One "teaser" image

Jennifer, from Saturday's 12 hour shoot:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Cool image

Nice shots...cant really find anything to talk about. Just nice shots

Very nice ... if I was really picky I'd say the first one could use a keylight in the eyes ... just a little kiss of fill flash. But this is a "do what I say, not what I do" sort of thing.

a 12 hour shoot for a wedding?? yikes good work though

nICE SHOTS, THE 2ND ONE REALLY STANDS OUT BUT FOR ME THE FIRST MIGHT NEED A BIT OF FILL FLASH TO BRING SOME LIGHT INTO THE FACE
oh bugger sorry i didnt realise i had caps on and now its too late lol

Del

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

Yes, 12 hours was a tad long...started at salon...then to house to dress...then canal location for "formals"...then ceremony site.

I like the shots but I'd like to make a couple of comments. The bride, while attactive, is not thin, and you can help her with that. Take that shot into PS and use the free transform (Select all, Free Transform) on it. Reduce the width by 1.5% and press enter. The changed aspect ratio will narrow her and will take off about 10 pounds. You can experiment if you like but 1.5% is enough to make her look better but no one will notice any kind of squished look. And NEVER tell the client that you've done this. She will just think that she looked pretty good on her wedding day, and that's what it's all about.

The second shot is very nice too, but I'd make sure that I'd have a fully focused shot right next to it in the proof book. I can just hear the mom saying, "Why isn't she in focus?" and that could start the ball rolling in the wrong direction. I've seen lots of PPOA/PPOC shots where the photographer used some type of fish eye lens outside of the church and while there's no distortion on the B&G (since they're in the centre) the pillars show distinct barrel distortion, all of which the photographer wanted. But the mom's are going to scream! They don't get this kind of stuff and you just have to be careful to cover your butt.

I used to shoot with a Mamiya 645 and a 145 soft lens to make the wedding portraits look more romantic. I found that while most bride's liked it their mom's didn't. Now with digital I do all of my softening in PS and I give the B&G BOTH copies of the shot, and I sample it that way in my portfolio as well. Now both the bride AND her mom can be happy and I've eliminated one more obstacle in the hire/don't hire effort.

thanks so much for that tip!

DaveG: I appreciate your comments and desire to help. At some point a person has to draw a line. While I will remove glare from glasses, stray hairs, and even obvious blemishes, as a matter of principle I am not inclined to change the more substantive (no pun intended) features of a person. That said, the technique you suggested is simple and effective.

I feel this whole subject is one of great debate. I won't criticize those who who make the more substantive changes, as we all have different boundaries. I just think making women, or men for that matter, falsely thin is wrong and perpetuates some arbitrary standard of supposed beauty. As a practical example, I have a female relative who, at one time, weighed nearly 400 pounds...she was morbidly obese. Since then she has undergone medical and lifestyle changes that have helped her to reduce her weight significantly. My point, though, is that back in the day, had she married then, 1.5% or anything else would have done nothing to change her appearance. So, as another sub-issue, how do we as photogs, decide who gets to look thinner?
Oh well...

As for the second shot, great suggestion on placing a "normal" view in close proximity. As it happens, this one was a shot the bride was keen on having, but I am sure her mother would prefer a more natural shot.

Thanks again.

In the first shot you could have maybe asked her to drop the flowers down ..she looks as if she is holding on to them for her life .Also the classic one is if there is a space between her arm and her bodyl it is slimming and shows the curves. These are things that are difficult to remeber when taking the photos and maybe you werent wanting that sort of a look anyway. Like the second one.

I can understand where you are coming from but consider all that the bride does on her wedding day to simply look better. She has a pro do her makeup and hair, buys the most attractive (on her) dress she can, and helps select the locale that presents her in the best possible way. Wedding photography isn't honesty, and it's not truth. It's (in my opinion) making the bride look as good as possible.

When I do a wedding portrait I want to have a high camera position as that will make her lift her chin and that makes her look thinner. I would without doubt retouch any facial skin blemishes that she or the groom might have on this day. I turn her on an angle so that she's not square to the camera, 'cause that'll make her look fat. I could choose to do none of this but reality is not what I'm after.

Do you want to shoot the reality of this woman? My approach may be "... wrong and [would] perpetuate some arbitrary standard of supposed beauty." but at the end of the day "shooting fat" is putting YOUR arbitrary standard of beauty on her. Do you make it clear to her before the wedding that you will employ techniques that WON'T make her look better? I can't imagine anyone hiring you if that was your stated policy.

David: Please do not think I was assailing your opinion or practice in any way...that was not my intent at all.

I see where you are coming from...I have been wrong before and will be again...and may be now. Your comments give me pause to think. Thanks!