Wedding photography supposed to have blown highlights?

Copyright · 12-27-2010, 03:35 PM

Two of my friends have recently been married.

Both couples paid a lot of money for a wedding photographer ($3000).

If you showed me the pictures a year ago, I would have said they were great.
Now, I find a lot of problems with them.

1) Lots of blown highlights.

Not so much in the bride's dress, but more so with windows, the sky, etc...

2) Lens flare.

I see a lot of pictures where the lens flare is strategically placed in between the bride and groom. I find that it is really distracting, and I can't help but think that it would be a much better picture without it.

3) Crooked horizons.

These are not done for dramatic effect. There were a few that had horizons off by a couple of degrees. This was obviously an oversight, but it was the very first thing that caught my eye.

4) Fake glow.

This is an obvious PP effect. A lot of pics have that fake glow about them. It just seems to me like they took an average picture and added a "cool" photoshop effect to make it interesting.

5) Effects in general.

I find that a lot of photos have some sort of filter or effect used for no other reason than to use some sort of filter or effect. The best way I can describe it is like the person that gets their first P&S digital camera and uses all the effects presets in the software that came bundled with it. Then they post them on facebook and everyone thinks they look really cool because it is something other than a normal photograph. (Kind of like the Lomo effect)

So am I missing something? Perhaps I'm being too critical because I know what to look for. But I know a lot of you are wedding photographers and would never let anything like this happen in your photos.

aleonx3 · 12-27-2010, 03:48 PM

Sad but true.... I have the same observation that many self-claimed photographers don't even know the basics except may be just merely expensive camera owners.

SpecialK · 12-27-2010, 04:11 PM

Sight unseen, I'd say the crooked horizon is the only one I would object to on principle.

slip · 12-27-2010, 04:45 PM

can you post an example?

thanks

randy

einstrigger · 12-27-2010, 05:06 PM

Would love to see examples as well if possible. I'm just wondering what $3000 gets you in terms of wedding photography.

theunartist · 12-27-2010, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Copyright

So am I missing something? Perhaps I'm being too critical because I know what to look for. But I know a lot of you are wedding photographers and would never let anything like this happen in your photos.

If the customers were happy, that's all that really counts. the photographer isn't doing a journalistic type of job for National Geographic but more or less what the paying customer wants. They probably saw samples and most likely said, "we like that, can you do that for us!"

Most Wedding Photographers are pretty good with lighting and can maximize "ambiance", so what you saw is probably what the wedding party wanted... Perfection is in the eye of the check writer (and always will be)...

slip · 12-27-2010, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by theunartist

If the customers were happy, that's all that really counts. the photographer isn't doing a journalistic type of job for National Geographic but more or less what the paying customer wants. They probably saw samples and most likely said, "we like that, can you do that for us!"

Most Wedding Photographers are pretty good with lighting and can maximize "ambiance", so what you saw is probably what the wedding party wanted... Perfection is in the eye of the check writer (and always will be)...

I am amazed of how many people think that direct harsh sunlight is the best to take photos in.
If they are happy that is great. but if you look at it as more sales for your self, every photo you take is a "sales tool". If others see the photos they will also judge them (and if they like them they might get you to shoot their wedding)
what a local pro does is narrow down the choices before he shows the bride and groom and let them choose between the best of the best. that way there is a balance between what they want and what is good for advertising (indirectly of course) to family and friends
hope this makes sense

randy

Last edited by slip; 12-27-2010 at 06:32 PM.

alohadave · 12-27-2010, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Copyright

So am I missing something? Perhaps I'm being too critical because I know what to look for. But I know a lot of you are wedding photographers and would never let anything like this happen in your photos.

The couple chose the photographer partly based on the portfolio offered. If they are happy with that style of shooting and processing, then there really isn't much to be said.

Say what you will about personal peccadilloes about filters and effects, but there is a certain expectation among brides that you need to fulfill if you want to get business.

reeftool · 12-28-2010, 09:34 AM

If your friends are happy with the photos, then that should be fine. While it's easy to be critical sometimes, I always ask myself if I was there and had to crank out a couple hundred shots in what will most likely be horrible lighting conditions, would they be any better? I've shot a few weddings and it isn't easy. I no longer do them at all. Digital should probably make things a little easier. I have only shot weddings with film. A lot of people like some of the special effects possible in digital photography so choices on that come down to personal preference.

johnmflores · 12-28-2010, 07:19 PM

Most importantly, how well were the subjects rendered? That's what they are photos of, after all. I'd be more willing to forgive some technical faux pas in the background if the photographer did an especially good job with the subjects.

Copyright · 12-28-2010, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by reeftool

If your friends are happy with the photos, then that should be fine. While it's easy to be critical sometimes, I always ask myself if I was there and had to crank out a couple hundred shots in what will most likely be horrible lighting conditions, would they be any better? I've shot a few weddings and it isn't easy. I no longer do them at all. Digital should probably make things a little easier. I have only shot weddings with film. A lot of people like some of the special effects possible in digital photography so choices on that come down to personal preference.

