# Wedding shots, retouch or not?



## Hair Bear (Jun 10, 2007)

I know the dress shot could have been better and I need to work on creativity of the shot to avoid some of these issues but

given the shot how much would you retouch?

1






2





The sink just had to go I thought

and on this one the black patch in the background was distracting

3





4


----------



## Rusty_Tripod (Jun 10, 2007)

Personally, I prefer to crop rather than deconstruct reality.

Rusty Tripod


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 10, 2007)

How would you have cropped those two Rusty, while keeping the aspect ratio to match the rest of the pictures ?


----------



## dgs (Jun 10, 2007)

Personally, I don't think you are at risk of deconstructing reality.

You've not modified the subjects of the photographs, in my view.  In fact, on the dress I may have attempted to do even more (like paint that door something other than white and then redo WB to brighten the dress itself . . . although I'm betting you'll go looking for a beige wall next time *grin*)

Seems to me your job as a wedding 'tog is preserving memories, not archiving kitchen sinks.  I'd worry no more about what you've done here than I would about removing a zit that suddenly appeared on the bride's chin as a nervous reaction.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jun 10, 2007)

I'm a fan of cloning.  I think cropping would have cut off the bottom of the dress and therefor taken away an important detail of the subject.  And I think it was a nice job you did there.
The biride won't even notice unless you show her the before and after.


----------



## Rusty_Tripod (Jun 10, 2007)

Personally, neither one is a "keeper" for me. I would have moved the dress in the first and moved my position in the second. If I crop as much as I can before I shoot, I do not have to "shop" to save an image that probably is not worth saving anyway.

Rusty Tripod


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 10, 2007)

Doing it better next time is the purpose of learning, sometimes you still have to save the shot you have.....

When I was at your place the only way to get an edit was to pay out the nose.. sometimes (as in the wedding) you can't go back and do it again. Yes learn from what you have to edit, but don't throw away a shot because it needs editing either.

By the way you are pretty good at it.


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 10, 2007)

Sorry mystery how has that helped? The black area is still visable and the shot has not retained the aspect ratio

And no i don't mind your suggestion, in fact thats exactly what i was looking for


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 10, 2007)

hind sight is a wonder full thing Rusty and thats why I stated the image wasn't good and I should have rethought it at the time. I didn't and here we are.

You suggested a crop and I asked you how you would


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 10, 2007)

Airbrush the black spot in two.....  just continue the wall on if that is the one we are talking about.


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 10, 2007)

dgs said:


> Personally, I don't think you are at risk of deconstructing reality.
> 
> You've not modified the subjects of the photographs, in my view. In fact, on the dress I may have attempted to do even more (like paint that door something other than white and then redo WB to brighten the dress itself . . . although I'm betting you'll go looking for a beige wall next time *grin*)
> 
> Seems to me your job as a wedding 'tog is preserving memories, not archiving kitchen sinks. I'd worry no more about what you've done here than I would about removing a zit that suddenly appeared on the bride's chin as a nervous reaction.



I agree.  I am in favor of cloning when its appropriate.  If it can enhance a photo without altering the subject in a negative way, I am all for it.  I think you did a very seamless job of getting rid of that needless distraction.  The photo has more character because the sink is gone.

NJ


----------



## LisaD (Jun 10, 2007)

ON shot #2 I would turn it all black and white to lose the distracting colors of the wall and then "spot color" the dress back to it's original state.
Try it and see how you like it - that's how I tone down some background stuff sometimes.  You could have also moved way in on the hip broach and gotten all the texture of the busseled satin.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 10, 2007)

both scenes after manipulation are not really scenes from the wedding anymore. The place shown never existed.

these should be images that document an event, which after manipulation they do not truly.

In 40 or 50 years time, people will be glad to have those parts of the bathroom and the liquid soap and other products in it, since it is those things which connect the image with 2007-reality.

same with the mirror in the second shot. it relates the scene with the spot where it happened.

but that is just my personal feelings


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 10, 2007)

I always thought the same thing alex, but the problem in the real world is if you have compete with the people editing you have a problem shooting pure documentary style.  Everybody wants glitz now.  You can explain that if you have zit on your wedding day, it's just a fact you have to live with, but they won't buy it.  they will think you lack the skill to get rid of it.  So the reality is if you want to compete you have to adapt at least a little anyway.

Gone are the days when we could get away with that.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 10, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> [...] they will think you lack the skill to get rid of it.  So the reality is if you want to compete you have to adapt at least a little anyway.
> 
> Gone are the days when we could get away with that.



you are probably right with that one, sad though!


