# Bridal/ Looking for CC



## bennielou (Apr 22, 2010)

I read a post directed at me a few days ago, and I knew of and respected the poster who wrote it.  The poster has been on here for even longer than I have, and has seen my work over the years.

Basically, the post said that I was not spending the amount of time I used to on photos, and seem to be rushing through them.  Thus my work has suffered.

I thought about that for a really long time, because I think there is a lot of truth in that.

So with this in mind, I'm trying to get to where I was.  But this is where I need help, because there have been so many years that have passed, and I'm not sure when I started going downhill.  My clients need the best level of work I can bring them.

Therefore, I would really love every bit of feedback you can give me.  I swear, I will not bite anyone's head off. :meh:

Some background on the bride and her requirements:  Due to stress of planning a wedding, she has gained weight and is especially not fond of her neck, arms and belly area.  She wanted these fixed.  She is also a bit more mature in age, and wanted to full out fantasy look.  There is some very heavy retouching in the following photos.

I have only just begun to process these images, and am still in the early stages of doing so.  But before I went any further, I wanted to check in with you all.  I sometimes don't love it, but I get valuable advice here.  You many not think I'm listening, but in truth, I am.

1.






2.





3.





4.





5.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 22, 2010)

deleted by op


----------



## LBPhotog (Apr 22, 2010)

...  I am getting so frustrated ... how in the world do you get that porcelain doll look on your skin tones without screwing up the rest of the image .... :x

her smile looks so pained ... taken before the ceremony I am going to guess, she looks SUPER NERVOUS ...


----------



## bennielou (Apr 22, 2010)

LBPhotog said:


> ... I am getting so frustrated ... how in the world do you get that porcelain doll look on your skin tones without screwing up the rest of the image .... :x
> 
> her smile looks so pained ... taken before the ceremony I am going to guess, she looks SUPER NERVOUS ...


 
She was really insecure. That happens. She's a really sweet lady though.

The way I achieve the porcelain look is to use a product called Portraiture. It is time intensive, and can be a pain in the butt. Basically, on each photo, I select all of her skin. I then have to deselect all of things I want sharp, like jewlrey, eyes, nostrils, eyebrows, teeth and lips.

Portaiture is a very cool program, and you can run it at many different levels, from just a "light dusting" to a full out plastic look.


----------



## dom yo (Apr 22, 2010)

LBPhotog said:


> ...  I am getting so frustrated ... how in the world do you get that porcelain doll look on your skin tones without screwing up the rest of the image .... :x
> 
> her smile looks so pained ... taken before the ceremony I am going to guess, she looks SUPER NERVOUS ...


if i can find you the write up that i learned from ill pm it to you, once you get it, its extremely fun

bennielou,
the only one im not a fan of is 1
other than that, i think the pictures look great. as was said earlier, her expression looks painted on which is unfortunate.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 22, 2010)

erose86 said:


> LBPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > her smile looks so pained ... taken before the ceremony I am going to guess, she looks SUPER NERVOUS ...
> ...


 
You have every right to CC me, because at the end of the day, you are my "client" with the added bonus of having some idea about how photography works. I really appreciate your very specific CC. And I will also say that I agree.

#2 was for variation more than anything else. I was framing using the branches. I agree that I wasn't all that happy with it, but there are also "clean shots" without the branching. But the reason I put it up here was to see how people felt about it.

You are right about#3 and #4. The veil makes all the difference, and I should have pulled it back on #3.

It's strange that you like #5 as that is one of my favorites as well. I did a totally no no though, and totally cut off her right eyeball with the veil. I would be killed in a competion for that, but I still thought there was something sweet about it and that is why I shared it.

Thank you for the cc. Keep it coming!


----------



## bennielou (Apr 22, 2010)

dom yo said:


> LBPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > ... I am getting so frustrated ... how in the world do you get that porcelain doll look on your skin tones without screwing up the rest of the image .... :x
> ...


 

Dom, besides the expression, is there anything other about the photo you don't like?


