Wow, it’s been awhile since our last blog post. It’s not that we haven’t been busy. The reason for radio silence is that we’ve been VERY busy. In addition to Weddings and shooting Bridals and Family Portraits, I’ve been concentrating on my long-term project of applying traditional (film) photo techniques to digital photography. Normally when I hear about the application of “traditional” techniques to digital, the discussion quickly transitions to some Photoshop effect that can be applied with a click of the computer mouse. While Photoshop is an essential tool for modern photographers, that is not my ‘focus’. Rather, I’ve been concentrating on what I term “Pure Photography”, i.e., images produced largely due to camera manipulation rather than Photoshop effects.
In the 1930′s the prevalent photographic style of the day was “Pictorialism”. This was a style of photography that tried to emulate the paintings and etchings of the time. Most of these pictures were black & white or sepia-toned. Among the methods used were soft focus, special filters and lens coatings, heavy manipulation in the darkroom and exotic printing processes. In Wedding Photography today, we’re seeing a lot of modern “Pictorialism”. The vast majority of Wedding Photographers are using Photoshop filters and store-bought actions to create “Vintage”, “Grunge”, “Bright” and other image effects. If you’ve surfed from website to website and noticed that most of the pictures look similar, it is because the Photographers are using the same Photoshop actions they’ve bought from vendors like Kevin Kubota or the Boutwells. These effects seek largely to mimic the look of popular magazines – the “art form” that most modern Brides are influenced by. Here’s an example that I produced upon request from my client Carole:
Carole took this image and had it pressed onto pieces of slate (Her father owns a slate company) which she used at her Wedding Reception. Even though it mimics the Vintage, PS-effected images of so many other Photographers, I tried to add my own ‘take’ on the effects. If any of you are wondering…”Yes, the original image is well composed & exposed.” I just covered it up with PS’d effects.
Ansel Adams, the great(est) American landscape photographer spent the first dozen years of his photographic life shooting images in a style largely influenced by Pictorialists. It was during the early 1930′s that Ansel, influenced by the work of a peer photographer, Paul Strand, decided to abandon the Pictorialism style of the day and commit to a style of “Pure Photography” which emphasizes ‘clear focus, high contrast and high quality workmanship’.
Here’s an example of “Pictorialism” to illustrate. The Pure Photography approach would look like this:
This b/w version of Krista displays a full range of tonal values and clear focus. Applying a “vintage” (aka “Classic Pictorial) effect to the above picture, the result is something like this:
I imagine that if Wedding Photographers of the 1930′s had Photoshop, this sepia-toned version of Krista’s is what they would produce.
There are times when I really do like the “Vintage” look, but I have my own take on it. Here’s a Bridal picture of Padma
Padma wanted an “elegant” b/w Bridal image that captures the look and “feel” of traditional images of her Mother and Father’s Wedding in India. This image became a 20″ x 25″ Gallery Wrap at Padma’s Wedding and was projected onto the wall as a backdrop for her Father’s comments/toast about the couple. As a side note, the texture and “feel” was a very artistic complement to the henna on Padma’s hands. You can see that unlike the traditional “vintage” look, I’ve used an image with very clear, high contrast focus and applied the textured effect via a Photoshop layer. Padma’s image, I think, has more presence and makes more of an impact on the viewer than Krista’s “vintage” look.
…So back to “Pure Photography” for a few moments. ”Why” would a Photographer (ME) choose an approach of Pure Photography when it’s so much easier and trendy to produce the Photoshopped images? Several reasons – but the most compelling for me is that I want images of my Brides/Clients to be unique, classic & elegant. If a client wants pictures that look like a million other pictures…there are a million other photographers who can provide the service.
A second reason for me to concentrate on Pure Photography is that no matter how striking a Photoshopped image can be (and I admit, I’ve seen some very striking images), the flaw with Photoshopped images is that the “Luminance” of a naturally captured image is missing. ”Luminous” (for my purposes, at least) is best defined as “softly glowing or radiant.” It is the Luminance that seems to give a photo its “spirit” or “soul.” Photoshop attempts to create an artificial luminance by applying color tones in computer-generated patterns, but the photos produced by that method seem, to me, to be inferior to the images in which natural light provides the luminance.
Here’s an example of a “mini-Bridal” image shot before Kaci’s Wedding at the 4 Seasons Las Colinas.
Using one of my favorite photo tools – a tripod, I was able to capture the glow Kaci seemed to exude that day of her Wedding. I suggested she find a comfortable pose so Kaci just leaned up against the wall. What I particularly like about this picture is the detail of her dress. Do you notice how there aren’t any “hotspots” which are often caused by the flash or external lighting? I knew the delicate layers of toule would be bleached out to a mass of detail-less white if I didn’t pay a great deal of attention to the lighting and exposure of this image. This image of Kaci is a good example of Pure Photography. The elements of the image were created largely in-camera. I used Photoshop for slight cropping and straightening, but despite my competence with the PS software, I could not have produced this effect with anything less than careful exposure and attention to the image capture.
While I spend a lot of time discussing b/w images as a product of Pure Photography, the same principles apply to color images. Here’s a picture of Kimberly illustrating the point
Kimberly’s Bridal picture is the result of “Plan B” for her shoot. We had scouted a beautiful outdoor location which seemed like it would flatter her complexion and her dress. Unfortunately, on the day of Kim’s shoot it was pouring down rain. When we talked early the day of the shoot, Kim mentioned that she is an instructor at the Children’s Theater in Plano and that the auditorium would be empty that evening. Upon our arrival, we found the lighting from an open door above the stage resulted in the dramatic effect you see in Kimberly’s picture. I held the time of the exposure as long as I could to illuminate the bottom of Kim’s dress without clipping (making go completely white) the portion of her dress facing the open door. This is an example of a “full tonal” image in 64-bit color. There is no artificial lighting but a hand-held reflector is used at the bottom-right.
The Pure Photography approach to a Wedding/Reception isn’t just for the Bridals or posed pictures. Here is a candid (shot by Helen) from Bride Angela’s Reception
As I saw this picture come out of workflow queue, I thought to myself that 50 years ago or 50 years from now, this picture (finish, color, style) will likely be considered a “classic”, and that is exactly where I want the photography coming from Hartt Photography to be…
Here’s an interesting picture from Donna’s Wedding. I used my 1Ds3 (which has a much faster and larger auto-focus than the 5d2′s used by many Wedding Photographers) on a tripod and held the exposure so the colors could naturally saturate and be “luminous”. Some of the better photographers would use a person holding a light to illuminate this scene, but that technique is a distant second choice to lower ISO setting, longer exposure and just capturing the natural beauty of the scene instead of trying to create it later in Photoshop.
There are some tell-tale signs of a slower exposure – see the light trails on the back wall? Fortunately Donna & Steve were just enjoying the moment and weren’t moving a lot. It took a few tries to get this picture right, but once I did, the scene “created” it’s own beauty and I didn’t have to use Photoshop effects to enhance it.
Just now – REALLY! I just received a marketing email from Kevin Kubota’s organization announcing his new set of “Vintage Delish” Photo effects that will “turn your ho-hum images into shout-about images.”
And maybe that marketing tagline about the Vintage Delish Photoshop effects sums up what bugs me most about much of the new direction Photography seems to be taking. ”Ho-hum images” might get spiced up a bit with Photoshop effects – but it’s like throwing Tobasco on a bad Burrito – it’s still a bad Burrito – but it’s been spiced up enough to distract many viewers from that fact. The worst part about a bad Burrito is that it keeps coming up again and again…and not in a good way.
Happy Wedding Everybody!
Christopher
no comments