OPPS...THIS IS A TEMPORARY HOME FOR MY NEW BLOG, "SEEING LIGHT"

Thanks for bearing with me, the content here is more or less the same as what my new blog will have but the form is way different. It will take a couple days to make the changeover. Thanks for visiting and I hope you come back...it's going to be fun! DD

Again the Light

A neighbor asked me to photograph her two daughters with their new babies (two in one season!). We did with great results but the light in their back yard was so wonderful, I cajoled the whole crowd into getting in the act. They said they weren't 'dressed' for a portrait but when the light's right, I just can't help myself. Aren't they great looking?

It's the Light

Why do you like certain photographs? Subject, emotional content, memories that are evoked...lots of things I suppose.

It's interesting to think why any picture interests you.

So back to the question, why a particular photo? Often, it's simply the light. The way the light makes it's own statement. The way it makes you see something differently than you did yesterday, when the light was different.

Below is one which is part of a series I've been doing called "unfamiliar light". The subjects are varied but common place. The light is always, well, unfamiliar. Strange. Beautiful.

This one was taken with my cell phone at Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina. I've always loved this tree. It sits right across the street from my sister-in-law's home. I've shot it several times over the years but one evening we arrived at dusk and it was a whole new scene.

I've been trying to train myself to look less at the objects around me and more at the light. Jeff Ascough (the amazing wedding shooter) says he walks into a room and looks for interesting light, sets up and waits for something interesting to happen in that light. He's won so many awards I think they may have to retire his number. I was shocked to hear him say that. But, it seems, sometimes you have to stop and think about just the light and, sometimes, it just wacks you over the head with it's beauty.

So, watch for the light.

Re-Touch

I recently got a great question from a bride-to-be.  She asked what touch up, or retouching or something of that nature meant. Why didn't I think of that?  Anyway, here's my answer:

Touch up can be a variety of things but, for me, it is the practice of making good photos better.

Basically, I use software (Photoshop or a product called Lightroom) to make sure that the pictures are straight, cropped correctly, lighten or darken, color corrected (light is funny, inside lights are often very green or orange, that can be partially corrected) or many other things that a photographer can't always get perfect in the heat of the wedding.

That's particularly true for photojournalistic style photography where you are not directing people to the perfect light and position. Most of us (photographers) prefer to get it right "in the camera" but, sometimes some wonderful is happening and you just have to take the shot.

Beyond that type of retouching, there is another whole realm of 'beauty' retouching where the photographer can de-emphasize physical features (a blemish) or hide an ugly feature (stain on a dress) using the same tools.

Typically, the latter costs extra due to the time involved . . .  I do it for a select number of photos that are important - like your portrait.  

Here's some "before" and "afters" examples:

Anna & Noah - a quick snapshot that Council (aka Dad) requested - cropped tighter, lighten, straighten slightly & a tiny bit of 'smoothing'...

Emily & Skip - shot just as the ceremony started and I was being ushered to the back of the church ("no photography allowed!").  However, Emily looked so great, I had to grab a shot.  It's cropped tighter and color balanced...see anything else?  Well the boutineer on Brian's jacket just had to go....

Generally, these kinds of touch-ups are to be avoided but when the picture is more important than perfection, it's worth the effort.

I Want It RAW!

Recently, I've heard of couples asking for their photographer's RAW files as part of wedding packages.  If you know all about the RAW files 7 JPG files & TIFF files, etc…then now is a good time to tune out.  If not, read on.

Most people don't know what a RAW file is.  It isn't something you cook...well actually you do but more of that later. For the most part, most people put their wedding CD in a closet to be lost sometime in the future. 

If you thinking of asking for these files be sure you know what you are asking for.  So here's where I give you a bit of a definition:  

RAW files are un-processed data from an image sensor of a digital camera.  They are called RAW because they haven't been transformed by post processing software and can't be printed.  For that matter, in many cases they can't even be viewed on most computers without special software.  In order to do much useful with them, you need to cook them.

