# Engagement Set at Brazos Bend Park, Texas. Ridiculous natural light!



## TheoGraphics (Sep 19, 2012)

Recently shot these out at Brazos Bend State Park here near Houston. We had some absolutely amazing natural light that day, I wish every session could be like this one!


You can see the entire set on my blog: *http://theo-graphics.com/blog/downing-engagement/*


1





2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16





You can watch the slideshow video here if you'd like:


----------



## janineh (Sep 20, 2012)

Beautiful set!! Really like 4, 5, 9 and 11. Great job!


----------



## timor (Sep 21, 2012)

Is that professional wedding photography ? Really ?


----------



## TheFantasticG (Sep 21, 2012)

I liked the set. That's a great location for bug stuffs as well.


----------



## jake337 (Sep 21, 2012)

I like #14 the best.


----------



## jake337 (Sep 21, 2012)

timor said:


> Is that professional wedding photography ? Really ?



If they are getting paid then yes.  Does it matter?  Can one not get paid for their work?  

As long as someone is charging based on the quality of the images they produce.......


----------



## ronlane (Sep 21, 2012)

timor said:


> Is that professional wedding photography ? Really ?



No, it's engagement photography as mentioned in the title.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 21, 2012)

way too many posted to really go through and critique.  just on a scroll through though, bunch could have benefited from some fill flash, some very blown out backgrounds, and a few towards the end looked underexposed. I liked most of the posing (except the shots with the couple on the road) 
the B&W of her in the field was very nice.


----------



## timor (Sep 21, 2012)

ronlane said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Is that professional wedding photography ? Really ?
> ...


Is that a lower level of photography then wedding ? Well, as Jake said: Doesn't matter as long as the "creator" is paid, then it is a true professional whatever.
I am out of here.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 21, 2012)

timor said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...




Nothing more cool then being an ass on the internet.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 21, 2012)

timor said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...



It's not only "professional" it's also _*extremely*_ good with excellent attention to shadow detail and natural color.

As with any set, some are better than others, and in this set some are really not very good. #3 is just kind of silly, #7 is overly sentimental, the color on #9 is good, the black and white, however, the processing work for me. Some of the more saturated, late afternoon images work, some don't. I especially like the top image in #11. The top image in #8 is very good, the boots are kind of goofy. #5 and #6 are all very, very good.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 21, 2012)

timor said:
			
		

> Is that professional wedding photography ? Really ?



Well first, it's clearly an engagement set as she's not wearing a white dress. Secondly, Theo's skills are pretty great even if this natural light may have some fill light needs.

But, I'm sure you're too busy shooting $35 portrait sessions with your D3000 and kit lens to recognize quality.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ I think people are just too attached to glossy magazine pages to realize that it's harder to achieve subtly than the "wow factor"


----------



## timor (Sep 21, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> Nothing more cool then being an ass on the internet.


 Maybe I treat photography differently, if that makes me an ass so be it. Thank's.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 21, 2012)

I'm willing to listen and learn here because I am not a pro and I have been wrong (or at least in the minority opinion) on too many occasions to feel superior to the opinions of others.

My thoughts are that these appear flat, overexposed and could use some serious adjustment to the levels of contrast.  The colors appear washed out and the lighting, to me, is not well done.  But again, tell me I am wrong and show me why because I'd see this as a learning experience...


----------



## ronlane (Sep 21, 2012)

Looked again, yep pretty sure that it is photography that the OP posted. BTW, what happened you "I'm out of here"?


----------



## unpopular (Sep 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> My thoughts are that these appear flat, overexposed and could use some serious adjustment to the levels of contrast.  The colors appear washed out and the lighting, to me, is not well done.  But again, tell me I am wrong and show me why because I'd see this as a learning experience...



By very definition, 'flatness' is a lack of near absolute black and near absolute white. If you look at the histogram of the lowest contrast images, this isn't the case - at least in the color images. They are certainly not over exposed, as there is plenty of hilight detail and no clipping.

These images are "neutral contrast"  and "high key". In today's attraction to overt and dramatic style, this isn't very popular. But really, it's more of a taste issue, than anything technically wrong.

One must ask, though, what would be gained by higher contrast and more dramatic light? You'd loose a sense of intimacy, they'd have a more commercial appearance - like a fashion shoot. But these are engagement photos. They aren't meant to be dramatic, intense or overt. They should be intimate, soft and personal. So I don't think adding drama would do much good.


----------



## fotomumma09 (Sep 21, 2012)

Beautiful set! I would be very happy with these if they were my engagement photos.


----------



## timor (Sep 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> It's not only "professional" it's also _*extremely*_ good with excellent attention to shadow detail and natural color.


