Photographer as artist?
~E.V.
Wende Vyborney wrote:
> Let's try a photography thread that's upbeat... since my gripe with the
> generic wedding photographers is that they do the same dratted 75 poses,
> let's brainstorm creative photos that would require some expertise and
> might be worth having. (I won't get into whether expertise belongs to a
> pro or a talented amateur.)
>
> <snip of some ideas>
>
> What else would be unique and exciting?
Our photographer does quite a few things we thought was very artistic
looking- it's why we picked him.
One is called Polaroid transfer, and winds up looking a bit like a
watercolor.
He does wonderful panoramic pictures, which especially look good in b&w.
And he likes to leave the edges showing on the prints which kinda frames
them with soft edges and some have a more square area as opposed to
rectangular. (I don't remember what exactly these things are called.)
Also, interesting angles can really give a photo that artistic quality _if_
it's done well and not just for the sake of having something at an odd angle
(if you know what I mean.)
Ooh, I also really like the silvering technique on b&w photos. (can't
remember what it's called either, and I don't think our photographer does
it.)
~E.V.
Nathan Shafer
Wende Vyborney wrote:
>
> Let's try a photography thread that's upbeat... since my gripe with the
> generic wedding photographers is that they do the same dratted 75 poses,
> let's brainstorm creative photos that would require some expertise and
> might be worth having.
This sounds awesome!! I am eagerly anticipating some of the responses!
People, please contribute to this thread...
Awesome idea, Wende...
Nathan Shafer, Alpenglow Photography
http://home.earthlink.net/~shafers
Photographic Artistry Nationwide: Weddings, Portraits, Nature & Wildlife
Sandi Rollins
In article <34CCE835...@skypoint.com>,
Wende Vyborney <vybo...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>let's brainstorm creative photos that would require some expertise and
>might be worth having. (I won't get into whether expertise belongs to a
>pro or a talented amateur.)
>
>--Bride with glow. This sounds weird, but I saw it on someone's Web site
>-- the gown was lit so it was sort of angel-like. Very pretty.
How 'bout bride-n-groom with glow? We have a couple. :^) One
thing we liked about our photographer was that he used a lot of natural
light, and liked outdoor photographs. So we hauled ourselves up into
the foothills after the wedding, in all our finery. Dave and I
sat in his gorgeous, sweated-and-slaved-over restored 1955 Ford
Fordor (blue and white, with super new chrome!) and the photog gave
us a slaved flash unit to rest on our laps. When we were ready, the
interior flash lit us up, and made us both glow. In the backgound,
we have the sunset, in all its amazing colors.
And that's not the best of the sunset photos! Our favorite: both of
us, faces showing, turned towards the photog, standing by the car (the
entire car is showing), with the sunset and ocean in the background.
My dress is perfectly highlighted, my veil is floating ethereally,
and we both have natural, comfortable expressions.
This photo has been ordered by nearly every family member, and will
be our "mantle picture" as well as a 10"x10" print in the album.
>--All the guests in one photo. Posing this artistically might be work.
>Cool for a small wedding.
We did this, and one of my best friends did this as well. At ours,
we had everyone gather at the front of the hall, on the stage, ground,
and risers used for the ceremony. It'll be great as a panoramic,
although a little "flat" artistically.
My friend's photog had everyone gather round the foot of the balcony,
and shot down onto the crowd. Since everyone had an upturned face
to him, you can identify every guest. Very well done!
Other neat/fun photos we got:
* My brother leading the Electric Slide (the only choreographed dance
we OK'd with the DJ!): I have my dress hiked up around my shins, and
am laughing maniacally. Great, natural shot.
* Dave and I in the balcony, with the "greater view" of the hall
in the background.
* A picture of Dave fingering my gold organza veil in curiosity.
* A picture of Dave fending me off with a cake plate during the
cake-cutting. Playful and fun.
* A picture of us at the "altar", gazing around in wonder during
the "free time" proclaimed by the minister.
* A picture of Dave and I singing to one another during our first dance.
