# Bridal



## Mark_McCall (Nov 12, 2011)

Available light is always the prettiest light, but even that needs help. Metz 45CL-4 to camera right, set -2 stops to ambient. F5.6


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 12, 2011)

Why'd you cut off the trail of the dress?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2011)

Seems to be a lot of cyan in the diffuse of the dress, some selective correction might help, provided its actually there, I'm mobile right now. 

I agree, on the cropping, kind of ruins a very good shot.


----------



## cgipson1 (Nov 13, 2011)

The way the train of the dress (nice diagonal) leads to the edge... it leads the eye... to nowhere. It kills the shot. Otherwise very nice...


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 13, 2011)

In the old days, cutting into the dress would be akin to taboo. Professionally, we've been past that way of thinking for a long time. I love classical photography, but some habits die hard.


----------



## cgipson1 (Nov 13, 2011)

I am not talking about old taboo's... I am talking about how it affects the shot. If the crop on the dress was symmetrical, it wouldn't be so bad.. but the way it is, it severely unbalances the shot. As a said before, great shot other than that.... good color, good focus... just the white dress to nowhere is extremely distracting....

Excuse the quick and dirty edit.... 






(EDIT)... my girlfriend walked by while I had the original photo up.. and said (and I quote)... "damn... that beautiful dress... looks like it cost a fortune, and they cut the train off... looks terrible! I bet the bride was pissed!" 

Female opinion.... lol! Maybe those old "taboo's" still have some value!


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Nov 13, 2011)

FWIW, I don't have an issue with the train fading out of the photo. I don't think there was any detail of it that was impacted as a result.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 13, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> In the old days, cutting into the dress would be akin to taboo. Professionally, we've been past that way of thinking for a long time. I love classical photography, but some habits die hard.



That is a cop-out, and no, we aren't past that.  Also, like pointed out, there is a bluish tint to the bottom of the dress.  The crop is akward, the bride is centered in the frame and there is too much dead space on top.  Add to that the lighting barely shows any of the detail in her dress.

Honestly, C- at best.  You can, and usually do much better.


----------



## cgipson1 (Nov 13, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> FWIW, I don't have an issue with the train fading out of the photo. I don't think there was any detail of it that was impacted as a result.



other than composition, no detail was affected!


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 19, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Mark_McCall said:
> 
> 
> > In the old days, cutting into the dress would be akin to taboo. Professionally, we've been past that way of thinking for a long time. I love classical photography, but some habits die hard.
> ...



Apologies for the delay in response. Busy time of year at the studio with travel and seminars. 
Thanks for comments, George. I think. LOL

For the benefit of those reading, and who are working on their own portfolio, I think it's important not to confuse a personal opinion with technical "correctness". 
Many will take what they read online, and apply it as gospel. 
At every convention, seminar or public appearance I'm making, someone on the front row will make left field comment, then follow it up with..."I read it online". 
Always seek out the input of other photographers to continually raise the level of the work your producing. Oftentimes, someone will catch something you miss. But temper it with reasoning, and seek out multiple sources of input. 
This in no way means to imply that online opinions aren't helpful or constructive. Quite the contrary. 

George, no copout here. 
Cutting into the dress simply doesn't a big deal anymore. Hasn't been for quite awhile. I chose the location, time of day, light placement and composition very carefully. 

The image was accepted into the PPA General Collection as one of the merit images every photographer has to achieve to become a Master. 
It was given merit scores by 3 panels, SWPPA, TPPA, and SPPPA (of which it received the highest score of the competition). 
None of the 17 judges who scored it (11 of which were Masters) mentioned the dress crop....._because it simply doesn't matter. 
_
George, in no way am I disregarding your remarks. 
I'm keenly aware that others reading may take cropping the dress as a definite no-no, which of course, it is not.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Mark_McCall said:
> ...


The cutting into the dress was merely one of the problems with this image.  The fact that it was accepted into your PPA 'club' as Master image only reinforces my reasons for not joining your little club.

Look, I saw what you were doing when you joined this forum.  You posted a lot of images that were already judged in your 'club' as 'merit' type images.  I just wasn't sure why.

I don't care if 17 judges scored this image well.  I have dozens just like it in my recycle bin.

