# Been a while but a few digital previews from a recent wedding...



## Vtec44

\


----------



## terri

What a setting!   The area is gorgeous, and the bride's gown floats like a billowing cloud through it.  She should be thrilled at the beauty of these.

Your posing, lighting, and chosen DOF in each image is spot on.

Lovely set, and great work!


----------



## Derrel

Yes-an absolutely gorgeous area! Love this part of the woods. The bridge works both physically, and metaphorically for a newly married couple. Nice group of shots. I really like your subtle use of out of focus foreground bokeh in shots 2,3,and 4--it really adds a lot.


----------



## zulu42

You're showing some improvement. Keep practicing, you will get there!


----------



## tirediron

People like you are the reason people like me don't do weddings!


----------



## shadowlands

Very well done. Magical look to them. Fairy Tale...


----------



## paigew

These are stunning! 1&2 are my favorites

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Destin

tirediron said:


> People like you are the reason people like me don't do weddings!



And the reason I quit doing weddings!


----------



## SquarePeg

Stunning as usual!  So...do you only do weddings for beautiful people or do you just not share those?


----------



## tirediron

Destin said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are the reason people like me don't do weddings!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the reason I quit doing weddings!
Click to expand...

I want to start the divorce photography industry.  I think my style is ideally suited to that genre!


----------



## Gary A.

Simply PERFECT.


----------



## Vtec44

SquarePeg said:


> Stunning as usual!  So...do you only do weddings for beautiful people or do you just not share those?



 To be honest all my clients are beautiful as long as they pay my asking price .  I generally don't share weddings that I don't want to photograph again, i.e. too contrasting colors, people who wear tennis shoes with their suit, assholes, etc.  I'm enough of an asshole at a wedding so there's no room for anyone else.


----------



## bulldurham

Room for one more Asshat as I am (as usual) going to disagree. I edited each of these except #2 which is close enough for government work, for midtone correction and to highlight the stars of the show: the bride and groom. The lights are too light, highlights are blown throughout. By shooting in the forest, which is a nice place to shoot, he made a cardinal mistake in exposing for the whole scene and not for the couple only. Expose for the highlights using a spot meter and everything else will work out. In my edits, I isolated the couple, dumped the BG down one full stop then adjusted the midtones on those two which pushed them into the foreground and left everything else as a frame. Wedding shots are all about the B&G not anything and everything else.

Tirediron said he quit doing weddings because these were so good, I quit doing weddings, portraits and other stuff that paid bigger bucks than just gallery sales partly because of shots like these (though mostly because I am not overly fond of people that talk back ). It's a good start, but there is lots more to learn.


----------



## Destin

bulldurham said:


> Room for one more Asshat as I am (as usual) going to disagree. I edited each of these except #2 which is close enough for government work, for midtone correction and to highlight the stars of the show: the bride and groom. The lights are too light, highlights are blown throughout. By shooting in the forest, which is a nice place to shoot, he made a cardinal mistake in exposing for the whole scene and not for the couple only. Expose for the highlights using a spot meter and everything else will work out. In my edits, I isolated the couple, dumped the BG down one full stop then adjusted the midtones on those two which pushed them into the foreground and left everything else as a frame. Wedding shots are all about the B&G not anything and everything else.
> 
> Tirediron said he quit doing weddings because these were so good, I quit doing weddings, portraits and other stuff that paid bigger bucks than just gallery sales partly because of shots like these (though mostly because I am not overly fond of people that talk back ). It's a good start, but there is lots more to learn.



Sorry, but I’ve gotta disagree. There is a time and place to selectively blow highlights as an artistic choice, and this was a good use of that in my opinion. 

If you wanted to expose for the highlights here you’d have to add ALOT of fill flash and would lose the amazing natural look of these images.


----------



## Christie Photo

Destin said:


> Sorry, but I’ve gotta disagree. There is a time and place to selectively blow highlights as an artistic choice, and this was a good use of that in my opinion.



Absolutely.  Not all photographs (especially portraiture and wedding candids) are meant to be, nor should they be, an exact depiction of the scene.