* A picture of me defending my bodice from the confetti throws. (Which
then necessitated "bosom grooming" on my part on the way to
the mountain sunset photos). :^)
* A picture of our cake table, taken on a longer exposure so that
the cake table lights glow softly among the tulle and ivy.
* A picture of our wedding rings, nestled amongst a stargazer lily.
Nice, but it would have been higher-contrast if they were against
a black background.
More than anything, he got pictures of us and the day that noone else
did. And I'm not just talking during the processional, when people felt
conspicuous; I mean during the dancing, the toasting, the visiting.
Sandi (& Dave)
11/3/97 (a Monday!)
Todd and Jenny Richard
Wende Vyborney wrote:
> Let's try a photography thread that's upbeat... since my gripe with the
> generic wedding photographers is that they do the same dratted 75 poses,
> let's brainstorm creative photos that would require some expertise and
> might be worth having. (I won't get into whether expertise belongs to a
> pro or a talented amateur.)
>
> My start:
>
> --Black-and-white or sepia tone. This would be a good fit for a
> Victorian wedding, and doing it well takes different techniques than
> color.
>
> --Bride with glow. This sounds weird, but I saw it on someone's Web site
> -- the gown was lit so it was sort of angel-like. Very pretty.
>
> --All the guests in one photo. Posing this artistically might be work.
> Cool for a small wedding.
>
> What else would be unique and exciting?
~Bride and Groom alone together, shot around a tree, on a bridge, near a
cliff overlooking the sea, on a beach, near a lake (basically near some
gorgeous scenery)
~Reception after everyone's left compared to before ('specially funny to see
for really big weddings)
~Close-up of Groom as he first sees Bride on the wedding day, or vice versa
Sort of corny, but would be cute if done right:
~Bride carrying Groom (only works of course if you can lift your guy)
Jenny
--
There is a place you can touch on a woman to drive
her crazy-her heart." ~Melanie Griffith, Milk Money
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/8340
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cjr
Todd and Jenny Richard wrote:
>
> Wende Vyborney wrote:
> >
> > My start:
> > --All the guests in one photo. Posing this artistically might be work.
> > Cool for a small wedding.
As I've learned on this ng, this is standard in the UK. I couldn't
quite figure out how they do it, but somehow they do I was assured.
Probably not *artistic* though (how much can you do with 100 people
together).
> >
> > What else would be unique and exciting?
>
> ~Bride and Groom alone together, shot around a tree, on a bridge, near a
> cliff overlooking the sea, on a beach, near a lake (basically near some
> gorgeous scenery)
These are great if you have the time.
> ~Reception after everyone's left compared to before ('specially funny to see
> for really big weddings)
Great idea!
I like the more "momento" like photos - a FOB dancing with
granddaughter stepping on his toes, grandma type oohing and awing over
groom :) - my favorite wedding-related photo (and it's a snapshot I
took) is of my mom, her 2 sisters and 2 cousins, dancing hysterically -
but that can't be posed. I think the trick with these types of photos
has as much to do with the photographer knowing *whom* to photograph
(in the case of a big wedding) so whom to watch for as it has to do
with artistry.
Something standard I suppose but was very nice : my brother's
photographer took a picture of each of us 5 sisters dancing with him
(it was during the $ dance, so it was easy enough to catch each of us)
and my brother and SIL then gave a framed 5x7 to each of us as a gift.
Cherise - who will likely go with a few standard family groupings (very
important to my family) and a HUGE group shot
Rose Eby
MisSunshne wrote:
> I grew up feeling that THIS was the only way wedding photos were done. Sadly,
> I doubt there is anyone anywhere who would be willing to do this for a
> reasonable price to even a few of my photos.
Actually, when I was "interviewing" several photographers and looking at albums
they had done, there was one who had done some pictures like this. I don't recall
the exact pricing structure but I remember thinking that it was reasonable. Of
course, this was in Saskatchewan, Canada and things tend to be priced *much*
lower than here (in South Florida) and, I would suspect, just about any other
large metro area.
But... it's possible there are others. Even though I didn't end up hiring this
photog
it did look really beautiful. I can't imagine he is the only one doing it.
