price of a professional. However, we had a two hour engagement session consisting of over 350 shots, only ten of which turned out well. Some of the issues were related to posing; I am tall, she is short, and we are always looking in different directions for those 'off in the distance' stare poses. Not a big deal, but one I believe a professional photographer should know how to do a better job of managing.

Nonetheless, the exposure on so many of the shots is just as bad as the auto-focus cameras. I am new to photography beyond the point & click aspects, but I feel like I should be able to expect a professional photographer with professional equipment to achieve a success ratio of more then 10%.

What I am ultimately looking to determine is as follows:
1. Am I unrealistic in my expectations?
2. Is there a technique, filter, or something I can (tactfully) recommend for my photographer to try to compensate for the extreme difference in skin tones?

Thanks!

[TheHoff]

You are not unrealistic but you are probably a tough couple to photograph. I think shooting in RAW you should be able to pull enough out of both ends of the range that you should get some usable photos.

However your mid-afternoon Florida wedding might be problem. Sunlight is not your friend in regards to exposure latitude. You're better off in a studio or on an overcast day. It sounds like your pro had a problem controlling the contrast but yea, you should expect more. If you post some examples (not necessarily the pro's, we're not out to flame someone), maybe we can get an idea...

re: who you hired -- nevermind the equipment or slick website, how were her sample images? sample albums?

[joeflux]

I agree with the RAW format suggestion. Even in the worst case scenario of lighting, with proper exposure you can fix the issues in post. If I was taking the pictures, after the fact I could take the photos in some program like Photoshop and adjust the curves so that your face comes down a bit on exposure and her face a bit higher in exposure using curves. The reason it is important to take proper exposure at the time of the shoot is because with digital you can't over expose your skin tone. If you are over exposed, all your details of your face on bright highlights will be gone forever. The photographer of your engagement session should check some shots with the INFO from the camera and tell if that data is in the camera or if it was over blown and non-recoverable off scale.

Good luck with your search. I live in Tampa, FL, you can msg me if you have more questions.

[JohnnyEgo]

I wouldn't post her work because I'm not sure if I own the rights to it or not, and I don't want to give out too many specific details about her. The sample images looked good on the website, however, none were of mixed race couples. I have not seen any albums, as I have been working out of the country for the last several months. I can't be too critical of the choice, as I was able to be part of the process, and I would be beaten by my future wife. The young lady is very personable, and appears to have most of the technical skills, but doesn't seem to be real good at composition. This is the kind of thing I can correct relatively easily by being very specific about the shots. It's the exposure thing that is getting to me.

Florida sunlight is harsh. I am hoping that by late November and a 4:00 PM wedding, it won't be quite so bad. The location is a historic plantation with heavy tree cover, and we have the option of shooting inside the manor as well. I'm not expecting miracles, but I am hoping for a better job.

Here are a few pictures of what our photographer has to work with:
http://www.johnnyego.com/dump/kaypics/jandk1.jpg
http://www.johnnyego.com/dump/kaypics/jandk2.jpg
http://www.johnnyego.com/dump/kaypics/kay.jpg
http://www.johnnyego.com/dump/kaypics/kaygoofy.jpg

[TheHoff]

BTW, a long-time pro should have experience photographing a dark-skinned bride in a bright white dress and that should be no different than getting both of you in range.

[joeflux]

I agree with TheHoff. I have taken photos of dark-skinned brides and you have to keep it all in perspective to get the right shot. I have photos to prove it! :) You guys look like a nice couple. I don't see an issue that a professional could have taking your photos. You aren't complete extremes of the light spectrum for it to be super difficult.

[JohnnyEgo]

I appreciate the advice and the kind words from both of you. As professionals, how would I go about approaching you to discuss my concerns in a tactful manner?

[joeflux]

That's a tough question. Most clients expect the best from me and I have had plenty of conversations before and after the wedding. Since you are paying for a service I would express my concerns as politely as possible. If you are worried that the percentage of output is less than adequate compared to what you were promised, I would imagine you would be entitled for something back. If my clients aren't happy we always come to a compromise and maybe that's the best solution for you. But you will need to address your concerns with the photographer so you do not end up miserable after your wedding. This is once in a lifetime opportunity and you can't go back in time. Weddings can't be done as a re-take.

[tdodd]

Johnny, from the pictures you've posted it does not appear that there is such an extreme in skin tone as you suggest. Maybe the photos have already been tweaked to diminish the contrasting tones but as presented the challenge does not look too demanding.

I've recently started shooting weddings and shot a mixed race wedding a week ago. Here is an example of dark and pale skin tones in bright conditions. This was shot raw and, as you will note, has had minimal editing to levels/curves - just a small adjustment to black clipping point and some highlight recovery. The highlight recovery was only for collar, cuffs and the pale top worn by the woman. No skin was blown, even on the pale skinned young lady. Note the neat fit of the histogram with these minor adjustments. In truth I could probably have left the black point unaltered, but I wanted to bring out a little extra detail in the groom.

You can see the album with further examples in my Wedding 3 link in my sig.

EDIT : I've added another example, this time with a little more adjustment dialled in. I have to agree that raw is totally the way to go when faced with a tricky subject/lighting.

[JohnnyEgo]

ttodd, that is exactly how I'd like my wedding pictures to turn out. Everyone looks like they normally should in real life. I've decided to have a chat with my photographer, and let her know that while I think she did a fine job in many aspects, I am a little concerned about the exposure issues and I would like to know how much post processing she plans on doing to produce more natural looking photos. As it stands, I need to learn a good bit more about post processing myself, as I would like to be able to correct some of the pictures I've taken.

[tdodd]

Although I'm new to the challenge of shooting weddings, and people in gerneral, my advice would be....

- shoot with manual exposure so that small adjustments in composition do not send the metering/exposure all over the place;

- shoot raw, to give you the maximum latitude to adjust levels/curves, and also worry about white balance later;

- if you have some control over posing and choosing the light then take full advantage of that control. e.g. do not stick people straight into direct, harsh sunlight and especially do not put one person in the light and one in the shade - it's just asking for difficulties. If you look at the first picture you posted, IMHO the light is just horrible. You have a mixture of sunlight and shade on yourselves, meaning you will struggle to expose the shadow areas properly without blowing out the sunlit parts. Obviously rules are made to be broken, but if you want to be able to take your outdoor portraits without too much trouble then either open shade, or backlighting with some fill/reflection is your friend. Mixed lighting on the subject just causes problems.

As I was second shooter at this wedding I was not in control of lighting/positioning/posing and was really just shooting candids of people, wherever they happened to be. I'm sure manual exposure gave me a consistent look to my shots and reduced my workload in post processing. Actually I don't especially like the way many of my photos from this wedding look, because the pro asked me to make sure everything looked "bright" and to err on the warm side. I've done my best to comply with that request but I think the tonal balance looks wrong when you try to shift things round too much. Still, he seems pleased with the results.

[form]

Harsh daylight is difficult to shoot in; fill flash would be very helpful for many outdoor shots.

tdodd's shots look like they were in only partial sun or overcast conditions, unless someone had a really big diffusion panel above them: That's why they look much better.