-Pete


----------



## SquarePeg

bulldurham said:


> Room for one more Asshat as I am (as usual) going to disagree. I edited each of these except #2 which is close enough for government work, for midtone correction and to highlight the stars of the show: the bride and groom. The lights are too light, highlights are blown throughout. By shooting in the forest, which is a nice place to shoot, he made a cardinal mistake in exposing for the whole scene and not for the couple only. Expose for the highlights using a spot meter and everything else will work out. In my edits, I isolated the couple, dumped the BG down one full stop then adjusted the midtones on those two which pushed them into the foreground and left everything else as a frame. Wedding shots are all about the B&G not anything and everything else.
> 
> Tirediron said he quit doing weddings because these were so good, I quit doing weddings, portraits and other stuff that paid bigger bucks than just gallery sales partly because of shots like these (though mostly because I am not overly fond of people that talk back ). It's a good start, but there is lots more to learn.



Based on the photos that the OP shares here and on Instagram, his portfolio, I would assume that couples hire him because of the way he incorporates the environment into his photos.  It's a co-star.  If anyone doesn't want that look, they would choose someone else.


----------



## bulldurham

I have no clue as to what is a selectively blown highlight and how it can possibly be good. It is why we have histograms. Blown highlights and clogged blacks are due to a lack of exposure control. I have no idea how much he gets paid for a wedding, but had that been my daughter's, I would have asked for my money back. So, I am a purist. Shoot me.


----------



## Vtec44

bulldurham said:


> Room for one more Asshat as I am (as usual) going to disagree. I edited each of these except #2 which is close enough for government work, for midtone correction and to highlight the stars of the show: the bride and groom. The lights are too light, highlights are blown throughout. By shooting in the forest, which is a nice place to shoot, he made a cardinal mistake in exposing for the whole scene and not for the couple only. Expose for the highlights using a spot meter and everything else will work out. In my edits, I isolated the couple, dumped the BG down one full stop then adjusted the midtones on those two which pushed them into the foreground and left everything else as a frame. Wedding shots are all about the B&G not anything and everything else.
> 
> Tirediron said he quit doing weddings because these were so good, I quit doing weddings, portraits and other stuff that paid bigger bucks than just gallery sales partly because of shots like these (though mostly because I am not overly fond of people that talk back ). It's a good start, but there is lots more to learn.




Spot metering is the only metering mode I use for both analog and digital. Lol. I'm known for pushing bright skin tone to almost blown out.  These are edited for printing on my calibrated monitor so they should be just right on prints. They're edited this way from very flat RAW files.

When you're talking about editing, it's all personal preference.  As long as you're consistent with your style and the clients are aware of it then you should be good. There are PLENTY of wedding photographers for people to hire if they don't like my work.

If I shot your daughter's wedding then she must have liked my style to hire me and she would be the person who signed the contract.  Plus, the probability if you being able to afford my services is slim so the chances of asking for your money back is none.  well you still can try...   

Ive had plenty of former wedding photographers who hate my work because they feel they can do much better, and I have ccurrent wedding photographers who paid my asking price for my services.  To each their own I guess.


----------



## Braineack

Vtec44 said:


> Spot metering is the only metering mode I use for both analog and film.



yeah, but next time you need to spot meter the sun and everything else will work out.


----------



## Vtec44

Braineack said:


> yeah, but next time you need to spot meter the sun and everything else will work out.


 

now you tell me?


----------



## Christie Photo

Vtec44 said:


> Plus, the probability if you being able to afford my services is slim...



Ooops.  I can tell you're pretty far down the road.  Your work is wonderful and you should be getting paid for it.  But I would think by now we don't always know what someone can or can't afford.  And it's not relevant in this discussion anyway.

Nice stuff!
-Pete


----------



## Vtec44

Christie Photo said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plus, the probability if you being able to afford my services is slim...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooops.  I can tell you're pretty far down the road.  Your work is wonderful and you should be getting paid for it.  But I would think by now we don't always know what someone can or can't afford.  And it's not relevant in this discussion anyway.
> 
> Nice stuff!
> -Pete
Click to expand...


I know.  I'm just being an asshole .  I only bring it up because someone mentioned they'd ask for their money back.  In my profession, it's not about if people can afford you or not.  If they love your work they will find a way to pay for it.  Obviously @bulldurham isn't going to find a way to pay for it or want to pay for it. LOL


----------



## bulldurham

If I shot your daughter's wedding then she must have liked my style to hire me and she would be the person who signed the contract. Plus, the probability if you being able to afford my services is slim so the chances of asking for your money back is none. well you still can try...