Rose
MisSunshne
>Our photographer does quite a few things we thought was very artistic
>looking- it's why we picked him.
>One is called Polaroid transfer, and winds up looking a bit like a
>watercolor.
This sounds a little like my mom's wedding pictures from the 60s. Each and
every one of her black and white 8x10s were hand brushed with color (fleshtone,
eyes, lips, etc) to create the look of color photography. They have a matte
finish and a total flawlessness about them. No flash, no gloss.
I grew up feeling that THIS was the only way wedding photos were done. Sadly,
I doubt there is anyone anywhere who would be willing to do this for a
reasonable price to even a few of my photos.
ATR
Karen Simmons
MisSunshne wrote:
>
>> Our photographer does quite a few things we thought was very
>> artistic looking- it's why we picked him. One is called Polaroid
>> transfer, and winds up looking a bit like a watercolor.
>
> This sounds a little like my mom's wedding pictures from the 60s.
> Each and every one of her black and white 8x10s were hand brushed
> with color (fleshtone, eyes, lips, etc) to create the look of color
> photography. They have a matte finish and a total flawlessness
> about them. No flash, no gloss.
We do both of these: they are two completely different processes.
A Polaroid transfer is where a negative or a slide is printed on a
Polariod film -- just the the film in a One-Step except possibly
bigger. The backing is peeled off (again, just like a regular Polaroid
snapshot), the print is let to develop and then immediately placed in a
water bath of 160 degrees F. At the same time a piece of 300 or 400 lb
watercolor paper is soaking in another 160 degree water bath. After
about 8 minutes the Polaroid is transferred to a cool water bath.
Shortly after that, the emulsion (the actual picture part) will start to
separate from the paper backing. The emulsion is then lifted out of the
water (VERY gently -- it's extremely fragile) and placed on the warm,
wet watercolor paper. It's pressed out and then can be manipulated in
any way to get a neat effect or to just shape the edges. Then it's left
to dry for a week or more. Voila! (Sorry if I go into too much detail,
but I find it a fascinating process and I've only just started to play
with it and offer it to clients, so I'm enthused right now!)
The other thing you mention is a hand-colored or hand-tinted image.
This is an actual black and white photograph printed on fiber paper that
is painted or colored by hand with photographic oils, pastels, or
pencils. It is extremely time consuming which is why it is so expensive
to do (a person's face can take several days to do as each color of
paint must be allowed to dry somewhat before another color can be
added). The other thing to consider is that the colors will not "take"
on a standard black & white print that has been printed on RC paper (RC
paper is the paper you get from most labs that has a plastic-y feel and
can have a glossy or a semi-matte finish - RC stands for "resin
coated"). Photos that are to be hand colored must be printed on fiber
paper which is MUCH more expensive by the sheet, and requires much more
processing. For example, the fiber paper is more absorbant and
therefore holds chemicals longer, so must be washed in continuously
running water for 2 HOURS before it is considered "safe" from fading or
spotting caused by excess chemicals. The fiber structure is also why
these pictures have a very matte finish.
Ok, I'm sure I've caused complete brain death from boredom for the
non-photo geeks out there! <g> The thing is, these are both things we
have started to offer in our studio and I'm just so excited to see that
there are people who appreciate the "neatness" of it!!
Karen
--
------------------------------
Karen Simmons Photography
Atlanta, Georgia
http://www.ks-photography.com
------------------------------
Karen Simmons
Some other ideas for this thread (Oh, Boy! This is much more fun than
the other stuff!!):
(1) In line with the Polaroid transfers and the hand-tinted stuff, we
also offer something called (depending on the photog) a "Painterly
Image", a "Watercolor Print", or an "Impressionistic Portrait". With
the client, we select an image that we think would look good as a
watercolor painting. That image is then digitized into the computer,
manipulated to look like a Monet-type image, then printed out via a high
quality printer (we send ours off to a company that has the really
expensive equipment that we can't afford) onto 400 lb watercolor paper.
The image is then returned to us and we sign and date it and spray it.
It's absolutely gorgeous with the right image (the signature shot on the
first page of my web site is one we've done this way).