Color balance issues(why is her dress blue?), composition issues(why is her head in the center of the frame?), cropping issues(why is the dress cropped?), posing issues(why is she leaning forward making her look a little heavy?)...she has a window pane growing out of her head.  Nothing in this shot is impressive.  If your 17 judges couldn't see those issues, I question why they are masters or judges...

Like I said, you usually do much better.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 19, 2011)

The clone job-not so hot. I'd re-do. LOVE the shot in general. Not so hot on the composition. Seems dark and a little flat to me.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Mark_McCall said:
> ...



There are very few definite 'no-nos' in photography, so you are I suppose correct there, but equally you can't say it 'doesn't matter anymore' as a blanket statement of current best practice - it doesn't matter anymore _to you_, and i'm sure it wouldn't matter to many others, however i'm also sure to still more others it does have a negative impact on the shot. It's a decent, fairly non-descript wedding shot, nothing more nothing less, certainly not the best i've ever seen, but not the worst either. Comparing this to some of your other work - which is genuinely very very good - this just kinda falls short for me, sorry.

As for the 'masters' with all the letters after their names, i've never been a fan - i'd never consider I know enough about this fantastic artform to call myself a master, and i've been doing it professionally for 20+ years. Student? yes, disciple? possibly, master? never on this earth...


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 19, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> The cutting into the dress was merely one of the problems with this image. The fact that it was accepted into your PPA 'club' as Master image only reinforces my reasons for not joining your little club.


It appears we have different standards for our careers. 
Speaking only for myself, the 10 year process of study and learning has been invaluable in creating a lifestyle my parents never enjoyed. 
If you don't see the value of the education of the program or the time and effort in creating an acceptable merit print, I'll agree with you that the program probably isn't for you. 
It's a daunting, time consuming process. Not everyone has the desire, determination or time it takes to complete it. 
I'd certainly fault no one for choosing not to do it.

For the record, you can't "join" the General Collection or simply sign up. The rank and accolades must be earned, and the standards are extremely high. Average time to accomplish the standard of Master is right around 7-9 years. 
Study is intense, judging is extremely harsh. 
The program isn't about achieving a particular rank, it's about making yourself a better photographer. Some see the value in the program, and some don't. Again, I'd certainly fault no one for choosing not to do it.




Kerbouchard said:


> Look, I saw what you were doing when you joined this forum. You posted a lot of images that were already judged in your 'club' as 'merit' type images. I just wasn't sure why.


What reason would that be George?



Kerbouchard said:


> I don't care if 17 judges scored this image well. I have dozens just like it in my recycle bin.


You should have no trouble scoring merits. 
Would you mind posting some of them? 



Kerbouchard said:


> If your 17 judges couldn't see those issues, I question why they are masters or judges...


Why not ask them? 
DPPA meet once a month at the Hickory Street Annex, right there in Downtown Dallas. 
Several of PPA's best judges are right there in your own backyard.



penfolderoldo said:


> There are very few definite 'no-nos' in photography, so you are I suppose correct there, but equally you can't say it 'doesn't matter anymore' as a blanket statement of current best practice.


I didn't say it was the best practice. 
What I DID say was that it's not taboo as it used to be. 
If we expect Mom to be happy, we'd better have *something* from the session that displays the entire gown, particularly the back.  
From a business standpoint, beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 19, 2011)

I just don't see this as the best work you have posted at all. You're much better than this in general-without the composition debate even.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > The cutting into the dress was merely one of the problems with this image. The fact that it was accepted into your PPA 'club' as Master image only reinforces my reasons for not joining your little club.
> ...


Not sure, yet.


> You should have no trouble scoring merits.
> Would you mind posting some of them?


With pleasure...I'm editing some of my 'best of 2011 shots' right now.  Should have a thread up in the next day or so.  Spoiler alert: there may be a few clipped dresses...just sayin'.





> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > If your 17 judges couldn't see those issues, I question why they are masters or judges...
> ...


The judging is rigged.  You are also a member of the judging panel if I recall correctly.  I'm sure you sitting right next to the other judges has nothing to do with how your images are judged...

