Wedding style of overexposed (Page 2): I would assume that wedding photographers who offer that style have shown prospective clients samples of their work and they have approved of it.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Longshadow wrote:

Hahaha. Know of anyone who specifically asked for that style?

I would assume that wedding photographers who offer that style have shown prospective clients samples of their work and they have approved of it. Like any photographic style, it can be done well or it can be done poorly.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

JohnSwanda wrote:

I would assume that wedding photographers who offer that style have shown prospective clients samples of their work and they have approved of it.

Surely...!

New trend.

"that's different..."; "that's cool..."

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

New trend? My niece was married 11 years ago. Not only were the photos she sent us, in my opinion, over exposed, but the tops of their heads were cut off. Personally I would never have hired this person, but it was not my wedding. Oh yes, the photographer showed up in ratty old t-shirt, blue jeans, and tennis shoes. Everyone else was dressed nice. Bit my tongue cause it wasn't my wedding.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

lmTrying wrote:

New trend? My niece was married 11 years ago. Not only were the photos she sent us, in my opinion, over exposed, but the tops of their heads were cut off. Personally I would never have hired this person, but it was not my wedding. Oh yes, the photographer showed up in ratty old t-shirt, blue jeans, and tennis shoes. Everyone else was dressed nice. Bit my tongue cause it wasn't my wedding.

Good bet that photographer didn't intentionally overexpose as part of a creative style.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Every time there are posts about wedding photography on this forum, there is always some sort of negativism or complaint about the entire genre and industry. Stories of incompetent wedding photographers, substandard work, and wedding horror stores fill the threads.

I have been involved in wedding photography and wedding fashion photography for well over 50 years and I just don't see any of this bad work. In my own work and in training new wedding shooters I stress lighting and posing techniques that render the utmost detail in every stitch of white wedding gowns. I have NEVER had a client ask for washed-out images with vacant whites or anything related to overexposure. I have never had a bride, a bridal salon, a couturier client, or an ad agency ask for such imagery.

Yes, there is some rough stuff out there but it is not the work of experienced professionals.

Sometimes folks opine of stuff they know nothing about- I hate when that happens.

If the stuff you are talking about is that bad- show me!

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

CHG_CANON wrote:

Who on earth would offer/ submit/ accept this example of a photograph?? Trend?? More like laziness on the part of the person holding/ operating the camera. Please note I did not use the term 'Photographer'. And if people are stupid enough to pay for this type camera misuse, more fool them.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Redid my Grandsons graduation pictures.
Photographer sold him all those blowed out photos.

jerseymike

rmalarz wrote:

Perhaps, the new photographers use "Trendy" (as suggested by my esteemed colleague) as a means of covering up the fact that they are clueless regarding exposure.
--Bob

Or they know about all that you say and don't care and are moving in a new direction.Like you had at one point you had artists more or less doing the same style, not photographers. Along comes this guy named Pablo Picasso.

Bill_de Loc: US

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

Every time there are posts about wedding photograp... (show quote)

Unfortunately a thread about great wedding photography would most likely be ignored. Mention a few negatives and all of a sudden the entire industry is demonized. Go figure.

---

SonyBug

Longshadow wrote:

Yea, it'll go away and the people stuck with these images will be disappointed later.

Stupid trends...

Anybody know someone who looked at the wedding pictures more than one year after the wedding?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You're correct. At one point I did. Up to that point, my mom had worked for Kodak in a retail sales store. What I photographed was taken by here and the snapshots were returned and I enjoyed them. Then, at the end of my high school career, I found some darkroom equipment that was stored at home. My dad and I set up a darkroom. I started trying to reproduce what mom brought home. That was pretty good. Then, one day at school, a university, I happened across an Ansel Adams print. Things changed. Then, an Eliot Porter print, Things changed again but Eliot's influence wouldn't be called on for many years, as I mostly did black and white. Color was left to slides and Kodak processing. Then, digital was added to my repertoire. So, you're correct. But, that point occurred quite a few years ago.
--Bob

jerseymike wrote:

Or they know about all that you say and don't care and are moving in a new direction.Like you had at one point you had artists more or less doing the same style, not photographers. Along comes this guy named Pablo Picasso.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Lexartiste wrote:

Looking at top wedding magazines, it appears that the current style is to overexpose which blows out highlights and loses texture in the gowns and washes out skin tones. This not what most of us strive for.

And, don't forget chopping top of heads in portraits !

tomcat

I'm not sure what started the trend of overexposed backgrounds, but there was a local artist in my community that did this all the time with family and children environmental portraits. I thought the first time I saw her work that she did not know how to control background exposure with her shutter speed. I even pointed this out to my fellow photographers in my monthly meetings and they said that she is trying to "establish her own style". She continued the trend and lo and behold, one day she popped up as a master photographer with one of the major camera brands. Go figure!!! It was so ignorant and foolish of me to think that a blow-out, overexposed background and subjects that were overexposed by ½ stop was poor photographic technique. I beat myself up all the time for not submitting some of my crappy photographs to my local camera organization---gee, I could have been a famous photographer. By the way, she still shoots like that.......

I am thinking that I should go dig out some of my terrible work and try to get it published in the name of a "style".

1CanonGuy Loc: Texas

rmalarz wrote:

Perhaps, the new photographers use "Trendy" (as suggested by my esteemed colleague) as a means of covering up the fact that they are clueless regarding exposure.
--Bob

Now that sounds about right too me! You hit the nail on the head.

1CanonGuy Loc: Texas

CHG_CANON wrote:

Now that’s funny Paul