I take your word for it. Do you mean _extremely _based on capabilities of digital photography or abilities of using it by normal people ? I don't even have a beef with technical aspects of this "shoot", however I think the highlights went to the moon. I "have" problem with random, sometimes not pretty settings and, the big one, with totally unimaginative work of the photographer. I don't care, that I can see every single grass in the shadows, but if those are engagement photos, there should be some feel of romance. Instead the girl is smiling to camera in repetitive pose over the shoulder, the face of the man is clearly unwilling, stiff and photographer didn't do much to change this. Just let them walk around and do "something".
And yes James, I can see, she does not have a white wedding dress. No matter, wedding, engagement or party, all is an event photography, all the same pot. The difference is romance for engagement, glamour for wedding and fun for party. And no, James, I don't do photography for money so I have plenty of time to recognize soulless HQ pics.


----------



## timor (Sep 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> I'm willing to listen and learn here because I am not a pro and I have been wrong (or at least in the minority opinion) on too many occasions to feel superior to the opinions of others.
> 
> My thoughts are that these appear flat, overexposed and could use some serious adjustment to the levels of contrast.  The colors appear washed out and the lighting, to me, is not well done.  But again, tell me I am wrong and show me why because I'd see this as a learning experience...


 Here you go man, same feelings here.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 21, 2012)

Oh, IDK. I see a big brute of a man who clearly loves his fiancé, but may not always know how to show it. I see who he is, not how he *should* be. I see a traditional, meat and potatoes kind of guy.

If that's totally inaccurate, then it's a complete failure. If it's pretty spot on, then it's a huge success.

As far as "flatness" and "overexposed", that's just not technically correct. And I'm sorry you don't like the inland South Eastern Texas landscape.


----------



## timor (Sep 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Oh, IDK. I see a big brute of a man who clearly loves his fiancé, but may not always know how to show it. I see who he is, not how he *should* be. I see a traditional, meat and potatoes kind of guy.


Is the task of the photographer to leave his clients with something different then just snapshots, something what in 20 years will bring smile and rekindle the feelings of that days. Is the task of the photographer to relax and make comfortable his subjects of the shoot. I know, it's not easy, I used to be a "social" photographer in school and I can tell you, that after years only the "crazy" pictures survived, most of the rest, stiffly posed, unemotional, indifferent pics got lost. And yes, I think for many there is something to learn from shiny magazines . Not because pros have better equipment then D3000 with kit lens, but because beside the technicality of the camera they study also composition, ways of expression of emotions and use it at work.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 21, 2012)

A good photographer documents the subject, not an idealized version of what the subject "ought" to be. If this guy were a gregarious teddybear, I'm willing to agree with you.

But not everyone is that person. 

I really don't see a lot of tension or discomfort in the subject.


----------



## timor (Sep 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> A good photographer documents the subject, not an idealized version of what the subject "ought" to be.


Love is idealistic. And the subjects "ought" to be in one. Show me it.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> As far as "flatness" and "overexposed", that's just not technically correct. And I'm sorry you don't like the inland South Eastern Texas landscape.




These are not properly exposed, sorry, and I grew up and lived in South Texas for 30+ years and still consider it my "home country" even though I am currently living abroad in Washington DC.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 21, 2012)

I could be wrong, but has that groom to be ever "experimented" with weights?


----------



## unpopular (Sep 21, 2012)

The idea of "proper exposure" is a myth propagated by people who don't know what exposure is.


----------



## Tee (Sep 21, 2012)

Theo-  I'm sure the couple will be thrilled with your work.  Your processing style is very popular and "in".  Nice natural light.  

With regards to commenting on the people being photographed- it's a golden rule to never bash on the model/ people themselves.  It's just not cool.  Or maybe it's just my golden rule.  Either way, the subjects don't deserve criticism based on their looks.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 21, 2012)

timor said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, IDK. I see a big brute of a man who clearly loves his fiancé, but may not always know how to show it. I see who he is, not how he *should* be. I see a traditional, meat and potatoes kind of guy.
> ...



With every post by you, I am more and more convinced that you are really and truly qualified to judge other people's photos...

...and spelling...

...and reading for comprehension...

...and life choices...

...and... oh... just about everything.

To the OP- I saw some in there I loved.  A few odd poses here and there and a couple I might have passed on, but as a set they looked pretty nice. Too many to comment on individually.


----------



## Scuba (Sep 21, 2012)

Timor are you just an angry person or what?  It is one thing to not like something and another to just be a nasty about it.  Give some constructive comments if you have something to say.

I think this is a good set overall.  I agree a few could use some fill flash and that the guy is kinda boring.  However, just because I see him as emotionless or boring has nothing to do with it as I am not the client and I also don't know the person.  Some people have different personalities and don't express them visually.  The girl looks very happy and I see the emotions between them in the images.  The boot shot is pretty weird to me though.