Look, I like most of your work.  Some of it is inspiring and extraordinary...this one just isn't in the same ball park, IMO.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 19, 2011)

I agree the shot is pretty average at best. While I know it's hard to control color in a wedding dress, there's definitely too much here. And this business about how the cut-off dress is subject to aesthetic debate is pure nonsense. You accidentally cut it off and it looks worse than it would if you hadn't. It's not the end of the world but the least you can do is own up to the mistake. If you would honestly say that given the choice, you would not re-shoot in order to fix it, then you should refrain from giving other people advice. You shouldn't be so hypocritical as to ask others to set aside their egos when you judge their work if you're going to make ridiculous, petty excuses about your own.


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 19, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> The judging is rigged.  You are also a member of the judging panel if I recall correctly.  I'm sure you sitting right next to the other judges has nothing to do with how your images are judged...



Strong words. 
I'll assume its unfamiliarity with the process talking. 

Competition print judges, affiliated or not, are not allowed to judge their own work.
Matter of fact, a judge must recuse themselves if they have seen the image before, know the maker, or are affiliated with the work in any way. 
Images are not marked in any way. 

Fudging the rules, even once, will result in a judge permanently losing his affiliate-ship. 

No, it is not rigged.



Kerbouchard said:


> I'm editing some of my 'best of 2011 shots' right now.


If they are your "best of" why are they in your recycle bin?


----------



## BlairWright (Nov 19, 2011)

Withdrawn, post made while in a bad mood. I apologize, I should not have posted this comment.


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 19, 2011)

Alpha said:


> You accidentally cut it off and it looks worse than it would if you hadn't. It's not the end of the world but the least you can do is own up to the mistake. If you would honestly say that given the choice, you would not re-shoot in order to fix it, then you should refrain from giving other people advice. You shouldn't be so hypocritical as to ask others to set aside their egos when you judge their work if you're going to make ridiculous, petty excuses about your own.



As stated earlier, We're confusing opinion with technical correctness. 
I carefully plan every aspect of the image, and composition was not a mistake. 
I composed and captured the image as is. It was part of my overall body of work submitted to 3 panels of Master Judges who accepted it into the PPA General Collection, and help me achieve Master myself.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> > You accidentally cut it off and it looks worse than it would if you hadn't. It's not the end of the world but the least you can do is own up to the mistake. If you would honestly say that given the choice, you would not re-shoot in order to fix it, then you should refrain from giving other people advice. You shouldn't be so hypocritical as to ask others to set aside their egos when you judge their work if you're going to make ridiculous, petty excuses about your own.
> ...



Say what you like but it's patently obvious how defensive you're being about your mistakes. If you succeed in convincing anyone that there are no errors in the photo, I hope it's only yourself.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 19, 2011)

And I should add that "we" are not confusing anything. _You_ are intentionally confusing the two in order to make it seem like there's some ambiguity about whether there are problems with the shot.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > The judging is rigged.  You are also a member of the judging panel if I recall correctly.  I'm sure you sitting right next to the other judges has nothing to do with how your images are judged...
> ...


I know that, also.  I also know how obvious it is when a judge recuses himself from judging an image.  It's not unfamiliarity talking.  It's reality.  The other judges watch you obviously not judge an image.  Anyone with half a brain could figure out why.


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > I'm editing some of my 'best of 2011 shots' right now.
> ...


My 'best of' are not in the recycle bin...my shots similar to this one are.

Mark, look, the only people who think this is a great image seem to be your fellow judges...there is something to be learned here if you were willing to take a step back and look at it objectively.

But then again, you don't care about our opinion because 17 of your fellow judges liked it...Again, I'm not even sure why you posted it here.  Obviously, your mind is already made up on it.

Again, nothing against you.  You produce some fabulous work.  This just isn't an example of it.  

Remarkably average, and for you, below standards.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 19, 2011)

penfolderoldo said:


> As for the 'masters' with all the letters after their names, i've never been a fan - i'd never consider I know enough about this fantastic artform to call myself a master, and i've been doing it professionally for 20+ years. Student? yes, disciple? possibly, master? never on this earth...



I have some letters before and after my name...mostly referring to Nuclear Engineering.  As far as photography goes, I have a long ways to go before I approach what Mark or many others are capable of.  I've seen some of his shots that took my breath away.  Truly amazing.