I can see your point.

But if you're charging someone $3000 for these photos, then you shouldn't be making these errors.

Tommot1965 · 12-28-2010, 09:09 PM

ive seen some real crap photos of wedding, so much so...I now believe I could get way with doing a wedding ....

doing some PP work to make a image better is often all that's left to do..as you cant go back to the scene and do it again....Id have to say that wedding would be stress city for a shooter...but one day id love to try it..

alohadave · 12-28-2010, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Copyright

I can see your point.

But if you're charging someone $3000 for these photos, then you shouldn't be making these errors.

How do you know it's an error? Perhaps the photographer made a stylistic choice to blow out the sky?

reeftool · 12-29-2010, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Copyright

I can see your point.

But if you're charging someone $3000 for these photos, then you shouldn't be making these errors.

I understand that as well. Were your friends happy with the shots originally? I say that because we will notice things in a photo that a non photographer won't. The crooked photo is easy enough to straighten in post so that one shouldn't have been printed. The special effects and glow are created in post so that is easy to change if the customer didn't like it. $3000 is a good piece of change and the job should have been done right, I agree. But much of the issues you mention can be corrected in PP. I have no idea how wedding photographers deal with customers these days as I only know one person who does it. He shows proofs to his customers and gets their approval before having the final album printed and he charges $750 on average, depending on printing costs. Some wedding albums alone can cost several hundred dollars just for printing.

eddie1960 · 12-29-2010, 09:07 AM

the $3000 is at the higher end from what I've seen, some of the errors sound like they were stuff from the second shooter who may not be as experienced. Assuming of course there was a second. The print aspect is a big portion of the cost., I personally wouldn't do a wedding for the $750 your friend does unless that is just his time and all print is separate, and even then given many wedding shoots involve a 12 hour day and a second shooter for the more journalistic casual stuff while the main photographer concentrates on the art and posed side that would barely be subsistence wages (2 shooters x 12 hours plus likely 5-10 hours of post and probably another 3-5 hours of meetings and consultation time works out at $19/hour - reasonably good wages if your getting 40 hours a week not for this type of work though unless you want to hold a second job given at best you would manage 20-25 weddings a year never mind covering you equipment costs)

12-27-2010, 03:35 PM	#1
Copyright Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 54	Wedding photography supposed to have blown highlights? Two of my friends have recently been married. Both couples paid a lot of money for a wedding photographer ($3000). If you showed me the pictures a year ago, I would have said they were great. Now, I find a lot of problems with them. 1) Lots of blown highlights. Not so much in the bride's dress, but more so with windows, the sky, etc... 2) Lens flare. I see a lot of pictures where the lens flare is strategically placed in between the bride and groom. I find that it is really distracting, and I can't help but think that it would be a much better picture without it. 3) Crooked horizons. These are not done for dramatic effect. There were a few that had horizons off by a couple of degrees. This was obviously an oversight, but it was the very first thing that caught my eye. 4) Fake glow. This is an obvious PP effect. A lot of pics have that fake glow about them. It just seems to me like they took an average picture and added a "cool" photoshop effect to make it interesting. 5) Effects in general. I find that a lot of photos have some sort of filter or effect used for no other reason than to use some sort of filter or effect. The best way I can describe it is like the person that gets their first P&S digital camera and uses all the effects presets in the software that came bundled with it. Then they post them on facebook and everyone thinks they look really cool because it is something other than a normal photograph. (Kind of like the Lomo effect) So am I missing something? Perhaps I'm being too critical because I know what to look for. But I know a lot of you are wedding photographers and would never let anything like this happen in your photos.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wedding Photography	LSPhotography	Photographic Technique	25	09-10-2010 08:14 AM
Landscape Blown Highlights - Is HDR the Only Solution?	Tamia	Photo Critique	16	08-22-2010 01:10 PM
PP Challenge #15 Blown Highlights & Glass Reflection	matiki	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	16	01-20-2010 10:05 PM
printing Digikam, dark prints or blown highlights	DanS	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	6	12-21-2009 03:47 PM
*istDS and blown highlights?	kuuan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	04-30-2008 05:47 AM

12-27-2010, 03:48 PM	#2
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Sad but true.... I have the same observation that many self-claimed photographers don't even know the basics except may be just merely expensive camera owners.

12-27-2010, 04:11 PM	#3
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Sight unseen, I'd say the crooked horizon is the only one I would object to on principle.

12-27-2010, 04:45 PM	#4
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	can you post an example? thanks randy

12-27-2010, 05:06 PM	#5
einstrigger Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Sacramento, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 728	Would love to see examples as well if possible. I'm just wondering what $3000 gets you in terms of wedding photography.

12-27-2010, 05:07 PM	#6
theunartist Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Baltimore Posts: 2,542	Originally posted by Copyright So am I missing something? Perhaps I'm being too critical because I know what to look for. But I know a lot of you are wedding photographers and would never let anything like this happen in your photos. If the customers were happy, that's all that really counts. the photographer isn't doing a journalistic type of job for National Geographic but more or less what the paying customer wants. They probably saw samples and most likely said, "we like that, can you do that for us!" Most Wedding Photographers are pretty good with lighting and can maximize "ambiance", so what you saw is probably what the wedding party wanted... Perfection is in the eye of the check writer (and always will be)...