LOLOLOL...that's a rather arrogant statement but I won't go to name calling but if you want to compare Dunn & Bradstreet numbers, we can really get into a pissing contest. I critiqued your work. I understand there are some people who don't know squat about photography that will buy that style...their loss IMO. If you had told Ansel Adams that it was okay to have blown highlights, he would have either laughed himself into apoplexy, or thrown up. I did one workshop with him and two with Al Weber (his main printer) and two with David Vestal who knew more about photography than anyone alive when I knew him. It wasn't accepted then, and it is not acceptable now.


----------



## SquarePeg

Vtec44 said:


> If I shot your daughter's wedding then she must have liked my style to hire me and she would be the person who signed the contract. Plus, the probability if you being able to afford my services is slim so the chances of asking for your money back is none. well you still can try...



Let's keep it about the photos please and not have personal attacks.


----------



## Vtec44

bulldurham said:


> LOLOLOL...that's a rather arrogant statement but I won't go to name calling but if you want to compare Dunn & Bradstreet numbers, we can really get into a pissing contest. I critiqued your work. I understand there are some people who don't know squat about photography that will buy that style...their loss IMO. If you had told Ansel Adams that it was okay to have blown highlights, he would have either laughed himself into apoplexy, or thrown up. I did one workshop with him and two with Al Weber (his main printer) and two with David Vestal who knew more about photography than anyone alive when I knew him. It wasn't accepted then, and it is not acceptable now.



I'm cool to compare numbers if you're up for it.  LOL. Yeah I can be arrogant if I'm grumpy. Generalizing that people don't know crap about photography because they prefer a certain style is about on par with my arrogance.  You're right there with me.  Lol. I feel like we should be best friends. 

You should read my opinion in the other thread about what is a good photo.  I feel like it addressed this very discussion.   You sound like a typical single dimension photographer and there's nothing wrong with that. I can bring my off camera flash to balance out the lighting or lower the highlights and bring out the shadows, but that's now how I shoot and that not THE only way to shoot.   To each their own but there are many ways to skin a cat.  An artist should always have an open mind.  Photography is part technical and part art.

The last time I checked Ansel wasn't a wedding photographer.  Am I wrong?  His Zone System, though.  But that's another drama on this forum that I don't want to bring back. LOL


----------



## Destin

bulldurham said:


> If I shot your daughter's wedding then she must have liked my style to hire me and she would be the person who signed the contract. Plus, the probability if you being able to afford my services is slim so the chances of asking for your money back is none. well you still can try...
> 
> LOLOLOL...that's a rather arrogant statement but I won't go to name calling but if you want to compare Dunn & Bradstreet numbers, we can really get into a pissing contest. I critiqued your work. I understand there are some people who don't know squat about photography that will buy that style...their loss IMO. If you had told Ansel Adams that it was okay to have blown highlights, he would have either laughed himself into apoplexy, or thrown up. I did one workshop with him and two with Al Weber (his main printer) and two with David Vestal who knew more about photography than anyone alive when I knew him. It wasn't accepted then, and it is not acceptable now.



You’re missing the part where photography is art, and therefore subjective. There is no right or wrong. 

I don’t really think that someone grabbing handfuls or paint and randomly throwing it at a wall is art, and yet people will pay tens of thousands of dollars for paintings that are exactly that. 

Intentionally blown highlights can add to a mood, and it seems that many knowledgeable people here like the photos shared in this thread. There are very few hard and fast rules in photography. 

Ansel Adams was a visionary of his time, but he isn’t the end all be all source of photography. Other people can have different opinions without being wrong. 

In the first photo the OP shared there was almost no way to avoid blowing those highlights short of choosing a new composition. Exposing for that highlight would have made the entire rest of the image black.


----------



## Vtec44

SquarePeg said:


> Let's keep it about the photos please and not have personal attacks.



I totally agree.  I don't mind unsolicited critiques at all  and I love a discussion even when we don't agree.  But, I draw the line when people throw snarky remarks at my work as if their opinion is the only right opinion.  I'm the nicest person and the biggest asshole.


----------



## Braineack

didn't we just have a thread where we concluded people know jack-diddly-squat about what a "good" photo is?


----------



## bulldurham

First off, I never made a snarky remark about your work; I made an honest and thoughtful critique. I didn't ask you to like it or even accept it, only voiced an educated opinion. Nor, did I say my opinion was the only right one, I merely used examples of work from quite notable photographers..and Adams did shoot some rather striking portraits as did Al Weber and David Vestal. I am finished with this dialogue.