I do understand that people want to have 2 or 3 glamour shots to put up on the wall and in the family shrine, but those other 50 to 500 shots, they should show the event in some way. If not, all the weddings will look almost the same, and you could just take a standard set of wedding images and clone in the different faces ...


Another example of being a pro means selling your soul  .. you cannot do what you like, but you have to do what the customers want.


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 10, 2007)

Thats what I have done Alex, i have retouched 2 shots and left 598 as I shot them

Apart from taking a zit off a brides maid at her request!


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 10, 2007)

Hair Bear said:


> Thats what I have done Alex, i have retouched 2 shots and left 598 as I shot them
> 
> Apart from taking a zit off a brides maid at her request!



would give them both original and manipulated image then.

oh, and technically that was nice work by the way


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 10, 2007)

I will show them the images and then the retouch for fun, lets see what they say. Thanks Alex


----------



## bowronfam3 (Jun 10, 2007)

Here's what I would've done with photo #1...this is cropped to 4x6.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jun 10, 2007)

That looks very nice too bowromfam3.

And very good points made on all accounts from everyone.  I love this place.  It makes me think.


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 10, 2007)

good crop, i'd still retouch it. but nice crop suggestion


----------



## dgs (Jun 10, 2007)

> both scenes after manipulation are not really scenes from the wedding anymore.


 
Really?  

The emotion well captured of bride and father (?) is not real?  Does this mean that a flash should never be used because the reception hall was dark?  Did it mean in ye aulde film days that a print should have never been dodged or burned in the darkroom?  Are all the group poses of bridal parties bogus in that it wasn't part of the ceremony and are, in fact, arrangements managed and controlled by the photographer either before or after the actual fact?

Regardless of current buzzwords like PJ style, it seems to me that wedding photography isn't now and really never has been strict journalism or an archival endeavor.  

It seems to me that a wedding book is a collection of portraits.  The ethical considerations are much the same.  The wedding photographer is not commissioned by church or state to document an historical event.  The 'tog is hired to produce images of an event that inherently contains a great deal of fantasy and "glamour".  To sniff indignantly about that seems, to me at least, a bit disingenuous.


----------



## skieur (Jun 10, 2007)

Hair Bear said:


> I know the dress shot could have been better and I need to work on creativity of the shot to avoid some of these issues but
> 
> given the shot how much would you retouch?
> 
> ...


 
I would go even further in retouching.  Photography has never been meant to be a documentation of reality.   The objective of wedding photography is simply to flatter the subject.  On the other hand I would hope that the lighting and colour was better in other shots and that I did not have to spend time improving these.

skieur


----------



## AprilRamone (Jun 11, 2007)

Hairbear, first of all, I too think you did a nice job of editing these two photos.  But, to address your original question of how much would I edit these two shots....In the first, I definitely wouldn't have taken the time to edit out the sink and everthing because I don't feel that it's too distracting.  I do like what Bowronfam did with the shot.  I would be more inclined to just crop out something that I didn't like and not always worry about keeping a normal ratio.  

The second one though, I probably would want to do something like what you did to get rid of the mirror because I did find it pretty distracting in that one. 

I think once you have to keep spending time editing your shots that could more easily have been fixed before you took it you'll learn to compose better and will save yourself a ton of time 

But, even so, I think every photographer gets shots that they look at and think that they should have moved something away from the background and whatnot.  For me, the amount I work on the image depends on how good of an image it is in the first place.  I'm not really keen on trying to do a TON of time editing and cloning and stuff just to make a so so shot a slightly better so so shot.  But, if it's already a really decent shot and just has a few things that I know will really make the image standout if removed, I'll do it.  But, only you can decide how to make that decision


One other thing I wanted to say was that I wouldn't necessarily show them both versions because then they might wonder why you don't do such dramatic editing on every shot.  Or they might start asking for the world editing-wise...(I get people asking me to just photoshop in people or completely change things in photographs all the time...)


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 11, 2007)

dgs said:


> Really?
> 
> The emotion well captured of bride and father (?) is not real?  Does this mean that a flash should never be used because the reception hall was dark?



I am not preaching ethics here at all.

I do approve manipulation to images.

But if it was my wedding, I would want reality to be depicted, at least in a geometrical sense. In the sense of where things were. the flash has nothing to do with that, and that emotion is part of the image, and is real of course (although it is not real on all photographs in the business, since on some the smile might have been enhacend with PS to hide the bride being not happy)

I am not starting the dogma discussion about post-processing or no post-processing here, since every image is processed anyway.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 11, 2007)

AprilRamone said:


> One other thing I wanted to say was that I wouldn't necessarily show them both versions because then they might wonder why you don't do such dramatic editing on every shot.  Or they might start asking for the world editing-wise...(I get people asking me to just photoshop in people or completely change things in photographs all the time...)