12-27-2010, 06:27 PM	#7
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	Originally posted by theunartist If the customers were happy, that's all that really counts. the photographer isn't doing a journalistic type of job for National Geographic but more or less what the paying customer wants. They probably saw samples and most likely said, "we like that, can you do that for us!" Most Wedding Photographers are pretty good with lighting and can maximize "ambiance", so what you saw is probably what the wedding party wanted... Perfection is in the eye of the check writer (and always will be)... I am amazed of how many people think that direct harsh sunlight is the best to take photos in. If they are happy that is great. but if you look at it as more sales for your self, every photo you take is a "sales tool". If others see the photos they will also judge them (and if they like them they might get you to shoot their wedding) what a local pro does is narrow down the choices before he shows the bride and groom and let them choose between the best of the best. that way there is a balance between what they want and what is good for advertising (indirectly of course) to family and friends hope this makes sense randy Last edited by slip; 12-27-2010 at 06:32 PM.

12-27-2010, 08:58 PM	#8
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by Copyright So am I missing something? Perhaps I'm being too critical because I know what to look for. But I know a lot of you are wedding photographers and would never let anything like this happen in your photos. The couple chose the photographer partly based on the portfolio offered. If they are happy with that style of shooting and processing, then there really isn't much to be said. Say what you will about personal peccadilloes about filters and effects, but there is a certain expectation among brides that you need to fulfill if you want to get business.

12-28-2010, 09:34 AM	#9
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	If your friends are happy with the photos, then that should be fine. While it's easy to be critical sometimes, I always ask myself if I was there and had to crank out a couple hundred shots in what will most likely be horrible lighting conditions, would they be any better? I've shot a few weddings and it isn't easy. I no longer do them at all. Digital should probably make things a little easier. I have only shot weddings with film. A lot of people like some of the special effects possible in digital photography so choices on that come down to personal preference.

12-28-2010, 07:19 PM	#10
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Most importantly, how well were the subjects rendered? That's what they are photos of, after all. I'd be more willing to forgive some technical faux pas in the background if the photographer did an especially good job with the subjects.

12-28-2010, 08:51 PM	#11
Copyright Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 54 Original Poster	Originally posted by reeftool If your friends are happy with the photos, then that should be fine. While it's easy to be critical sometimes, I always ask myself if I was there and had to crank out a couple hundred shots in what will most likely be horrible lighting conditions, would they be any better? I've shot a few weddings and it isn't easy. I no longer do them at all. Digital should probably make things a little easier. I have only shot weddings with film. A lot of people like some of the special effects possible in digital photography so choices on that come down to personal preference. I can see your point. But if you're charging someone $3000 for these photos, then you shouldn't be making these errors.

12-28-2010, 09:09 PM	#12
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	ive seen some real crap photos of wedding, so much so...I now believe I could get way with doing a wedding .... doing some PP work to make a image better is often all that's left to do..as you cant go back to the scene and do it again....Id have to say that wedding would be stress city for a shooter...but one day id love to try it..

12-28-2010, 11:34 PM	#13
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by Copyright I can see your point. But if you're charging someone $3000 for these photos, then you shouldn't be making these errors. How do you know it's an error? Perhaps the photographer made a stylistic choice to blow out the sky?

12-29-2010, 08:18 AM	#14
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	Originally posted by Copyright I can see your point. But if you're charging someone $3000 for these photos, then you shouldn't be making these errors. I understand that as well. Were your friends happy with the shots originally? I say that because we will notice things in a photo that a non photographer won't. The crooked photo is easy enough to straighten in post so that one shouldn't have been printed. The special effects and glow are created in post so that is easy to change if the customer didn't like it. $3000 is a good piece of change and the job should have been done right, I agree. But much of the issues you mention can be corrected in PP. I have no idea how wedding photographers deal with customers these days as I only know one person who does it. He shows proofs to his customers and gets their approval before having the final album printed and he charges $750 on average, depending on printing costs. Some wedding albums alone can cost several hundred dollars just for printing.

12-29-2010, 09:07 AM	#15
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,667	the $3000 is at the higher end from what I've seen, some of the errors sound like they were stuff from the second shooter who may not be as experienced. Assuming of course there was a second. The print aspect is a big portion of the cost., I personally wouldn't do a wedding for the $750 your friend does unless that is just his time and all print is separate, and even then given many wedding shoots involve a 12 hour day and a second shooter for the more journalistic casual stuff while the main photographer concentrates on the art and posed side that would barely be subsistence wages (2 shooters x 12 hours plus likely 5-10 hours of post and probably another 3-5 hours of meetings and consultation time works out at $19/hour - reasonably good wages if your getting 40 hours a week not for this type of work though unless you want to hold a second job given at best you would manage 20-25 weddings a year never mind covering you equipment costs)