----------



## Vtec44

1.


bulldurham said:


> First off, I never made a snarky remark about your work; .



2.


bulldurham said:


> I have no idea how much he gets paid for a wedding, but had that been my daughter's, I would have asked for my money back.



From one professional photographer to another:

1.  I will never start out trying to belittle others, trying is the operative word.  Your critique was based on a lot of assumptions and snarky.  I'm totally cool with that, but expect me to be snarky back.  No biggie, I can dish out as much as I can take.  I'm the harshest critic of my own work.  You have NO idea LOL. 

2.  Really?  From one professional photographer, to another, that is unprofessional conduct.  I didn't pick up a camera yesterday, or 5 years, 10 years, 15 years ago.  I'm not a great photographer, or an amazing photographer,  But I know my work, the caliber, and limitations of my work.  If you hire me, I shoot consistently as my portfolio, and you REALLY want your money back and not just saying it to try to belittle another professional online to make yourself look better.  You probably did not do your home work in searching for the right photographer for your daughter's wedding. 

And to be honest I don't care what  Ansel Adams thinks about blown highlights.  I'm the photographer of this work, I will decide when to blow out the hightlights and when not to.   Subjective opinions are just that regardless of which famous name you want to drop.


----------



## Gary A.

bulldurham said:


> I have no clue as to what is a selectively blown highlight and how it can possibly be good. It is why we have histograms. Blown highlights and clogged blacks are due to a lack of exposure control. I have no idea how much he gets paid for a wedding, but had that been my daughter's, I would have asked for my money back. So, I am a purist. Shoot me.


Histogram ... Shistogram.

A wide drnamic does not make a good photograph. Conversely, blown highlights and detail-less shadows do not make a good photograph. A pro knows when and when not to use or ignore the histogram. A successful photograph is one which moves and touches the viewer. Most viewers are not moved by a histogram. Often blown highlights or black shadows adds significant drama and heighten the impact of the image.

For me, using a histogram to dictate my final image is similar to painting-by-numbers or using pre-sets. Allowing one’s eye and imagination to override sterile technical “rules” is what artistic expression is all about.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2

Gary A. said:


> bulldurham said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no clue as to what is a selectively blown highlight and how it can possibly be good. It is why we have histograms. Blown highlights and clogged blacks are due to a lack of exposure control. I have no idea how much he gets paid for a wedding, but had that been my daughter's, I would have asked for my money back. So, I am a purist. Shoot me.
> 
> 
> 
> Histogram ... Shistogram.
> 
> A wide drnamic does not make a good photograph. Conversely, blown highlights and detail-less shadows do not make a good photograph. A pro knows when and when not to use or ignore the histogram. A successful photograph is one which moves and touches the viewer. Most viewers are not moved by a histogram. Often blown highlights or black shadows adds significant drama and heighten the impact of the image.
> 
> For me, using a histogram to dictate my final image is similar to painting-by-numbers or using pre-sets. Allowing one’s eye and imagination to override sterile technical “rules” is what artistic expression is all about.
Click to expand...


There is also another problem in judging an image by the numbers that represent it rather than actually looking and understanding... 

And that is that *blown* channels is flawed logic. There is a whole range of colour where the RGB value for *red* is 255 from saturated bright red through to yellow and all the pastels through to white. And if you want the impression of light in a print you have to think of using them, not cutting them out because the histogram looks wrong.

Here's a histogram:




One may think, by looking at this alone that the *red channel was blown*, and be totally wrong. Any lack of detail in the reds, (it's a sunset picture), was down to the displays inability to represent the subtle differences. The image prints well. In fact there is not a single red near the 255 value, all those 255 values represent the bright pale yellows, not reds in the raw file even though the jpeg histogram looked like the one above. And each neighbouring pixel has a slightly different value. RGB values are just colorspace co-ordinates they DO NOT represent amounts of red, green and blue light coming into the camera because that's simply not how it works. Besides reducing the exposure completely kokked the colours even on the raw file and the sense of light visible in the sunset was not in the photo anymore...


----------



## Braineack

@Vtec44 Can i fly myself out to CA and mentor under you for a wedding shoot?


----------



## Vtec44

Braineack said:


> @Vtec44 Can i fly myself out to CA and mentor under you for a wedding shoot?



I'm no expert but sure.  I can show you how to blow out highlights, expose for the entire scene, use the histogram, and focus on just the B&G since that's what weddings are all about.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2

Vtec44 said:


> I'm no expert but sure.  I can show you how to blow out highlights, expose for the entire scene, use the histogram, and focus on just the B&G since that's what weddings are all about.