If they want that .. tell them your rate for that extra editing. If they are willing to pay, do it.


----------



## dgs (Jun 11, 2007)

Alex wrote:


> I am not preaching ethics here at all.


 


> Another example of being a pro means selling your soul ;-) .. you cannot do what you like, but you have to do what the customers want.


 
Alex,

I have no quarrel with you and am not seeking one.  I just probably shouldn't post on days I'm feeling testy *grin*

But I do think it's an ethical discussion.  Language like "selling your soul" (even with a smiley face) and "deconstructing reality" place the discussion into ethical territory, it seems to me.  And the issues deserve close examination.  

And I think it's also a matter involving some degree of condescension.  That's probably what put the burr under my saddle.  It doesn't seem to me helpful to the OP.

Digital photography as put tools formerly reserved to the very few in the hands of many.  It has no doubt given birth to abuses.  Reuters is one of many examples.

Hair Bear posted two pics (one I think is pretty awful and one I think is pretty good) taken at a wedding.  The one I like captures a truly glowing bride and her father expressing great joy.  This is a good thing.  His edit doesn't embellish, deceive or falsify.  Good job, podner *grin*


----------



## Groupcaptainbonzo (Jun 11, 2007)

Just a thought folks..

You never tell a client how badly you did somethig. It destroys the magic.

You give them the best you can . If they don't like it they will tell you... (WOW HOW they will tell you).

You can deconstruct reality, prostitute your artistic talent, Dance on a crocadile wearing a TooToo and drinking custard. 

LETS NOT Forget this is a memory for a young woman, of what will hopefully be the best and most important day of her life. Be constructive and artistic in your own time. Give the girl the very best images you can muster... something that she and her husband can look at 40 --- 50--- 60 years from now.

The images are fine. If she liked them ... even better. there are arguments for the washing up in the image . And against.  

Just do the best you can and make her smile.


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 11, 2007)

Good post groupcaptain


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 11, 2007)

The naked truth is I will do what I can to improve the images till I get sick of it then I will stop.... It isn't so much about the bride as it is about me. when I feel like I will barf if I make one more edit, I'm through.

that is in general, I haven't done but one wedding since all this became readily do able, but I'm sure I will feel the same after a hundred.


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 11, 2007)

I use that style with furniture as well, when i can't stand the sight of the piece I have done enough rubbing and restoring!


----------



## Rusty_Tripod (Jun 11, 2007)

It is my belief that if I have to do major edits such were done in the earlier posts here, my comment to myself is that I have not done my job. If this is the only decent shot of the bride's dress and the only decent photo of the bride with her father, and I blew it, I suck it up and toss the photos.

I could easily crop the father in the second image and capture his expression for some kind of insert or vignette. Any other cropping I might do would have the images in shreds in the trash can.

Clearly the dress was not in a spot to enhance ist beauty. As I said before, move it or ignore it. I do not know why Hair Bear is so determined believe in miracles. She says it "could have been better" , but it is too late now.

Rusty Tripod


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 11, 2007)

Sometimes you just have to suck it up and make do my friend.  Back in the day, I put images in an album I wasn't thrilled with cause nobody but me knew they were awful.  People who are not photographers don't really know.  Or at least they didn't used to know maybe they do now with all the talk going around, but I doubt it.

If the edited version of the dress was the only version there was, mommie might well buy it and be glad to get it.  Sometimes we forget we are not the customer.


----------



## Rusty_Tripod (Jun 11, 2007)

Mysteryscribe you have a point. Sometimes there is just no way out except to do better next time.

Rusty Tripod


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 11, 2007)

Exactly, learn from your mistakes and try to prevent them. Nothing like having a camera slip off flash sync in the middle of a wedding to made you think twice about using that camera again.... That is with film not digital. With film you find out when you get home. Talk about a sinking feeling.

But the other great teacher with film you dont have with digital is this. If you are selling pictures ala cart, and you shoot a picture of the dress ten times and nobody is willing to buy it, it is very unlikely that you will shoot it twenty. Not picking on the dress just saying.

I used to get all these stupid bridesmaids coming up with every dumb shot they ever heard off. I would smile shoot it the best I could knowing all along it was a waste of my time. Most of the time it was. But one I could never figure out that I always sold, was a picture of the stupid cake. I mean it is there when they cut it, it is there when they shove it in each other's mouth, but they have to have a virgin picture of it. Just one of those girl things I guess.  My cake is bigger than yours kind of thing.