----------



## dom yo (Apr 22, 2010)

bennielou said:


> dom yo said:
> 
> 
> > LBPhotog said:
> ...


well as far as the first one goes
(and im also using erose's disclaimer on C&C :greenpbl
the subject just seems to bright compared to the background, it almost looks fake

thats just me though


----------



## bennielou (Apr 22, 2010)

dom yo said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > dom yo said:
> ...


 
Good lighting CC.  Thank you!


----------



## ghpham (Apr 22, 2010)

The only one I don't like is number 5 for the very reason you've stated, ie, you cut off her eye with the veil.

I get frustrated looking at these pictures only because for whatever reason, I can't seems to get the eyes tack sharp like yours here.  Perhaps I will post up a pic and ask for advice.


----------



## pilotgirl2007 (Apr 22, 2010)

She does look very nervous and that might be part of the reason her arms are bothering me, but in all the photos she is holding her arms the same way (minus the close ups obviously). They are just kind of forced straight down at her sides. I love all of the photos especially the close up ones, her skin looks so great!! I love the way you processed them (I am also using the noob disclaimer mentioned previously lol)


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 22, 2010)

You did not answer the question about whether those were shot before the ceremony...

I find this important because in my experience the B&G are way too nervous/stressed to photograph before the ceremony. I found that once the ceremony is over they finally start breathing normally again and it makes for more relaxed, natural looking photos as far as expression is concerned.

With me, it became part of the contract in the sense that I refused to do any formal portraits before. Either they made the time for those shots after or I didn't take the job.

Aside from that, I don't have a problem with the lighting but the skin looks a bit too PPed for my taste. She doesn't look plastic and this is just a matter of personal taste. The position of her arms does bother me however. Maybe it wouldn't as much if there was some variety. In some of them, you could have had her holding the bouquet up front with both hands...

Cheers.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 22, 2010)

ghpham said:


> The only one I don't like is number 5 for the very reason you've stated, ie, you cut off her eye with the veil.
> 
> I get frustrated looking at these pictures only because for whatever reason, I can't seems to get the eyes tack sharp like yours here. Perhaps I will post up a pic and ask for advice.


 

Thank you Ghpham.

I'm doing the eyes on it's own layer using unsharp mask.  I hope that helps.  Feel free to upload a photo, and I will show you the settings I am using.
Thanks again.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 22, 2010)

pilotgirl2007 said:


> She does look very nervous and that might be part of the reason her arms are bothering me, but in all the photos she is holding her arms the same way (minus the close ups obviously). They are just kind of forced straight down at her sides. I love all of the photos especially the close up ones, her skin looks so great!! I love the way you processed them (I am also using the noob disclaimer mentioned previously lol)


 

Thank you.  Yes, she was very nervous.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 22, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> You did not answer the question about whether those were shot before the ceremony...
> 
> I find this important because in my experience the B&G are way too nervous/stressed to photograph before the ceremony. I found that once the ceremony is over they finally start breathing normally again and it makes for more relaxed, natural looking photos as far as expression is concerned.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Cloud, sorry for leaving out my answers.  These photos were taken then evening before her wedding.  I'll be sharing her photos after the wedding soon.
Thanks!


----------



## bennielou (Apr 22, 2010)

ghpham said:


> The only one I don't like is number 5 for the very reason you've stated, ie, you cut off her eye with the veil.
> 
> I get frustrated looking at these pictures only because for whatever reason, I can't seems to get the eyes tack sharp like yours here. Perhaps I will post up a pic and ask for advice.


 
If you could, please send me a high res file to 
With your permission, I will do a short tutorial about it.


----------



## ghpham (Apr 22, 2010)

bennielou said:


> ghpham said:
> 
> 
> > The only one I don't like is number 5 for the very reason you've stated, ie, you cut off her eye with the veil.
> ...


 

Ooohh...Thank you for the offer Cindy!


----------



## bennielou (Apr 22, 2010)

No problem!