LOL, I have often wondered this myself, why we pick a subject then concentrate on everything that's not the subject...


----------



## bulldurham

All I ever said about a histogram was that it can be used to show a blown highlight...not sure where the rest of your diatribe came from.


----------



## Vtec44

bulldurham said:


> All I ever said about a histogram was that it can be used to show a blown highlight...not sure where the rest of your diatribe came from.



Welcome back!


----------



## Destin

bulldurham said:


> All I ever said about a histogram was that it can be used to show a blown highlight...not sure where the rest of your diatribe came from.



No, you said “We have them for a reason” and proceeded to ramble on about how anyone who would ever blow a highlight intentionally is incompetent.


----------



## birdbonkers84

Why's no one mentioned the numbering of the photos? if it had been a noob posting you'd be all over them in a second ;D

Anyways really love the 2nd and 4th and would be over the moon if they were my wedding photos.


----------



## jcdeboever

Braineack said:


> @Vtec44 Can i fly myself out to CA and mentor under you for a wedding shoot?


This^^^


----------



## DarkShadow

These are wonderful but have to say # 4 is gorgeous, I love the pose and the rendering of the B&G and foliage looks magical.The in and out of focus of foliage the color tones of light and darker greens and the right amount of contrast make this one cracking good.


----------



## bulldurham

Destin said:


> bulldurham said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever said about a histogram was that it can be used to show a blown highlight...not sure where the rest of your diatribe came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you said “We have them for a reason” and proceeded to ramble on about how anyone who would ever blow a highlight intentionally is incompetent.
Click to expand...


I never ramble. I am if nothing else, pretty direct. Not necessarily incompetent, but not adhering to good photographic ideals. I've looked through his wedding portfolios and I'll stand by my original assessment of his shooting style: blown highlights and not as Tim Tucker would describe in such a lovely technical way (though I can't find one image of his where he's done this intentionally), but in such a manner as to take away from the stars of the show, the B&G.  For me, it is always about the primary subject being in the forefront. Listen, if you guys like this style, hey, more power to you. I'm a purist and I learned the old fashion way and learned from many of its masters and it is not my style, so don't expect I am going to jump in line with the rest of you who want James to mentor you. Happy trails.


----------



## Destin

bulldurham said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bulldurham said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ever said about a histogram was that it can be used to show a blown highlight...not sure where the rest of your diatribe came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you said “We have them for a reason” and proceeded to ramble on about how anyone who would ever blow a highlight intentionally is incompetent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never ramble. I am if nothing else, pretty direct. Not necessarily incompetent, but not adhering to good photographic ideals. I've looked through his wedding portfolios and I'll stand by my original assessment of his shooting style: blown highlights and not as Tim Tucker would describe in such a lovely technical way (though I can't find one image of his where he's done this intentionally), but in such a manner as to take away from the stars of the show, the B&G.  For me, it is always about the primary subject being in the forefront. Listen, if you guys like this style, hey, more power to you. I'm a purist and I learned the old fashion way and learned from many of its masters and it is not my style, so don't expect I am going to jump in line with the rest of you who want James to mentor you. Happy trails.
Click to expand...


Nobody is asking you to like it. But the fact that it isn’t your style doesn’t make it wrong or bad like you originally implied. There is a way to provide CC without being rude and abrasive, and you might find that you get farther that way.


----------



## bulldurham

I don't need to go any farther or further, I am content where I am. I have stood steadfastly by my words and by those words, it is never good to intentionally blow highlights when it is exposure possible not to, which is what I said from the start. It's his style and I don't like it...c'est la vie. We're stomping a dead horse into the ground.


----------



## Braineack

bulldurham said:


> I don't need to go any farther or further, I am content where I am. I have stood steadfastly by my words and by those words, it is never good to intentionally blow highlights when it is exposure possible not to, which is what I said from the start. It's his style and I don't like it...c'est la vie. We're stomping a dead horse into the ground.



so in a scene with a sun behind the subject, it's always best for everything to be a silhouette so long as the sun is exposed not to clip?


----------



## Christie Photo

Another aspect about wedding photography which we all realize...  

No matter how much planning we do, we are not in complete control.  We don't chose the day or the time.  The location is pretty much locked in...  so is the wardrobe.  And time is certainly limited.