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 12, 2007)

Rusty

1 she is a he, get my gender right when riding rough shot on my pictures

2 my post did not ask for your comment on 'if the picture was good or not' it asked about how much you retouch

3 you have stated a least twice now its not a keeper, thank you move on. I don't agree with you with the father bride shot, it captures a moment. Its not a great shot buy hay it's what was happening. It was small room with no time to be moving all the furntiure out and setting up studio lighting in order to get the perfect shots you would have got. I'm still learning

4 What is the difference between retouching to make the shot and vignette?. You say don't 'deconstruct reality' How was the vign in the original shot? and surly if your adding a ving then your retouching in a way to hide or mask something. But you don't do this because you would have done it all in the camera?


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 12, 2007)

Hair Bear, I fear you will always have the pros and the cons on matters such as this. Some are purists with regards to the technicality of taking a photo, and some say "In the end it is only the image that counts". 

I lean towards the latter, though, like all of us (I assume) I TRY to get my photos as right as possible in-camera. But - it does not always work. And sometimes a bit of pp is necessary.

I like how you just made the room a little longer so the dining room would no longer show and be distracting from this lovely scene, which lives from other things but a true-to-life represenation of reality at that particular moment in time. 

Sometimes all you can do in the moment of pushing the button is realise "NOW!" and you take the photo, or else the moment would have gone forever. Considerations on composition or optimum settings sometimes have to come later.*

And no one is to believe that in the "good olde days of film only" such manipulations were NOT being done, only was it much, much, much harder to do them and you had to know your craft 1000% better than today with digital photography. But such things WERE done in the darkroom, and there is no denying that.

Only because it is easier to bring about the best in a photo today, with all our digital means, and can therefore be done by more people, does not mean it is suddenly BAD to do it. If it serves the photo, then use the tools, by all means. 

Keep in mind: these things have been done in the darkrooms for decades!

(*This does NOT mean: throw every piece of knowledge on how to take a good photograph over board, happily snap away and "make the photo" later!!! No! It does NOT mean THAT! You all know that, don't you?)


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 12, 2007)

LaFoto said:


> Hair Bear, I fear you will always have the pros and the cons on matters such as this. Some are purists with regards to the technicality of taking a photo, and some say "In the end it is only the image that counts".
> 
> I lean towards the latter, though, like all of us (I assume) I TRY to get my photos as right as possible in-camera. But - it does not always work. And sometimes a bit of pp is necessary.
> 
> ...



Agree with all of that LaFoto


----------



## Christie Photo (Jun 12, 2007)

Rusty_Tripod said:


> Personally, I prefer to crop rather than deconstruct reality.
> 
> Rusty Tripod



Deconstruct reality?  Hmm.  That's never been a concern of mine...  or any of my brides.  In fact, I'd BETTER deconstuct (it's a fun word to use) or I'd be out on my ear.

Pete


----------



## bowronfam3 (Jun 12, 2007)

I have to say, that I find it amusing that Rusty has so much to say about photography, yet....he's not posted any photos for our review??  C'mon purist...let's see 'em!!!!!  LOL!


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 12, 2007)

Your being called out Rusty and I'm still waiting to see your crop suggestion as well


----------



## dgs (Jun 12, 2007)

> I have to say, that I find it amusing that Rusty has so much to say about photography, yet....he's not posted any photos for our review?? C'mon purist...let's see 'em!!!!! LOL!


__________________

*chuckle*  Just make sure you don't edit them, Bo!


----------



## Rusty_Tripod (Jun 13, 2007)

I am not going to take the bait. I don't post for ego or critique. I post for my own whims and pleasure, and I tend to be my own worst enemy when it comes to the self-critique. I know crap when I see it, and I know when I am fighting a losing battle to save a print that should be dumped. I have enough of both.

I shoot film, process and print my own black and white. This fact, along with the fact that I do it around a schedule as a school teacher (which does limit one's free time) affects my posts. I have not got it down to a level of satisfaction. I sponsor a photo club at school. There is not quest for fame in my interest.

When I upload images, I have a specific audience in mind. Thus, any feedback is evaluated in relation to my intent. I do not post for kudos or critiques. Should I eventually chose to do so, I will be well aware of what might come my way. 

I often shoot with friends and/or a local group. I value their input and learn from them. When I can fit in another class to work on darkroom skills, I will. I have no expectation of earning money from my work. That is not an issue with me. I enjoy the pleasures and the frustrations of photography. Call me a purist, if you will but I simply no fan of the machine-gun digital shooter and the Photoshop mock-up artist.