----------



## ghpham (Apr 22, 2010)

I've edited my post to remove your email.  Perhaps you should do the same


----------



## manaheim (Apr 22, 2010)

I'm not a wedding photographer or a portrait photographer, though I do watch for works of people like this with great interest and I'm not totally without a clue.

For me, these images seem better than fine.  Best I have ever seen?  No, but they seem nice and PPed reasonably.  They are nowhere NEAR bottom of the heap.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 22, 2010)

The eyes are always sharp in your images, good job. 

However, the thing that bothers me most is it's an identical pose in every single shot. The only thing that changes is the scenery or the angle/crop. 

I think #7 is done really well. I am not fond of the branches in her face in #1 or cutting across her in #2 though. The framing idea is good in theory, but I don't think it worked here.



bennielou said:


> Thank you.  Yes, she was very nervous.



How do you normally go about making your subjects more comfortable during shoots?


----------



## bennielou (Apr 23, 2010)

Thanks Manaheim and Josh220.  And thank you both for the CC.

Josh, I normally figure the first 20 shots or so is going to be junk, because these ladies aren't pro models, and being the center of attention with cameras and lights in your face in front of tons of bystanders totally freaks them out.  I can't blame them.

They normally loosen up as the go.  I try to make it fun, I even do little sample poses for them which usually cracks them up.  I urge them to bring their friends who are pretty good at noticing the "fake smile" and can have them laughing, real laughing, and give them courage with their "ooohhhsss, and ahhhs".

A lot of people hire me via the interenet because they are out of state, as was the case here.  I had never met this bride in person before, so it was super weird for her I'm sure.  The later photos (which I am working on) show her in a lot more relaxed mood.

Thanks again for the CC.


----------



## KAikens318 (Apr 25, 2010)

I really like the photos, I like the setting. The PP is good too, I like the smoothed skin look. Everything looks properly exposed and saturated. 

I just can't get past how uncomfortable she looks, especially in number 7.


----------



## JimFly (Apr 25, 2010)

Awesome.... and pro looking


----------



## Lyncca (Apr 26, 2010)

Cindy, I feel funny even saying this to you being well, you are you and I am just me. LOL.  I think what I notice in your work isn't so much that you aren't spending as much time as some images look way more processed than others.  When I use Portraiture, etc. I notice that I can't use the same setting from photo to photo because this will happen. #4 to me in this set is processed stronger than the others, especially they eyes (they look a little vampirish to me).

Also, just C&C on these photos, is I would clone out the shine on her nose in 5-7.  It really draws my eye to her nose and in #1 there is a heavy shadow on the right side of her nose and some funny shadowing in #2 by her mouth that you may be able to clone out (not sure that you could control the lighting for that other than jumping in the water).


----------



## artoledo (Apr 27, 2010)

bennielou said:


> LBPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > ... I am getting so frustrated ... how in the world do you get that porcelain doll look on your skin tones without screwing up the rest of the image .... :x
> ...


 
Portraiture is a program from what dreams are made of. 
I feel that she is a tad bit to porcelain doll-like. Maybe if you brought down the softness in Portraiture it would give it a better look. But then again, this is just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## NoelNTexas (Apr 27, 2010)

To get the great skin without the plastic look.. My way..

forgot one and dont want to renumber..so Step 0. get rid of big blemishes with healing/patch healing tool.
Step 1. Select the skin of person 
step 2. Copy and past
step 3. duplicate layer- lets call this skin 2
step 4. hide (skin2 ) for later
step 5. surface blur copy and pasted layer until the skin is smooth and the tones are even
step 6. set the opacity of the copy and pasted layer to around 75-80ish
step 7. make (skin2) visable agian
step 8. Filter>Other>Highpass filter skin 2 layer, -- just enough to see fine detailing - you will see when its about right
step 9. set skin2 layers blend mode to -soft light- dodge ever so slightly on shadows to pull the pores in a little..

