Opinions on this style?

Took a photo yesterday afternoon, so what think you about quality & style?

By the way: I'm in this photo. Can you guess which?

Swift wrote in post #12773966
Took a photo yesterday afternoon, so what think you about quality & style?

I've seen this style (i.e. low saturation, high-key, and yellow cast) used on some fashion shots but it's unusual on a family group shot. I personally don't think it's flattering given the mostly static and traditional posing. It also doesn't seem to work as well with multiple people of differing complexions. IMHO, special effects like this should be used sparingly and then presented mainly in a sequence or photos to break the rhythm.

Is this comment helpful?

Swift wrote in post #12773966
By the way: I'm in this photo. Can you guess which?

Assuming you set the self timer and ran to get in the photo, I'd say the guy in the red shirt on the right.

maderik wrote in post #12774915
I've seen this style (i.e. low saturation, high-key, and yellow cast) used on some fashion shots but it's unusual on a family group shot. I personally don't think it's flattering given the mostly static and traditional posing. It also doesn't seem to work as well with multiple people of differing complexions. IMHO, special effects like this should be used sparingly and then presented mainly in a sequence or photos to break the rhythm.

Is this comment helpful?

Assuming you set the self timer and ran to get in the photo, I'd say the guy in the red shirt on the right.

Hi Maderik ! Thanks for the comments. Could you clarify what you mean in the area I bolded above? In my mind, I took at is "either use this effect in all the photos of this set, or don't use it at all" . Am I correct or completely off? Your comment is very helpful, thank you ! I recently shot a wedding last week and I was thinking on using this effect on a few / all of the wedding shots..But you mentioned to use it sparingly. Hrm. Maybe your clarification will help me understand which route to take on those wedding shots and future shots.

Swift wrote in post #12775115
Thanks for the comments. Could you clarify what you mean in the area I bolded above? In my mind, I took at is "either use this effect in all the photos of this set, or don't use it at all" .

I guess it depends on your definition of a "set". I was mainly thinking of a web gallery or scrapbook that contains a series of different photos. If it were a series of closely related shots from the same scene/session, I might approach it differently.

About "breaking the rhythm". I was thinking of flipping through a gallery (or website) and going "yeah", "yeah", "yeah", "ooh, this one's different". Too much of the same thing is boring. But if every photo is a different style, that's visually jarring as well (or just showing off.) Think of it as punctuation in a sentence.

Swift wrote in post #12775115
Am I correct or completely off? Your comment is very helpful, thank you ! I recently shot a wedding last week and I was thinking on using this effect on a few / all of the wedding shots..But you mentioned to use it sparingly. Hrm. Maybe your clarification will help me understand which route to take on those wedding shots and future shots.

It's mostly a matter of taste. I'm somewhat conservative so I tend to not like unnatural effects. I personally would be reluctant to apply this (or any other trendy style) to a large number photos from a wedding. Why? Because in 30 years when this style is forgotten or out of fashion, everyone will wonder why the paper faded so strangely. An example might be wedding albums from the 70's when soft focus was popular so all the shots look dreamy. I keep wanting to go back in time and clean the lens.

But this is just an opinion worth every penny you paid for it. Try it both ways and see which you (and your clients) prefer.