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 19, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> The judging is rigged.  You are also a member of the judging panel if I recall correctly.  I'm sure you sitting right next to the other judges has nothing to do with how your images are judged...


I missed the meaning of this statement earlier. 
That would be incorrect. I was on the SPPPA panel that judged it, (I recused) but not TPPA or SWPPA panels.
I wasn't even in attendance. 



Alpha said:


> If you succeed in convincing anyone that there are no errors in the photo, I hope it's only yourself.


No. 
I was able to hypnotize 3 panels of judges in three different cities into overlooking the cropped dress. LOL


----------



## Alpha (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> No.
> I was able to hypnotize 3 panels of judges in three different cities into overlooking the cropped dress. LOL



Apparently. Perhaps should become a professional hypnotist instead.

As you should know, judges are not necessarily looking for perfection. Errors are allowed in any one piece or body of work, just like professional pianists are permitted to miss some notes here and there even in otherwise magnificent performances. Your problem is that you refuse to admit the mistake is there at all.


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 19, 2011)

Alpha,
Would you mind posting a link to your website?


----------



## Alpha (Nov 19, 2011)

Here you go


----------



## Alpha (Nov 19, 2011)

See this page as well


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark I am calling you the Winner of the contest due to the lack of effort on everyone else's part.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Alpha,
> Would you mind posting a link to your website?


He doesn't need to post a link to his website.  His work has nothing to do with the issues in your image.  At this point, you are just deflecting and it's just pathetic.

Honestly, I expected more from you.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Nov 19, 2011)

Disagree. X gets the square.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 19, 2011)

Haven't you already whipped it out and measured it for all to see enough times in your signature and elsewhere? Do you really hope to prove that you don't make any mistakes because you're the "better" photographer? What kind of "master" has so little humility?


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Nov 19, 2011)

You guys are ridiculous, you know that? You are acting like jealous fools. And juveniles.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 19, 2011)

what what. Ridiculous is my middle name. May we see your website, please? I'm going to need to see some credentials.


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 19, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> He doesn't need to post a link to his website.


He certainly doesn't. 
But he reacted just as I expected him to. 
I knew he'd be unable, unwilling, or both. 

A keyboard and mouse has made many a forum troll an expert.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > He doesn't need to post a link to his website.
> ...



Pathetic...Absolutely pathetic.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> > You accidentally cut it off and it looks worse than it would if you hadn't. It's not the end of the world but the least you can do is own up to the mistake. If you would honestly say that given the choice, you would not re-shoot in order to fix it, then you should refrain from giving other people advice. You shouldn't be so hypocritical as to ask others to set aside their egos when you judge their work if you're going to make ridiculous, petty excuses about your own.
> ...



No Mark, sorry, but we're not - it was your _opinion _that the shot looked better with the dress cut off - it's mine and others _opinion_ that it would look better with it NOT cut off - that's got nothing to do with technical correctness. Again, the whole masters thing doesn't mean anything at the end of the day - what counts is whether you and your client are as happy as you possibly could be with the end result. All some of us are saying is this isn't an example of your best work, that's all.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > He doesn't need to post a link to his website.
> ...



... and any of us can have any number of letters after our name, letters mean absolutely nothing, and certainly don't make someone an expert - your comment was uncalled for Mark, and frankly i'd expected more of you.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Nov 19, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> penfolderoldo said:
> 
> 
> > As for the 'masters' with all the letters after their names, i've never been a fan - i'd never consider I know enough about this fantastic artform to call myself a master, and i've been doing it professionally for 20+ years. Student? yes, disciple? possibly, master? never on this earth...
> ...



I don't doubt it Kerbs, I too am genuinely impressed with a great deal of his work, but for me this one isn't one of his best, irrespective of whether or not it's been judged a winner.


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 19, 2011)

penfolderoldo said:


> No Mark, sorry, but we're not - it was your _opinion _that the shot looked better with the dress cut off



You've seem to have misquoted me. 
I never said the image looked *better* with the image cut off.  
What I *did* say was that cutting it off wasn't as taboo as it used to be, and that it's ok to do so. 
Several Master Judges agreed, placing the image into the PPA General Collection. 