So why do couples ask for RAW files?  I think that RAW files, often called DIGITAL NEGATIVES (they really aren't), sound like something really useful.  Most of us have computers, so it seems perfectly logical to presume that with a computer and these files, you can do something useful.  For the most part, you can but you probably shouldn't.

To expand, photography these days goes beyond taking the picture.  Often, today's photography is a process where a good original image is transformed into a great image, something beautiful and moving.  That post processing can be part and parcel of the 'photographer's eye', his/her artistic ability.  When you purchase his/her photography talents, you are also paying for these after-the-shot skills. So ironically, someone asking for the RAW files can be asking the photographer NOT TO FINISH his/her artistic process.  Sound like a bad idea?

There's a great debate going on in the photographic community about digital files, whether they should be released and under what circumstances.  I'm unsure what the right answer on this is but I have observed that many of the most talented photographers - the gifted ones that we all admire and probably can't afford - do not give their files away. Not because they are trying to maintain snobbish exclusivity or are stingy.  The reason, I suspect, is that they are so committed to the high quality of their final photograph - that amazing, stunning imagery - that they refuse to allow someone else alter it. 

Many fine photographers don't just create a product, they create something they love. One does not let the things one loves be tampered with.

Fun with Jennie & Mike

Jennie & Mike are getting married at the Castle In The Clouds on July 4th . . . the fireworks display will be awsome.  We did some informal engagement shots on a cold day in downtown Portsmouth.  They were great sports and it was a fun shoot.  While we had talked about going to the beach or down by the wharfs - did I mention that it was way cold? - we decided to just shoot around town and concentrate on them, not the scenery.  Mike's not a great fan of being photographed  but - as you can see - he was terrific.  Jennie, of course, was way easy to capture.

Serious Photography

Sometimes, photography transcends it's original purpose and becomes high art . . .

 

The story behind the picture . . .

"Must Take" Pictures

Just about everyone who writes to brides has a recommendation for the "must have" pictures.  Except me . . . and Claire Lewis.   Neither she nor I believe you will cherish the "must have" pictures on your list (or anyone else's).

Instead, Claire - who I've never met - recommends in her book - Exposed: Confession of a Wedding Photographer - that the ones you'll love are the informal ones showing people relaxing and having fun.  I couldn't agree more and dread the times I've been handed a 'must have' list.  The best shots happen unscripted.   The worst are stagged weeks or months ahead. 

Like me, Claire knows that someone will want some of those deer-in-the-headlights group shots but the ones that you'll keep forever are the ones that capture the essence of your special day.

Delightfully enough, those are the ones that good photographers like to take, too.  So take my (& Claire's) advice: pick your photographer based on what you love in their work and turn them loose.  Your job is to have a wonderful time.  His/her job is to capture that wonder.

Must have?  Sure.  Posed?  Not a chance.

Just Kidding . . .

So why is it that when you shoot a wedding, the kids in attendance always get more than their fair share of attention?  Well, besides the "cute" factor - an overwhelming advantage they have - there's the "genuine" factor.  Very little artifice - all real. 

These are random shots from a single wedding this winter. 

 

 Fromthe sleigh ride shots to the dance floor, it seemed like everywhere I turned
there was kid things happenings.

  

but I digress, back on the things that children seem to excel at - to start, light loves children.  It caresses them in ways that super models would die for.

Also, they are everywhere and nobody cares...almost anything they do is OK with everyone

and they don't worry about what's the "right thing" to do of course

they pay attention to the important stuff

of course, sometimes when I'm not even trying to photograph them, they get involved....

but one of my favorite things is they don't like to stay up late.

It's all there . . . in black and white.

Black and White

So why is it that so many of us adore black and white photographs. Color photographs carry much more information, they are way more popular, they are a newer technology (really, it took many years to go from b&w to color) and digital cameras, if you didn't know, actually shoot pure color.

OK, it's not that simple - the darn digial thingees shoot three channels of black and white and their little internal computers translate the image into color which, if you want b&w, you sort of de-interpret the color back to b&w. Oh gee, there I go again.