----------



## Brinr (Sep 21, 2012)

Timor ol Pal! I challenge thee, grace us with some of your photography that we may be awe-struck and that we finally understand these images of which you speak!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Sep 21, 2012)

timor said:


> I take your word for it. Do you mean _extremely _based on capabilities of digital photography or abilities of using it by normal people ? I don't even have a beef with technical aspects of this "shoot", however I think the highlights went to the moon. I "have" problem with random, sometimes not pretty settings and, the big one, with totally unimaginative work of the photographer.



Oh, so every engagement you see needs to be a groundbreaking revelation to photography? Even if the photos are technically sound, they aren't adequate for your ambiguous standards of what is imaginative and what is a bore? 

What's not pretty about the settings chosen here? The beautiful tree, the golden dusk sunset colors, the open wheat fields? All golden standards for engagement photos. Nothing out of the normal here. 




timor said:


> I don't care, that I can see every single grass in the shadows, but if those are engagement photos, there should be some feel of romance. Instead the girl is smiling to camera in repetitive pose over the shoulder, the face of the man is clearly unwilling, stiff and photographer didn't do much to change this. Just let them walk around and do "something".



Perhaps not everyone is as photogenic as you'd like them to be. I read both of their non-verbals as very calm and in-love, exactly what you want to convey in engagement photos. There are plenty of shots here that show this romance that you say is missing. 



timor said:


> And no, James, I don't do photography for money so I have plenty of time to recognize soulless HQ pics.



I'm not going to question your credibility. I am going to say you're extremely harsh on a much-better-than-average set. If you have a better engagement set you've shot, lead by example. Otherwise, you're just making a lot of noise.


----------



## timor (Sep 21, 2012)

Scuba said:


> Timor are you just an angry person or what?  It is one thing to not like something and another to just be a nasty about it.  Give some constructive comments if you have something to say.
> 
> I think this is a good set overall.  I agree a few could use some fill flash and that the guy is kinda boring.  However, just because I see him as emotionless or boring has nothing to do with it as I am not the client and I also don't know the person.  Some people have different personalities and don't express them visually.  The girl looks very happy and I see the emotions between them in the images.  The boot shot is pretty weird to me though.


 I am not angry and where I am nasty ? I am saying nothing about the people in the pictures, all I am saying is that the photographer didn't display much of an initiative or imagination and the pictures, like for professional work, are weak.
Manahim, sorry for my spelling, feel free to correct me every time. It's a work in progress.


----------



## timor (Sep 21, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Oh, so every engagement you see needs to be a groundbreaking revelation to photography?


For the people photographer is working for - yes, they should get much better, then average p&s shots.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ that is a ridiculous exaggeration.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Sep 21, 2012)

timor said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, so every engagement you see needs to be a groundbreaking revelation to photography?
> ...



Wow, now you're just being unreasonable. Please go out and reproduce a set like this with any point and shoot. I dare you to try.


----------



## timor (Sep 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ that is a ridiculous exaggeration.


I don't know, I just typed in Google "engagement photography" (images) and I see a bunch of very romantic, sweet and very personal photos shot with imagination.
Then it is once in a life, (well, here I might be wrong) so why not to exaggerate a bit.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 21, 2012)

I realize that my DSLR isn't close to high end, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a 'romantic, sweet and very personal' button.

Maybe this is a pro feature.


----------



## timor (Sep 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I realize that my DSLR isn't close to high end, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a 'romantic, sweet and very personal' button.
> 
> Maybe this is a pro feature.


Well, upgrade. I am pretty sure I read somewhere that D800 has incredible ability to think for the photographer.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 21, 2012)

12sndsgood said:
			
		

> Nothing more cool then being an ass on the internet.



I think that should have read, "There is *nothing cooler than* _being an ass on the internet_."


----------



## unpopular (Sep 21, 2012)

<<<<<<<<<< ass on the internet.


----------



## timor (Sep 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> <<<<<<<<<< ass on the internet.


I've got to have your avatar then.


----------



## TheoGraphics (Sep 24, 2012)

Wow, this thread blew up! Thanks for your comments, everyone. 

To address a few:

Timor:

To me, photography is subjective. The reason that photography exists is because someone wanted to be able to capture a moment or scene so that they could have a physical representation of a feeling or a memory. In my mind, memories are not always perfectly sharp or "properly exposed" (as it has been called in this thread), which is why my photography tends to change based upon the subjects, mood or time of day. As the sun set on this engagement set, surrounding the couple in a soft, dreamy pink light, I strove to create with my camera what I saw with both my eyes and in my head. It may not be professional-grade photography suited to your more conservative tastes, but I, and the couple, think they turned out beautifully.