In a nutshell, it's a matter of varying opinions. But that is different from technical correctness. 

I'm not saying the image is good, bad, mediocre....I simply do not know.
But cutting off the dress doesn't make it technically incorrect.




penfolderoldo said:


> ... and any of us can have any number of letters after our name, letters mean absolutely nothing, and certainly don't make someone an expert - your comment was uncalled for Mark, and frankly i'd expected more of you.


Seems we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> penfolderoldo said:
> 
> 
> > No Mark, sorry, but we're not - it was your _opinion _that the shot looked better with the dress cut off
> ...



It seemed from your quote that you were saying that because you had planned the shot meticulously - which I fully accept - that this was the correct way to capture it, and that not cutting it would have produced a somehow inferior (technically) image, which would palpably be nonsense. If on the other hand you meant that as your composition was as you intended it the shot is therefore technically correct then yes, you are quite correct.

As far as the 2nd quote of mine you've used above I note you've not included the specific comments you made about forum trolls (your words) becoming wannabe experts. Since you say we'll have to 'agree to disagree' does that mean you are honestly saying that having a few letters after your name makes you in any way an expert? If that is indeed the case then I wish you well, but I will be more than happy continuing as a non-expert...


----------



## Derrel (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > He doesn't need to post a link to his website.
> ...



Pretty lame shot you took at Kerbouchard, Mark. I am frankly quite surprised that that image is "master" level, on multiple levels. The cropping is jarring, and the pose is "incomplete". The image also appears off-key. What time was it shot at? It looks like it was shot a half an hour before sunset. it's a pretty journeyman-looking effort, and yet you keep trying to convince us it is a "master-level" image. Hardly. Journeyman-like is more like it. I know master-level posing and photography when I see it--and that cut-off,off-key, heavily-vignetted wedding snap is clearly not "master" level work to me. It's just simply NOT, no matter how much you try and convince us that it is. No way.

"Newbie PPA judges have made many a journeyman a master."


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 19, 2011)

penfolderoldo said:


> If on the other hand you meant that as your composition was as you intended it the shot is therefore technically correct then yes, you are quite correct.


I believe I said that more than once in this thread. 




penfolderoldo said:


> As far as the 2nd quote of mine you've used above I note you've not included the specific comments you made about forum trolls (your words) becoming wannabe experts. Since you say we'll have to 'agree to disagree' does that mean you are honestly saying that having a few letters after your name makes you in any way an expert? If that is indeed the case then I wish you well, but I will be more than happy continuing as a non-expert...


I only quoted the parts I was addressing directly. Common practice in online forums. 

Yes, I aimed that earlier troll comment at Alpha, just as he claims to be in his avatar. 
I didn't call him anything he wasn't calling himself. 
I've seen the type before. Brash and argumentative, yet hide behind anonymity. 
I called him out by asking for a link to his website, which I already certain he couldn't have provided. 
If your going to make some bold statements, be prepared to be called on it. 

As far as the letters behind my name...
This is my photographic education, which is extremely extensive. 
It is no reflection on anyone that doesn't have the same education. As a matter of fact, I stated early on that I was not implying that George didn't know what he was talking about. 
As far as being an expert,....I don't feel letters behind your name makes you an expert. I think experience does that.


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 19, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Pretty lame shot you took at Kerbouchard, Mark.


Comment wasn't aimed at George. It was aimed at Alpha. 





Derrel said:


> "Newbie PPA judges have made many a journeyman a master."


There's no such thing. 
The road to become a PPA Judge is over 10 years. Hardly what I'd call a newbie



Derrel said:


> clearly not "master" level work to me. It's just simply NOT, no matter how much you try and convince us that it is. No way.


I'm not trying to convince you of anything. 
Matter of fact, I clearly stated above that I don't know if the image is good, bad or mediocre.
What I *did* say was that it resides in the PPA General Collection.


----------



## camz (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark, I'm not jumping here in to pick on you.  But it really isn't about us at all - it's all about our clients.  Our clients work hard with their wedding day details from the ring to the shoes to the cake to the bouqet to the flowers to the reception decor to the wedding party attire...and probably one of the most important is the bride's dress. 

