Last week's wedding: We were only doing the video but as there was no photographer during the reception I snapped a few as a favor. 3 of the Bridesmaids wanted a posed shot with one...

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

We were only doing the video but as there was no photographer during the reception I snapped a few as a favor. 3 of the Bridesmaids wanted a posed shot with one sitting on the piano. All I had was my crop sensor and a kit lens. The background was a mess with a large screen TV and the door to the girls bathroom.

Snap ........... a bit of edit, crop and a special filter ....... presto

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Still like the effect, but think I liked it with the bride on the last one a bit more. Can't put my finger on it.

Still, it made a really nice shot, considering how awful you said the original back ground was.

You got me started working on my own brush to try to get the same (or close) effect.

Lots of time to play with stuff like that, since I'm not booking anything right now.

superpijak Loc: Middle TN

Beercat wrote:

We were only doing the video but as there was no photographer during the reception I snapped a few as a favor. 3 of the Bridesmaids wanted a posed shot with one sitting on the piano. All I had was my crop sensor and a kit lens. The background was a mess with a large screen TV and the door to the girls bathroom.

Snap ........... a bit of edit, crop and a special filter ....... presto

Hmm always have a camera handy is the motto.... :thumbup:

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

The original :shock:

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Beercat wrote:

The original :shock:

Just a thought here, but I think I figured out why I liked the first one of the bride a bit more. Seems like the bride had a few of the larger "blobs of light" that seemed to be closer to the camera. This looks like all of the big ones are far away, and the small ones seem closer.

Not sure if that's it or not, but just kicking it around.

It isn't that I don't like this one, the other one just really had a magic that drew me in.

Thanks for showing the original. That REALLY shows how much you improved the image. For me, it changes it from "one of many nice photos taken on the day, to "album worthy"...

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Keep in mind the brush is sort of like paint splattering, none are exactly alike ........ purposely ;-)

Bobbee

Beercat wrote:

The original :shock:

In the first one how did you cut the girls out. Did you use refine edge? I looked at the second photo and the girl on the right still seems to have been edited into the picture. I know this is the original. Weird effect which comes out in the first. Replacing the background I find is a labor of love. After you think you got it. when you zoom all the way in, that is when the work starts. I like the spatter, as a matter.............of fact.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

You don't cut the subjects out. You crop, correct distortion and then set the exposure, all in LR in my case, then off to PS where you get ride of the TV and door, then you add the sparkle.

Yes it's a labor of love, about 30 minutes on the one picture and you don't make anymore money.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Beercat wrote:

Keep in mind the brush is sort of like paint splattering, none are exactly alike ........ purposely ;-)

Please don't get me wrong, wasn't complaining. With anything random, some will be more pleasing than others. I was just racking my tiny little brain to try to figure out the difference.

If I didn't like the effect, I wouldn't be trying to figure out how to make my own that resembles it.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Beercat wrote:

.

Yes it's a labor of love, about 30 minutes on the one picture and you don't make anymore money.

Truer words were never spoken. I'm in the same boat. I'd rather do something artistic and not charge for it, than to just hand "technically correct" photos to the clients. The artistic touches are as much for my pleasure as theirs.

Being paid more would always be nice, but if we couldn't do "fun things" I'm not sure it would be worth giving up all those Saturdays, no matter how much they paid.

Bobbee

Beercat wrote:

You don't cut the subjects out. You crop, correct distortion and then set the exposure, all in LR in my case, then off to PS where you get ride of the TV and door, then you add the sparkle.

Yes it's a labor of love, about 30 minutes on the one picture and you don't make anymore money.

OK, was wondering. I was in the middle of something when your post popped up. On Sundays wedding, We were doing the formals and JUST RAN OUT OF TIME. The whole event turned into a circus even though I warned several times about this. Ya know what I missed, SINGLE BRIDE SHOT. When I realized it yesterday I was really distraught. I went though the pictures 3 times with my Mr. Peabody cap on. On the 4th role through I figured out what I was going to do. I found a nice shot of her angled in just the right way and took out the Photoshop scalpel and paint brushes. Removed the Groom, rebuilt the background. Adjusted her dress, rebuilt the hands and increased the train. After surgery I had what I needed. Someone else probably would have done better, but I was happy. So being in the middle of that, I saw yours.

Funny, I saw your comment later on time vs money...........I have no comment but I think I purchased the same boat you fish in!! LOL

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

You gave me a good laugh, thanks Bobbee

Bobbee

I see some of my favorite people are on here I just got DPS's tips EMAIL. there is an article in there on essential Wedding Lens. I just read it and thought some of the information was good. So I am sharing it on this thread. (Yeah I know, should have gone to......)

http://digital-photography-school.com/5-must-have-lenses-for-wedding-photographers-and-why/

Bobbee

Beercat wrote:

You gave me a good laugh, thanks Bobbee

Oh, ya know, you have to laugh. Too much crap to cry about. Especially being a Bottom Feeder as someone on this forum likes to call me. LOL

jaysnave Loc: Central Ohio

I am getting in late as these great posts move pretty fast sometimes. However, let me catch up by saying it is a fine thing thing you have done BC. You not only did the reception shots as a favor, but spent considerable amount of time making that one 1,000 times better for them! The background is great especially for bridesmaids at the reception. No money made, but hopefully you get some good referrals from it.

This whole thread has brought a smile to my face because it is all so familiar. Bobbee, I too have panicked missing someone on the shot list and had to do major surgery. Hands are tough!

Nice reference on wedding lenses. It has reminded me I don't use my macro enough. BC's filter effect has reminded me of this technique I ran across the other day. It is a good way to create light rays and with practice it may have a place in wedding photography. Golden hour shots or even indoor lights. Take a look it is a short video.

http://www.iso1200.com/2016/02/how-to-create-light-rays-in-photoshop.html