In my humble opinion, to pigeonhole photography into a specific set of guidelines as you have listed here not only limits what photography CAN be, but also limits yourself as a photographer. I am perfectly capable of the shots you speak of as true photography, and you can have a look at the links in my signature or my numerous threads on TPF if you'd like proof. I looked for examples of your work here so that I could have a basis for your harsh critique, but was only to find one example of your work. I would like to see more of your portfolio, since you have such a strong opinion on what photography really is. I always respect critiques from others, but even more so if they have an impressive portfolio from which I can take and apply inspiration. 

Lastly, could you please direct me towards said point-and-shoot? It would save me a TON of money on camera body & lens expenses, lol. 

Thanks to Unpopular, JamesBJenkins, Scuba, Rotanimod and everyone else for offering support, meaningful criticism and thoughtful explanations in my absence this weekend. I was busy out swindling clients for their money on my "professional" shoots!


----------



## mwild (Sep 24, 2012)

I think these shots are gorgeous!  Some people need to remember that there isn't simply ONE style of photography to compare all work to, and clients will choose certain styles over others.

Photography is an artform, and with any artform, it becomes difficult to determine and judge what is "perfect" and what is not.  Everyone has different taste and I personally think there is a lot of talent and technique behind these photos.  

My favourite is #5 with the blades of foliage in the foreground.  I generally am pulled more toward contrast in photos, but I quite enjoy the whimsical and dreamy look as well.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 24, 2012)

As much as I've defended OP, photography is only subjective to a point.  Under exposure, focus issues, etc are GENERALLY not artistic choices... They are mistakes (or excuses).

As is discussed here ad nauseum there are certain "guidelines" that are firmly rooted in how the human mind functions and reacts to things visual.  These have been around and understood since at LEAST ancient Greece.  You don't have to follow them all the time but you can't just blow them off either.


----------



## TheoGraphics (Sep 25, 2012)

mwild said:


> I think these shots are gorgeous!  Some people need to remember that there isn't simply ONE style of photography to compare all work to, and clients will choose certain styles over others.
> 
> Photography is an artform, and with any artform, it becomes difficult to determine and judge what is "perfect" and what is not.  Everyone has different taste and I personally think there is a lot of talent and technique behind these photos.
> 
> My favourite is #5 with the blades of foliage in the foreground.  I generally am pulled more toward contrast in photos, but I quite enjoy the whimsical and dreamy look as well.



thanks very much! i agree with your sentiments exactly. 



manaheim said:


> As much as I've defended OP, photography is only subjective to a point.  Under exposure, focus issues, etc are GENERALLY not artistic choices... They are mistakes (or excuses).
> 
> As is discussed here ad nauseum there are certain "guidelines" that are firmly rooted in how the human mind functions and reacts to things visual.  These have been around and understood since at LEAST ancient Greece.  You don't have to follow them all the time but you can't just blow them off either.



Very true! Just to clarify, I am not implying that a photo where the focus is simply missed can be defended with the "well, it's just art" line. and yes, there are general guidelines that can set you on the right path to being a better photographer. no argument there!


----------



## .SimO. (Sep 25, 2012)

Definitely sparked some opinions in this crowd. Great job. 

On a different note,  I'm pretty sure that guy in your images is the oldest brother from Home Improvement... hahahahahaa. j/k.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 25, 2012)

.SimO. said:
			
		

> Definitely sparked some opinions in this crowd. Great job.



That is about as easy as raising your hand or opening your mouth.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 26, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:
			
		

> That is about as easy as raising your hand or opening your mouth.



Very true.


----------



## timor (Sep 29, 2012)

TheoGraphics said:


> To me, photography is subjective.


Yes, I agree. So what is it, you can have your subjectivity, but you deny me my ? It is just different point of view. Call it "names" or directed anger on me is a nice show. But maybe I am mistaking something, maybe this part of the forum is for "patting on the shoulder" only ? Well, I still think it's a discussion forum, expect criticism. I did visit your website on which you advertise your photography and in my opinion set you present here displays very little or none of the signature the pictures on your website have. Posting this set here as a peak of your performance just makes me wonder.


----------



## TheoGraphics (Oct 9, 2012)

No, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. I have no anger or names directed towards you whatsoever. You seemed quite hostile towards my work, starting your string of comments with a less-than-helpful "Is that professional wedding photography ? Really ?". 

We don't have to agree on what we think is good photography, but I feel like most of your comments were less constructive and more just plain criticism.

I'd still like to see some examples of your work.


----------



## MrISO (Oct 9, 2012)

I love all of these pictures. The slightly overexposed composition of them is different but I think it works. It gives a kind of a fairy tale-esk Prince Charming meets Cinderella Love story background. Don't listen to the haters! These are great


----------