Isn't it just plain ol simple to include the whole wedding dress in the shot? It may not be taboo in your circle, but I think by cutting it out degrades a key variable of the wedding. I don't see the argument here seriously...


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 20, 2011)

camz said:


> Mark, I'm not jumping here in to pick on you.  But it really isn't about us at all - it's all about our clients.  Our clients work hard with their wedding day details from the ring to the shoes to the cake to the bouqet to the flowers to the reception decor to the wedding party attire...and probably one of the most important is the bride's dress.
> 
> Isn't it just plain ol simple to include the whole wedding dress in the shot? It may not be taboo in your circle, but I think by cutting it out degrades a key variable of the wedding. I don't see the argument here seriously...



Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder. 
As I mentioned earlier, you *have* to satisfy Mom, who's paying for everything. As business people, we'd be remiss if we didn't. 
But to think that every shot must show the entire dress is crazy. Some of our highest sellers don't even include half the dress. 

I have plenty of images showing the entire dress. Probably 50-60 in the entire session. 
The general feeling is that we have to include the entire dress in the shot. Where did that rule come from? Does anyone know? My guess is no. 
I've never found it in any wedding book. 
It most likely came from photographers who worked before us. 

I shoot these sessions every day in my studio and outdoors. I cannot remember the last time my sales girl had a complaint on the crop of the dress. It simple doesn't happen because we offer both, and we sell both, tight and loose crops. 

You can bet your boots Grandma wants a closer cropped pic. 
Watch this video of me shooting a bridal. I've got full length and cropped images. 
I sold only one print of a full length. Even that shot didn't have the entire veil in the shot. Every other image sold was a tighter crop.


----------



## camz (Nov 20, 2011)

Nice video and nice shots Mark - I'm sure it made a wonderful spread. Finally I got to see somewhat of a whole series of you work.

If you have 50-60 other shots with the whole dress included, well that just changes the story - you just gave your clients a bunch of options. Posting just this single picture with the dress cut-off left it for interpretation as only portion of the session was revealed(not even the highlights). This shot didn't do your session justice at all as I don't find it appealing. 

You left me hanging again , I'd really love to see the whole session =).


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 20, 2011)

Nice video.

Just got one question.  Was this an actual wedding or was it staged?  The reason I ask is I am surprised to see you wearing jeans for a wedding.

As far as this particular image, again, the dress is only one of the issues.  Composition, posing, white balance, etc all make this shot a failure.  Quite honestly, I'm a bit surprised that you would even show this image as an example of your work.

There is a saying out there that the difference between a great photographer and an average photographer is that the great photographers don't show you their bad shots.  I'm surprised you chose to show this one, irregardless of what your fellow judges said.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Nov 20, 2011)

It is indeed a nice video, and the resulting shots are really nice.


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 20, 2011)

camz said:


> If you have 50-60 other shots with the whole dress included, well that just changes the story - you just gave your clients a bunch of options. Posting just this single picture with the dress cut-off left it for interpretation as only portion of the session was revealed(not even the highlights).


As business people, photographers have to please our clients, otherwise we wouldn't be in business. 
I just don't feel cropping into the dress is a criminal offense, neither do judges, neither do clients. The only time you'll get a complaint from a client is if *every image* was cropped into the dress. 
I was saying earlier, Moms love full lengths, showing the back of the gown. 

In the video above, Tara purchased a 24x36 (full frame) textured e-surface print which didn't even include all of the veil. If you watch closely, you'll only find 3 images where we *did *include the entire gown/veil. 

I'm saying that for the benefit of those reading who may be thinking about getting into weddings or bridal portraits. 
It's not a crime, and no one is going to hold you hostage for cropping into the dress. You'll not find a written rule against it anywhere. Or at least I haven't seen it in my career. 




Kerbouchard said:


> Was this an actual wedding or was it staged? The reason I ask is I am surprised to see you wearing jeans for a wedding.


Neither. 
It's a bridal portrait session, (mentioned in the video description), typically shot a month before the wedding. 
A wear a dark grey or black suit when shooting a wedding. 