(2) I like to use detail close ups for an artistic feel; a close up of
the grooms ring on the MOH's first finger, the pear clip that the bride
gave her bridesmaids in their hair, just the bride's fingers and her
garter as she puts it on, the groom's pocket hankerchief, the detail on
the cake, etc. I find that these images interspersed with the "regular"
shots help give a real feel for the details of the day.
(3) I, too, like odd angles, if done right. In line with that, I
sometimes like the effect of a very wide angle lens for an overall
scenic or ceremony shot (almost a fisheye, but not quite).
(4) I love to play with a bride's veil. Shoot through the veil, put the
couple both under the veil, if it's really long wrap it around all the
BM's, etc.
(5) I like LOTS of natural light and contrast. Very artsy to me.
Ok, at midnight, that's about all I can think of. I'm sure I'll have
more later!
JSchrader
What's unique and exciting varies from bride to bride. We designed our own
"shot sheet" which has five pages of wedding type pictures that we ask each
bride to fill out. There is plenty of room for innovation and the bride's own
original ideas. We use the shot sheet as a guide to be sure that we don't miss
any pictures that the bride feels is important. I also shoot many candids and
artsy shots as they present themselves. I shoot 500 to 1000 pictures at each
wedding and meet with the couple to edit and lay out their albums.
Jerry Shrader
Schrader Photo
Rick Martin
Karen Simmons wrote:
> Rick Martin wrote:
> >
> > Karen Simmons wrote:
> >
> > > <snipped>
> Rick,
>
> I realize that you think digital is the be-all and end-all of
> photography, but could you please quit dismissing out of hand the more
> traditional (and still quite viable) styles of photography and
> photographic art.
Check this out http://www.rickmartin.com/room.jpgQuit dissing
Digital!<grin>
>
>
> Yes, I can get *similar* results using digital (which I do, if you read
> my post on watercolor images). But the beauty -- to me and to my
> clients -- of the processes I described (hand-tinting and Polaroid
> transfers) are the fact that they are original and unique. I will never
> be able to create the exact same piece twice by hand and that makes them
> more "arty" -- and therefore more valuable to the client.
>
> Besides, put up a hand-painted image next to a digital image and I (and
> most of my clients, I'd wager) can tell the difference.
Whaaaa....
> Digital is not the Godsend to photographers you make it out to be yet.
> It's expensive and the life span of the final images is still suspect
> -- according to studies put out by Kodak (so there! <g>)
More accomplished photographers will disagree on this one <grin>Final
images? Have you seen the Kodak 8600 printer!
What about that recent article in the PPA mag about a photographer in
Lousiana
that shoots weddings digitally & at the end of the reception hands the B&G
an album.
Thats REVOLUTIONARY!
Like it or not Digital is changing the way we as photographers do business.
It has changed my business. I prefer to be the leading edge rather than the
trailing!
>
>
--
Rick Martin,Photographer
Lt Governor, Northern District
Virginia Professional Photographers Assoc
http://www.rickmartin.com Manassas,Va
Rick Martin
Sorry, I'm still getting used to Communicator
Rick Martin wrote:
> Rick Martin wrote:
> > >
> > > Karen Simmons wrote:
> > >
> > > > <snipped>
> > Rick,
> >
> > I realize that you think digital is the be-all and end-all of
> > photography, but could you please quit dismissing out of hand the more
> > traditional (and still quite viable) styles of photography and
> > photographic art.
>
> Check this out http://www.rickmartin.com/room.jpg
> Stop dissin' Digital! <grin>
Rick Martin
Karen Simmons wrote:
> <snipped>
These processes take to long!Digital is faster,more control,& and overall
better for these things!
--
Karen Simmons
Rick Martin wrote:
>
> Karen Simmons wrote:
>
> > <snipped>
>
> These processes take to long!Digital is faster,more control,& and
> overall
> better for these things!
Rick,
I realize that you think digital is the be-all and end-all of
photography, but could you please quit dismissing out of hand the more
traditional (and still quite viable) styles of photography and
photographic art.