Back to the interesting stuff, it seems that many people think they prefer color but as many - your humble writer included - would rather have a b&w.  Why is that?

Let's look at the color advantage first - two versions of the same picture. The bride's late in the evening night cap - they made it special for her - we all WOW when we saw it. Pretty obvious that the color one is way more appealing. Why is that?

Click each of the following pictures to see the color version....




In my mind, it's pretty simple, the picture is basically about color alone. Amazing color but that's about it. Easy, huh?

So try the next one.




So what's your impression?  Is the color one better?  Or does the black & white one work just as well?  Well, pretty much although it's not dramatic.  Obviously, it depends on the picture, here's another.



Now that one's a set up.  The color one has a completely different focus than the black and white one.  That's because of the dramatic flower colors.  But are the flowers the point of that picture?  Nope, it's her dress and the traditional complexity of getting it just right. 

Here's another, more subtle one.



So a couple shots won't give you the complete "picture" but they do demonstrate a principal. Color photographs are about the color in the photograph.  B&W photographs are pared down, less distractions and have a more focused image about what the picture means, emotionally, informationally and aesthetically.  Can a great color picture do that?  Of course, it's just harder.

Now don't get me wrong, I have photographs (mine and others') that are color and that I love.  However, typically, the main reason I love them is their color.  The black & white ones that I love, and there are lots of them, I love because of their emotional content, whether driven by their graphic forms or embedded stories.  I'm not always sure why I react this way, but, like many of you, I just do.

Obviously, I haven't fully worked this all out myself, this love I have for the quieter more emotional look of black and white. We'll talk again on this subject.

How Many Pictures Do You Take?

How many pictures do I take?  How many do you want?  I know that I'm not supposed to answer a question with a question but it's a question I get asked all the time. That's probably because it can be measured, like my fee or how many hours I stay at a wedding.  Easy questions.  Trouble is, it's tough to answer. So before I answer it, let's think about the question:

How about ten pictures?  Not enough?  How about 3,000?  Ever look at 3,000 pictures?  If you wanted to look at 3000 photographs at say, 30 seconds a picture, that's about twenty five hours of viewing. Probably too many, huh?

Now we're getting somewhere, we have limits.  We know it's more than ten and less than 3,000.

More to think about: most photojournalist style wedding photographers will pull the trigger between 800 and 2000 times during a full day's wedding.  The average is probably around 1200 to 1500.  Multiply that average by the number of photographers.  Sort of takes your breath away.

Now if these photographers care about your experience with their pictures - many do - they'll edit out the technically bad ones (focus, exposure, etc.), the visually bad ones (closed eyes, bad expressions and unwanted gestures) and the just plan boring ones. 

That's the easy part, of course, but it gets the number to something more manageable.  Many, like me, typically run all the remaining shots through an additional process.  It's the process of creating a story from the photographs.

This story of a day needs to include the big moments and the little ones.  The events, the environment and the things that make it special.   Many times you need simple declarative pictures to connect big events so the final story makes sense.  For me, that usually means I end up with 300 or 400 photographs in the final "story", sometimes more, rarely less.  That's still a couple hours of viewing time - about what a good movie would take - your movie.  I usually recommend they be viewed with a glass of wine.  Works every time.

Still a little nervous about how many you should have?  I once sent 1500 photographs to a family.  The mother, an architectural client of mine with a dry sense of humor, has never let me forget what a pain it was to view them all.

Think about it, one of the things you pay for is the photographer's ability to recognize good shots and to cull the less meaningful ones.  It's called his/her "eye".  With my own work, you are also paying for my ability to create your day's story from photographs.  As they say, less is often more.

Jeff Ascough, the master of available light and a regular on the 'world's best' lists, has a really good set of observations about this predisposition of couples (and photographers) to want more rather than less.  He believes the right range is 150 to 180 shots.   The key, he says, is quality. Ascough, by the way, says he's working to reduce the number of shots he takes.

Of course, what he takes is glorious.  Which is my goal, too, irrespective of the shot count.

So, how many photographs do you want?