Finally, because I am older, I have learned to reflect. Whenever I have been in a position such as Hair B... has been, and I have become equally defensive, I have taken my defensiveness as a red flag that something is out of whack and not proportional to common sense or reality. When I figure that out, I am them able to look at my work in a different light and either find a new way to resolve the problem or accept the advice of the many and trash it. Sometimes, I recognize that I just have to let go.

Rusty Tripod


----------



## Christie Photo (Jun 13, 2007)

Rusty_Tripod said:


> I am not going to take the bait.



Good for you!  

Pete


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 13, 2007)

Rusty_Tripod said:


> I am not going to take the bait. I don't post for ego or critique. I post for my own whims and pleasure, and I tend to be my own worst enemy when it comes to the self-critique. I know crap when I see it, and I know when I am fighting a losing battle to save a print that should be dumped. I have enough of both.
> 
> I shoot film, process and print my own black and white. This fact, along with the fact that I do it around a schedule as a school teacher (which does limit one's free time) affects my posts. I have not got it down to a level of satisfaction. I sponsor a photo club at school. There is not quest for fame in my interest.
> 
> ...




Thats all cool and basically justifies your own actions to yourself. If this is how your work with your school kids as a method to encourage and develop their skills then i wish you, and more importantly them, all the best.

Had I posted in the 'critique this picture section' then your feed back or thoughts would have been welcome if they were constructive. If you, as you just have, suggested it was crap, then I might be a little defensive about that.

This isn't the feedback section or feedback request it was a how much do you retouch question.

Now in relation to your input you have stated you could easily crop one of the images and make it better. I have asked you to show this whilst keeping the aspect ratio of the shot so it matches others - still waiting.

I didn't ask you anywhere about your thoughts on digital v film and frankly that shot would be the same if shot it on film. Its taken at a moment in time with no time to re adjust the room or the people.

I also didn't ask for a break down of your time and why you can and can't do things.

I'm sorry to be so blunt with you but it appears that that is how you deal with others so should appreciate my directness.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 13, 2007)

This whole thread made me take out my own wedding album again. 
We had not hired a wedding photographer.
It was never the question if we would or not, it was taken for granted that my sister would be our "official" photographer.
And all the photos I now have are "captures of the moment". Only very few were taken in the manner: "Hey, stop there and smile", and even those were just about taken out of our walking (back to the car, out of the church), and were done "just there and NOW! Smile!"

All the photos are ok.
Nice to look at, nice to reminisce over how much people (myself and my husband included  ) have changed over the course of time, to see people who are no longer here with us and so on.

But something inside me today says: Shouldn't we have taken a little time out to go to a special location and take some SPECIAL photos?

I almost dare not say this aloud, since in fact my sister is a member of TPF, too, but I know that she never comes here any more.

She captured a lot of "moments", but all are very "pj", and since it was film with the prints being made in a big lab, with no influence on the outcome by no one, this is what I now have.

Isn't it wonderful to now have the means to control the outcome of one's own prints a lot more? For who that does film/did film has/had access to a colour lab where they can take influence on the outcome of their photos? I don't even know anyone near here with access to a black&white lab!!!


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 13, 2007)

Rusty_Tripod said:


> Call me a purist, if you will but I simply no fan of the machine-gun digital shooter and the Photoshop mock-up artist.
> 
> Rusty Tripod


 
Be careful what you say there... some of us "machine-gunners" and "mock-up artists" are VERY purist at heart and take our time to do the very best that we can with our work. Just because we use a different medium (that being digital vs. analog) to do photography doesn't mean you need to throw us all into one of your generalizations, and it certainly doesn't mean we don't strive to create true works of art.


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 13, 2007)

Would it help you a little Rusty to let you know I also shot film on that day?


----------



## AprilRamone (Jun 13, 2007)

I have a question for you guys...how important is it to you to keep your images in a "normal" print size (i.e. keep them all 4x6 or 5x7 or whatever...)  Personally, if I see a picture I took would look better as an abnormal crop, I'll just do it and not worry about keeping it a normal size.  If I have to print it in a normal size for proofs, I'll just have a white border around it.  

Just curious about how strict ya'll are about keeping your prints in the standard sizes...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 13, 2007)

I try to do a 8x10 proportion but only because I did it so long before you could put white space around them.  I find now that I can force myself to crop odd sizes but it is forced.


----------



## Hair Bear (Jun 13, 2007)

I'm a bit compulsive about it and really like all the pics to be the same size

There are a few in the album that have been cropped for effect but 98% are the same


----------