Not the best way, but its a start


----------



## bennielou (Apr 28, 2010)

Lyncca said:


> Cindy, I feel funny even saying this to you being well, you are you and I am just me. LOL. I think what I notice in your work isn't so much that you aren't spending as much time as some images look way more processed than others. When I use Portraiture, etc. I notice that I can't use the same setting from photo to photo because this will happen. #4 to me in this set is processed stronger than the others, especially they eyes (they look a little vampirish to me).
> 
> Also, just C&C on these photos, is I would clone out the shine on her nose in 5-7. It really draws my eye to her nose and in #1 there is a heavy shadow on the right side of her nose and some funny shadowing in #2 by her mouth that you may be able to clone out (not sure that you could control the lighting for that other than jumping in the water).


 
Thank you very much Lyncca. That is exactly what I am looking for. Thank you.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 28, 2010)

artoledo said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > LBPhotog said:
> ...


 
I agree with you. It's way over the top with Portraiture. However, some brides hire me for that kind of work.

But I know it's not a photogs fave.

Thank you!


----------



## bennielou (Apr 28, 2010)

NoelNTexas said:


> To get the great skin without the plastic look.. My way..
> 
> forgot one and dont want to renumber..so Step 0. get rid of big blemishes with healing/patch healing tool.
> Step 1. Select the skin of person
> ...


 
Thank you Noel.  I do that sometimes, but this client payed for the Barbie on Acid look.


----------



## NoelNTexas (Apr 28, 2010)

Well then thumbs up! Givem what they want!


----------



## JackRabbit (Apr 28, 2010)

Way overboard on the skin smoothing and eyes. These things look ridiculous in all shots.

1.) Open up aperture, narrower DOF, be more mindful of the framing that you tried to create.

2.) Crop up from bottom left to eliminate most of the river still visible. It will give it a "in the middle of the woods" type look. It just looks to busy as is.

3.) The way her veil is sitting reminds me of the ugly awkward girl at school with horrible poofy hair.

4.) Eek. Waaaay too much on the skin and eyes. Ruin the otherwise decent shot.

5.) Again, too much on the skin homes. 

6.) Where did her chin go? Oh yeah, you lost it with the extravagant and criminal use of portraiture.

7.) Still looking for it...

8.) Better. More contrast between her and the pole would have done you good.


----------



## JackRabbit (Apr 28, 2010)

With the equipment and resources you have access to, I would expect much more.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 29, 2010)

JackRabbit said:


> With the equipment and resources you have access to, I would expect much more.



*waits patiently*


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

JackRabbit said:


> Way overboard on the skin smoothing and eyes. These things look ridiculous in all shots.
> 
> 1.) Open up aperture, narrower DOF, be more mindful of the framing that you tried to create.
> 
> ...


 

I'm guessing you have a lot of time on your hands.  You have been rude to me, and that is ok.  But do not be rude to my client.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

JackRabbit said:


> With the equipment and resources you have access to, I would expect much more.


 

Well I could put up a whole steaming pile of what I have, but it wouln't matter now, would it? You are dead set on being rude, without even ONE photo of your own to show me your greatness.

Hey, you don't have to like what I do.  You don't pay me money.  I don't mind honest CC, but you are just rude.  And you have no practical experience.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 29, 2010)

Oh lord, I just went to your website.  Let's just say we do things a lot differently.
Good luck to you, and I really mean that.


----------



## JackRabbit (Apr 29, 2010)

bennielou said:


> JackRabbit said:
> 
> 
> > Way overboard on the skin smoothing and eyes. These things look ridiculous in all shots.
> ...



No, I was not being rude to you. I do not see even one remark in that post that specifically points you the photographer out. It was entirely focused on constructively critiquing the photos you posted.

And I'm sorry, let me clarify what I meant by #3. I was NOT in anyway taking a shot at your client. I would never, repeat, NEVER go so low as to take a shot at your client. That is unprofessional to say the _very_ least. What I meant is that the way that the veil is laying just looks weird. That's all.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 30, 2010)

Thank you for your crit Jackrabbit.  It is appreciated.