Yes, I can get *similar* results using digital (which I do, if you read
my post on watercolor images). But the beauty -- to me and to my
clients -- of the processes I described (hand-tinting and Polaroid
transfers) are the fact that they are original and unique. I will never
be able to create the exact same piece twice by hand and that makes them
more "arty" -- and therefore more valuable to the client.
Besides, put up a hand-painted image next to a digital image and I (and
most of my clients, I'd wager) can tell the difference.
Digital is not the Godsend to photographers you make it out to be yet.
It's expensive and the life span of the final images is still suspect
-- according to studies put out by Kodak (so there! <g>)
Karen
Todd and Jenny Richard
Rick Martin wrote:
> Karen Simmons wrote:
>
> > <snipped>
>
> These processes take to long!Digital is faster,more control,& and overall
> better for these things!
>
> --
> Rick Martin,Photographer
You know, I just have to reply to this. Sometimes newer isn't better. For
some reason today, most people feel that the faster, easier, cheaper you can
do something, the better it is. That's why a lot of products fall apart
easier nowadays and aren't worth much. Things made in the past that took a
long time, a lot of hard work and care are of higher quality (IMO) because
they stand the tests of time and still remain usable. The same goes for
photography. I have a handcolored 11x14 photo of my grandmother and
grandfather walking down a city street. She's dressed in a very beautiful
40's dress (when the pic was taken) and he's decked out in his army uniform.
It is the most beautiful picture I have seen of people. It totally captures
the time period and the essence of what my grandma and grandpa are all about.
Digital couldn't have done that.
Todd and Jenny Richard
Karen Simmons wrote:
> Some other ideas for this thread (Oh, Boy! This is much more fun than
> the other stuff!!):
>
> (1) In line with the Polaroid transfers and the hand-tinted stuff, we
> also offer something called (depending on the photog) a "Painterly
> Image", a "Watercolor Print", or an "Impressionistic Portrait". With
> the client, we select an image that we think would look good as a
> watercolor painting. That image is then digitized into the computer,
> manipulated to look like a Monet-type image, then printed out via a high
> quality printer (we send ours off to a company that has the really
> expensive equipment that we can't afford) onto 400 lb watercolor paper.
> The image is then returned to us and we sign and date it and spray it.
> It's absolutely gorgeous with the right image (the signature shot on the
> first page of my web site is one we've done this way).
> <other neat photog stuff snipped
> Karen
I just wanted to say I looked at the photo you described and thought it
was beautiful. If I had money for a photographer and lived near you :) you'd
be the one I want. You're a lot more honest and forthright in your posting
than some of the other photographers I've seen on this ng :)
Jenny
--
There is a place you can touch on a woman to drive
her crazy-her heart." ~Melanie Griffith, Milk Money
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/8340
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~E.V.
>
>
> Our photographer does quite a few things we thought was very artistic
> looking- it's why we picked him.
Sorry to respond to my own post again, but I almost went into hysterics when I
read this. I, of course, meant to say "we thought _were_ very artistic" ! I
actually changed the sentence from a completely different one and overlooked
that.Ack.
>
>
> ~E.V.
>
> http://members.tripod.com/kate_and_josh
~E.V.
MisSunshne wrote:
> >Our photographer does quite a few things we thought was very artistic
> >looking- it's why we picked him.
> >One is called Polaroid transfer, and winds up looking a bit like a
> >watercolor.
>
> This sounds a little like my mom's wedding pictures from the 60s. Each and
> every one of her black and white 8x10s were hand brushed with color (fleshtone,
> eyes, lips, etc) to create the look of color photography. They have a matte
> finish and a total flawlessness about them. No flash, no gloss.
>
That sounds more like hand coloring. In Polaroid transfer, the picture is treated
in a special way so the colors do this when transfered to another sheet. (I'm sure
one of our photographers could expalin this much better)
> I grew up feeling that THIS was the only way wedding photos were done. Sadly,
> I doubt there is anyone anywhere who would be willing to do this for a
> reasonable price to even a few of my photos.