Kerbouchard said:


> As far as this particular image, again, the dress is only one of the issues. Composition, posing, white balance, etc all make this shot a failure.


I'm going to surmise that we have differing definitions of failure. 
*Masters Portfolio
*General Collection
*Highest scoring print in SPPPA
*20x24 on masonite purchased by client. 
Failure? I'll take your word for it. 

Again, I don't know if the image is good, bad, mediocre, because I simply don't know. 
If you read the entire thread, never hyped it one way or the other. I mentioned it's accolades but those were awarded to the image by people other than myself. 

At the end of the day, what matters is what the client and her checkbook thinks.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 20, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> I'm going to surmise that we have differing definitions of failure.
> *Masters Portfolio
> *General Collection
> *Highest scoring print in SPPPA
> ...


I was on facebook a few minutes ago.  Somebody had posted an i-phone pic of a blurry kid.  It had 19 likes.  There is no accounting for people's tastes.

There was a recent article about an image that sold for over 4 million dollars.  By most accounts, that would be a successful shoot for the photographer, except the image was crap.  Meet The World's Most Expensive Photo, Part II : The Picture Show : NPR

Just because an image sells for a lot of money or a few people declare it 'great' doesn't mean it is.  

I refuse to buy into your Ellsworth Toohey outlook on photography.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 20, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder.
> As I mentioned earlier, you *have* to satisfy Mom, who's paying for everything.


  Really?  I can't remember the last time I shot (or even heard of a wedding) done in the "parent's of the bride pay for everything" tradition.  All of the weddings I've shot in the last several years (granted, not a huge number) have been paid for by the couple themselves.


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 20, 2011)

tirediron said:


> I can't remember the last time I shot (or even heard of a wedding) done in the "parent's of the bride pay for everything" tradition.  All of the weddings I've shot in the last several years (granted, not a huge number) have been paid for by the couple themselves.


Mother and Father of the bride traditionally pay for everything photographically. 
I've done a few whereas the couple paid for their own photographs. When I have, it's either an older couple or second time around type unions. 


George, 
We have different opinions on what constitutes failure. 
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.




Mark_McCall said:


> At the end of the day, what matters is what the client and her checkbook thinks.


----------



## raider (Nov 20, 2011)

old photography styles bore me... nice pic, a little dark though.  the train doesn't bother me as much as the lighting.


----------



## camz (Nov 20, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> camz said:
> 
> 
> > If you have 50-60 other shots with the whole dress included, well that just changes the story - you just gave your clients a bunch of options. Posting just this single picture with the dress cut-off left it for interpretation as only portion of the session was revealed(not even the highlights).
> ...



Thanks for engaging in the discussion btw and voicing where you're coming from, I really appreciate it. 

You should see my work Mark. I have tilts, lens flares, harsh lighting, dumpsters in wedding pictures, drenched brides, nude brides etc. There's no doubt Mark that rules do not apply to many things presently in photography, even with something minute as a cut off dress. I get what your saying about rules.

My impression of your initial photo has to do with patterns and expectations of the genre. TBH, my impression of your work leans towards the traditional style photography(which I appreciate) and having that particular impression in mind, certain expectations were manifested by me. And in traditional style photography having a shot where ~ 95% of the dress was included by having the dress train cut-off establishes a big no no in my brain. Has nothing to do with rules in a book, rather then the genre I was tuned into. 

On the flipside, modern style photography *to me *is very much more free of rules. If I were to be tuned in to that particular genre and saw a picture of a bride soaked drenched from punch and had some modern flare ligthing to accent it and had some type of provacative pose while she wears yellow shoes, well I'm sure a picture of that type would break way more rules then your cut off dress trail. However, going back to the original picture that you posted told me it had a traditoinal pose, traditional feel, everything screamed traditional therefore having a cutt of dress train(without including the other elements) did nothing for its appeal and fit the pattern IMHO. Considering the *genre and your style*, what it was screaming to me was to include the whole dress. It was longing for it. Seriously I couldn't think of anything else when I was looking at the shot.

Like I said it was up for interpretation as only one shot was posted from the series.


----------



## ondro (Jan 12, 2012)

this picture seems to me a little bit underexposed. its nothing special in my opinion


----------