No of us likes keeping a couple from getting to their celebration.

Getting the most out of our allotted time while dealing with all of the above is perhaps the biggest part of our task.  Judgements must be made on the fly.

-Pete


----------



## bulldurham

Braineack said:


> bulldurham said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to go any farther or further, I am content where I am. I have stood steadfastly by my words and by those words, it is never good to intentionally blow highlights when it is exposure possible not to, which is what I said from the start. It's his style and I don't like it...c'est la vie. We're stomping a dead horse into the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so in a scene with a sun behind the subject, it's always best for everything to be a silhouette so long as the sun is exposed not to clip?
Click to expand...


So, maybe he turns them in a manner or moves them over a bit so he can still get the shot and a correct exposure without blowing the highlight,  or uses reflectors, or a carefully hidden fill flash.... Novel ideas, eh? Or, maybe he underexposes and reveals the mid tones and highlights in Photoshop. There are always alternatives to not having blown highlights, but as I said earlier, if that floats your boat, by all means go for it.


----------



## Vtec44

bulldurham said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bulldurham said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to go any farther or further, I am content where I am. I have stood steadfastly by my words and by those words, it is never good to intentionally blow highlights when it is exposure possible not to, which is what I said from the start. It's his style and I don't like it...c'est la vie. We're stomping a dead horse into the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so in a scene with a sun behind the subject, it's always best for everything to be a silhouette so long as the sun is exposed not to clip?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, maybe he turns them in a manner or moves them over a bit so he can still get the shot and a correct exposure without blowing the highlight,  or uses reflectors, or a carefully hidden fill flash.... Novel ideas, eh? Or, maybe he underexposes and reveals the mid tones and highlights in Photoshop. There are always alternatives to not having blown highlights, but as I said earlier, if that floats your boat, by all means go for it.
Click to expand...


Then you allows a bit of blown highlights dictate your creativity.  There is a really good thread about technical perfection vs creativity.  Btw, you talk a lot.  I'd love to see some of your creative portrait work.


----------



## birdbonkers84

Poor Bulldurham, since 2014 he's had 11 disagrees and 6 of them have been in this thread >.<


----------



## Vtec44

bulldurham said:


> I never ramble. I am if nothing else, pretty direct. Not necessarily incompetent, but not adhering to good photographic ideals. I've looked through his wedding portfolios and I'll stand by my original assessment of his shooting style: blown highlights and not as Tim Tucker would describe in such a lovely technical way (though I can't find one image of his where he's done this intentionally), but in such a manner as to take away from the stars of the show, the B&G.  For me, it is always about the primary subject being in the forefront. Listen, if you guys like this style, hey, more power to you. I'm a purist and I learned the old fashion way and learned from many of its masters and it is not my style, so don't expect I am going to jump in line with the rest of you who want James to mentor you. Happy trails.



Actually, my style combines wide angle landscape shots, environmental portrait shots, close up intimate shots, and detail shots to give the viewers the whole story of the day.  This approach is clearly stated in my about page on my website.  My weddings aren't just about the B&G.  It's about the place, time, and people (everyone).  My approach isn't just about the B&G and my clients are fully aware of this, in both written explanation and visual presentation.  My manner doesn't take away the star of the show but it enhances the story of the day.  I don't just snap a few pretty photos of the B&G, I tell a story.

I don't expect anyone to jump on anything.  I personally hate dark and moody hipster Instagram photo filter style, but I never tell those photographers they're wrong.  I actually understand their approach even though it's different than mine.  A good artist should always keep an open mind so you can evolve.  

Here's a perfect example, wide angle shot for the clients to remember the beautiful place where they took the engagement photos and a close up shot to maintain focus on them.  Both were shot on my Pentax 67ii medium format film camera with Portra 800 pushed 1 stop, blown highlights and all.


----------



## Vtec44

birdbonkers84 said:


> Poor Bulldurham, since 2014 he's had 11 disagrees and 6 of them have been in this thread >.<



Make that 7.



I'm totally KIDDING!!


----------



## bulldurham

birdbonkers84 said:


> Poor Bulldurham, since 2014 he's had 11 disagrees and 6 of them have been in this thread >.<



Perhaps, but my likes to posts are two to one over both of yours and to me, that speaks volumes...however, that also gets into name calling and you may disagree with my assessment but if you want to contribute to the thread, I suggest you do it with something other than words.