>
Yeah, hand coloring tends to be expensive because it's a lot of work. Our
photographer charges $50 for an 8x10 for hand coloring, but only $6 for polaroid
transfer. You might want to look into this as an inexpensive alternative. The
look isn't really the same, (the hand colored is usually neatly in the lines, while
the transfer bleeds gives much more fuzzy edges) but it may be enough to give you
the feel you're looking for.
~E.V.
Karen Simmons
Todd and Jenny Richard wrote:
> I just wanted to say I looked at the photo you described
> and thought it was beautiful. If I had money for a photographer
> and lived near you :) you'd be the one I want. You're a lot more
> honest and forthright in your posting than some of the other
> photographers I've seen on this ng :)
Jenny,
Thank you so much. That's nice to hear, especially considering my
recent behaviour on the groups! :-P
The photographer who I apprenticed under and who was the most wonderful
mentor told me when I was first starting out: You can't be everything
to everybody, so pick one thing and do it really well. Then be honest
with your clients and yourself about what you can and can't do and why.
The rest comes easy. (paraphrased)
I've taken that advice to heart and try to use it in every situation.
After all, I *am* my business and the people who see me will judge me
professionally by my actions -- whether I'm on or off the clock! (of
course it's pretty much the pits when you can't run to Wal-Mart in the
clothes you've been wearing to clean house all day -- you never know
who you might meet that would get the wrong impression <g>!
Best Regards,
Karen
MisSunshne
>Rick Martin wrote:
>>
>> Karen Simmons wrote:
>>
>> > <snipped>
>>
>> These processes take to long!Digital is faster,more control,& and
>> overall
>> better for these things!
And Karen wrote:
>Rick,
>
>I realize that you think digital is the be-all and end-all of
>photography, but could you please quit dismissing out of hand the more
>traditional (and still quite viable) styles of photography and
>photographic art.
>
>Yes, I can get *similar* results using digital (which I do, if you read
>my post on watercolor images). But the beauty -- to me and to my
>clients -- of the processes I described (hand-tinting and Polaroid
>transfers) are the fact that they are original and unique.
Karen - EXACTLY!
I look at my mom's beautiful wedding photos and I think - *THIS* is how
photography should be. Each and every photo created by hand and with her in
mind -- not scanned into a machine, run through a few filters and printed out
again on nice paper. This may be the "perfect" way for some photographers to
do it (costs less, takes less time), but it certainly doesn't produce the same
emotional effect for the bride.
What saddens me is the fact that some of the comments from brides have been
things like, "I can remember my wedding just fine without fancy pictures" and
"how dare you tell me that pictures are important" -- seems a little
short-sighted to me. I'm not a photographer, so don't attack me -- and I don't
care how much you spend on your pictures -- but do remember, you aren't only
getting pictures for yourself and the expectation of the industry -- you're
also getting pictures for when your daughter comes to you and asks to see them.
When your granddaughter asks you what you and grandpa used to look like. I
spent a lot of time looking at my mom's beautiful wedding pictures -- it really
shaped a lot of my feelings about love and marriage and really helped me see
who my mom was when she was my age.
ATR
JMH
Rick Martin wrote:
> What about that recent article in the PPA mag about a photographer in
> Lousiana
> that shoots weddings digitally & at the end of the reception hands the B&G
> an album.
> Thats REVOLUTIONARY!
> Like it or not Digital is changing the way we as photographers do business.
> It has changed my business. I prefer to be the leading edge rather than the
> trailing!
AHA! I knew someone had seen the potential of the digital market and
"instant" albums.
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| To email me, write to jmhinds at mindspring dot com |
| |
| http://www.mindspring.com/~thinds/jmh/ |
| |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
SPECTRUM
I love this thread ! It's about time we had something creative.
My addition, we use HEI/HSI Infra-Red ! Expose it at EI - 25 and develop
in Rodinal 1:100 for 19 minutes at 70F and you'll get some really unique
images !
And our clients get a real kick out of the photographer who is using "that
old camera" ! I use either a Speed Graphic or a Zone VI if I have time. The
HSI really goes soft when you overexpose it due to halation. But it doesn't
loose sharpness, just contrast.
About the hand-colored prints, try Kodaks P-Max Art RC. We can have a
print done in 1 - 4 hours using that with Veronica Cass oils .