----------



## KAikens318 (May 1, 2010)

bennielou said:


> Oh lord, I just went to your website.  Let's just say we do things a lot differently.
> Good luck to you, and I really mean that.




And THIS wasn't a rude comment? Honestly? I actually think his photos are great, especially for just starting out.

I really can't figure out why you haven't been banned from these forums yet. You instigate fights and drama in almost every thread that you open. If someone isn't as high as you up on that soap box, they aren't allowed to give CC without getting reamed for it.

How about this? I am not a professional at all, I have only gotten paid for a few shoots and am just getting started, but I am taking my artistic eye and seeing a few things that make some of the shots a little less than perfect, but I wouldn't dare put my two cents in because you will come after my photos and say how much I suck even though I have already stated I am no professional YET by any means. 

Ease up on the emotions, people are here to help you and I can see that you were doing well with some of the criticism that was given early on, but then you started right back in again. Please just post one thread where we can all get along and this can remain a peaceful forum as it should be. These forums are a place for us to help each other. Not just the pros helping the pros, but also helping those of us who are still learning the process and don't have as much experience. In my opinion if I were to read only your threads, I would get very discouraged at the world of photography if this is how all professionals acted. If you don't like the C&C people are giving you or if you aren't going to take what people have told you and learn from it, perhaps you shouldn't be posting on here anymore. I enjoy some of your photos, I really do, and although I am not one for the over processed look (before you say it, I know you have hoards of brides flocking to you for this 'niche market'), I still think that you put out quality photos for what the niche is. 

Go easy on those of us who aren't at your level, although most of the time it seems that is everyone. We are just trying to help.


----------



## clarinetJWD (May 3, 2010)

I understand that you were trying to draw attention away from her neck, and the common way of avoiding neck/chin issues is to have them look up a little.  However, the way her posture is (shifted forward a little), all it does is draw attention to the fact that's what is going on, and looks awkward.  It's almost as if the photo announces "Please don't look at my neck", which to me is exactly the opposite of the point.

As a second point, it seems an utterly amazing coincidence that every client of yours just happens to ask for the exact same type of PP.  I second JackRabbit's challenge (from another thread) to post a photo where you achieve the desired skin tones without massive photoshopping.  I think Photoshop is a vital tool, and I won't post a photo that hasn't been touched up in Photoshop, but to me the point is to accentuate the beauty of the photograph in a way that doesn't draw attention to the post processing.

Finally, each of these shots (as well as in other threads) loooks as if the subject is a cut out, pasted onto a background.  This is due to the fact that you process the subject (sharpen on the clothes, obliterate on the skin) to such a high degree that it no longer looks like it's a part of the photo.

Clearly, I have been around here a long time and seen some of your old work.  I know you have talent, but I'm not seeing it come through in your recent work like it used to back before you called yourself "pro".


----------



## ghpham (May 4, 2010)

clarinetJWD said:


> I understand that you were trying to draw attention away from her neck, and the common way of avoiding neck/chin issues is to have them look up a little. However, the way her posture is (shifted forward a little), all it does is draw attention to the fact that's what is going on, and looks awkward. It's almost as if the photo announces "Please don't look at my neck", which to me is exactly the opposite of the point.
> 
> *As a second point, it seems an utterly amazing coincidence that every client of yours just happens to ask for the exact same type of PP*. I second JackRabbit's challenge (from another thread) to post a photo where you achieve the desired skin tones without massive photoshopping. I think Photoshop is a vital tool, and I won't post a photo that hasn't been touched up in Photoshop, but to me the point is to accentuate the beauty of the photograph in a way that doesn't draw attention to the post processing.
> 
> ...


 
I don't understand your point at all.  Look at McD.  They serve exact the same hamburger wherever you go.  It's called a niche.  If my clients want a certain look, I'd give it to them every single time.  The OP mentioned over and over that her clients want this look.  Why can't you guys let that go?? comments on composition or something else.  :thumbdown:


----------