James, I do understand your style; I just don't like it and despite contraindications by others in their shared disagreement, I will continue to promote proper exposing and each person can take it or leave it. We probably could be friends despite the difference...LOL


----------



## birdbonkers84

bulldurham said:


> birdbonkers84 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Bulldurham, since 2014 he's had 11 disagrees and 6 of them have been in this thread >.<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but my likes to posts are two to one over both of yours and to me, that speaks volumes...however, that also gets into name calling and you may disagree with my assessment but if you want to contribute to the thread, I suggest you do it with something other than words.
> 
> James, I do understand your style; I just don't like it and despite contraindications by others in their shared disagreement, I will continue to promote proper exposing and each person can take it or leave it. We probably could be friends despite the difference...LOL
Click to expand...


Bulldurham, I suggest you take a step back man and breath, I was trying to make  light of a potential volatile situation I wasn't having a dig, I don't particularly care about internet likes or dislikes as it has no reflection on a person when they log out of this website...


----------



## Vtec44

bulldurham said:


> birdbonkers84 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Bulldurham, since 2014 he's had 11 disagrees and 6 of them have been in this thread >.<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but my likes to posts are two to one over both of yours and to me, that speaks volumes...however, that also gets into name calling and you may disagree with my assessment but if you want to contribute to the thread, I suggest you do it with something other than words.
> 
> James, I do understand your style; I just don't like it and despite contraindications by others in their shared disagreement, I will continue to promote proper exposing and each person can take it or leave it. We probably could be friends despite the difference...LOL
Click to expand...


... oh don't get me started with proper exposure.  That's a whole new can of worms! LOL  But yeah, we will agree to disagree, friend.


----------



## bulldurham




----------



## bulldurham

birdbonkers84 said:


> bulldurham said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> birdbonkers84 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Bulldurham, since 2014 he's had 11 disagrees and 6 of them have been in this thread >.<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but my likes to posts are two to one over both of yours and to me, that speaks volumes...however, that also gets into name calling and you may disagree with my assessment but if you want to contribute to the thread, I suggest you do it with something other than words.
> 
> James, I do understand your style; I just don't like it and despite contraindications by others in their shared disagreement, I will continue to promote proper exposing and each person can take it or leave it. We probably could be friends despite the difference...LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldurham, I suggest you take a step back man and breath, I was trying to make  light of a potential volatile situation I wasn't having a dig, I don't particularly care about internet likes or dislikes as it has no reflection on a person when they log out of this website...
Click to expand...


Then my apologies for a misconception of what you were saying. I think it's time to close this thread and everyone get back to shooting what they like.


----------



## Streets

Vtec44 said:


> View attachment 163007
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 163008
> 
> 
> View attachment 163009
> View attachment 163010\
> 
> View attachment 163011


----------



## crimbfighter

Man am I late to the game here! I really like the set! On a philosophical level, I have to imagine that if Ansel Adams or other original "greats" of the photography world were still around, what would their shooting style look like now? Especially in the digital era where photographs can be manipulated so much. They pushed the boundaries when little was known back then to set the standard and I'm sure they would still be pushing boundaries today as technology changes. Who knows, they may be like "we were wrong, blow the highlights! Blow them like your life depended on it!"

On a technical note, do you adjust your greens with any specific treatment using individual color channels? I always struggle with my greens, especially in environmental portraits and balancing them with skin tone. They often are too light and yellow, and when I try to adjust them the color either goes nuclear green or they become obviously altered. Yours are a little dark for how I would edit, but they're much better than I am able to get.


----------



## JustJazzie

*swoon* The framing. The lighting. The posing. The setting. Number 1 and 4. *swoon*

Straight our of a story book, once again. <3<3<3


----------



## Vtec44

JustJazzie said:


> *swoon* The framing. The lighting. The posing. The setting. Number 1 and 4. *swoon*
> 
> Straight our of a story book, once again. <3<3<3



Swoon is a very common word in the wedding industry


----------



## Braineack

I shot a wedding two weeks ago.

It was a very overcast day -- complete cloud coverage.  I still havent delivered the images because I'm going back through each shot to make sure the sky is blue and not blown-out...


----------



## Vtec44

Braineack said:


> I shot a wedding two weeks ago.
> 
> It was a very overcast day -- complete cloud coverage.  I still havent delivered the images because I'm going back through each shot to make sure the sky is blue and not blown-out...




I'm so sorry but I hope they don't ask for a refund.


----------