And don't forget that other B&W trick ! Toning ! Kodak Polytoner on
Polymax II RC is great ! Rich chocolate tones and archival permenance.
Can't get that with digital !
And I love fisheye lenses on the dancefloor. Add a barebulb strobe and
some T-Max 400 pushed to EI 800 and you get great DOF and action up close
and personal!
--
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
http://www.spectrumphoto.com SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Karen Simmons <klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<34CE462E...@mindspring.com>...
BlkHatWhtDog
Wende Vyborney wrote:
>
> Let's try a photography thread that's upbeat... since my gripe with the
> generic wedding photographers is that they do the same dratted 75 poses,
> let's brainstorm creative photos that would require some expertise
Since everyone else is going off on the handcoloring, let me address the
other things.
>
> --Bride with glow. This sounds weird, but I saw it on someone's Web site
> -- the gown was lit so it was sort of angel-like. Very pretty.
This sounds like a softfocus filter or haze filter that makes bright things
glow like that. The effect varies with type of filter and lens used, as well
as exposure.
>
> --All the guests in one photo. Posing this artistically might be work.
> Cool for a small wedding.
This is alot fun, especially if you have a reception site with a mezzanine or
balcony where the photographer can just point the camera down and get
everyone in. Works great as a panarama page.
jwhite
Captain's Log, StarDate 28 Jan 1998 04:57:50 GMT, received subspace
message from "SPECTRUM" <SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com>. It contained the
following:
> My addition, we use HEI/HSI Infra-Red ! Expose it at EI - 25 and develop
>in Rodinal 1:100 for 19 minutes at 70F and you'll get some really unique
>images !
One request please, if I may...I don't mind you including a lot of
technical details, but in all likelyhood, few people outside of the
photographers who read this group will understand any of what you
said. Could you kindly translate this into "common" terms/phrasing
that others here will understand? I'm sure the processes and items
you described would produce some wonderful pictures, but I personally
haven't the faintest idea what you said in that post.
As for the old equipment, just because something is old doesn't mean
it is obsolete and/or useless. I have a Kodak Signet 50 35mm that my
father bought when he was in HS for $20.00 (new). It takes as good or
better pictures than any other consumer-grade camera I've seen...that
is if you don't mind working with manual everything (focus, exposure,
speed settings.) I'm an out-door person and like nature (comes from
growing-up on a dairy farm). This camera was the only one I've ever
had that could survive the occasional fall, getting smacked by a tree
branch, etc, as it's mainly steel and aluminum construction, no
plastic except for the shutter-release and the back door being
Bakelite.
IME (in my experience), sometimes older equipment lends itself to
certian functions better than newer, esp. if those functions were
never really popular, but some people wanted them. As a result, the
necessary features may have been left off of newer equipment. Also,
depending on the manufacturer, I've found that some of the older
equipment may be of better quality than their newer kit, although that
is usually a sad statement to have to make about a company.
Now, if only I could find a repair shop that is willing to fix the
broken shutter release on it...shouldn't be hard, the plastic
"duck-bill" tab simply broke-off, no other mechanical damage.
However, most repair shops only want to sell me a newer camera.
later...peace...Jud
...who really does welcome the positive photography discussion here in
a.w. but only requests that one take it easy on the technical terms
w/o explaining them.
Judson L. White j_w...@super.zippo.com
Note: to send me e-mail, you must include "Hey Jud"
w/o quotes somewhere in the body of the message.
Sorry, anti-spam filtering.
Jim & Elizabeth
Here's an idea:
When we were dancing to our first dance, our photographer took a picture
of all the hordes of people who were trying to take pictures of us! The
proof showed a row of people with cameras held up to their eyes, vying
for a spot near the dance floor. I really liked this picture, it
cracked me up.
Elizabeth
Nathan Shafer wrote:
> Wende Vyborney wrote:
> >
> > Let's try a photography thread that's upbeat... since my gripe with
> the
> > generic wedding photographers is that they do the same dratted 75
> poses,
> > let's brainstorm creative photos that would require some expertise
> and
> > might be worth having.
>