Shooting their wedding later this fall......definitely having trouble with her skintones (new monitor this week so I can rework before releasing to her!). Also, after Jeffreaux's redux of the girl with the half-opened eye, I can't believe I shot the ENTIRE shoot without realizing that she had a bad case of it 1 and 2...I was positioning her on the wrong side all day. Argh! Anyway, C&C always welcome and appreciated!

Oh, and i got some new color actions from Design Aglow this week. They look a lot more "extreme" after uploading to SM than in CS2. You guys ever have that problem?

1. (a good example of the action)



2.


3. I opened her left (your right) eye....can you tell?


4. Sky was nasty......


5. The "scott quier" kiss shot


6. reeeeally like this one just wish her expression was better!



7. My try at "posing" them


8. And yeah.......I'm repeating....I did this shot last year.


Thanks always for looking and giving it to me straight!

These are great Lynne!!

I really really like number 2!!
This couple will enjoy all of these shots

Originally Posted by ShepsMom These are great Lynne!! I really really like number 2!! This couple will enjoy all of these shots

Wow thanks Marina! I liked that one too as it showed off the details in her gorgeous blouse nicely, and I don't have many that do! Thanks for lookin'!

#3 she looks like she has biceps! Nice!

I like the Scott Quier shot! I am not too sure I like #1 very much, it's very high key.

Originally Posted by Moogle Pepper #3 she looks like she has biceps! Nice! I like the Scott Quier shot! I am not too sure I like #1 very much, it's very high key.

Thanks for the feedback! She is pretty buff, but her arms do look like they mean business in #3, you're right!

Thanks for the comment on #1, too....I too think it needs toned down based on the view here.

Great Photos!

I like #4 the best.

Take Care,
Chuck,

Originally Posted by Photosbychuck Great Photos! I like #4 the best.

Thanks, Chuck!

You know it seems that a lot of the color pop actions do that- either over expose or crank the yellows. I have often thought it was just me and my
pp failure but, I think that is what I am seeing in your #1. (Which I love #1 a bunch, it just needs toned down, like you said)

All of these are so fantastic. I have jealousy about your city skyline pic. If I had to pick a favorite....
Nah, too hard to do. I tried during the .... pause. I like them all!

Well done Lynne!

Originally Posted by heatherfeather You know it seems that a lot of the color pop actions do that- either over expose or crank the yellows. I have often thought it was just me and my pp failure but, I think that is what I am seeing in your #1. (Which I love #1 a bunch, it just needs toned down, like you said) All of these are so fantastic. I have jealousy about your city skyline pic. If I had to pick a favorite.... Nah, too hard to do. I tried during the .... pause. I like them all! Well done Lynne!

Thanks for the validation on the action trouble....I toned it down some do you think it's an improvement?


And here's the (just about) SOC shot for reference:

The pose of the first is very nice. That picture seems to say something.

Well, my favorite is the last with the silhouette. Very nice capture - even if it's a recycled posing and lighting. Sometimes things work well and they bear repeating.

The reworked action I like too. Reality is overrated, isn't it?

Originally Posted by ian408 The pose of the first is very nice. That picture seems to say something.

"pull my finger?"
i know this whole color popping thing is popular these days, but i personally am very selective with the number of images that i apply the additional pp to. clients like it for its artistic value but oftentimes lose interest in it very quickly when they show the prints to family and they get comments like "why's the picture look funny?" just out of curiosity, do you pop all of the images from an engagement session? and if so, how do your clients take to the results?

Originally Posted by ian408 The pose of the first is very nice. That picture seems to say something.

Thanks! I just wish now I would have caught that moment with a cleaner background...it definitely wasn't posed. Ah well. Thanks for commenting!

#2 & #8 are fabulous! Those are so sweet! I sometimes have issues with brightness differences between LR & CS3. I make it look right in CS3 only to find it much darker in LR...beats me....I simply reboot.

These are all very nice Lynne. Actually, much different style than usual and well done. #1.....is most likely a preferrence thingy. Most clients wouldn't know the difference and really like the shot. We as photographers seem to see all sorts of additional stuff

These are great as usual loved the presentation style too !

Beautiful shots ... I like #2 and #8 the best.

I’m a little late to the show, but here’s what I think (FWIW )

1. It’s fun, and they are having fun and the composition is pretty much working for me, but I think the image background is just a touch busy. I’m with Jeff on this one – my eye wonders all over the image. The PP – well, I’m not a huge fan of the original, but the toned down version is quite nice.
2. The compo on this one rocks! There seems to be a glow/halo around the couple and I’m wondering if that’s not a vignette?
3. The huge blown area in the upper right – not working for me. Love her smile and the way he’s into her in this one!
4. Sky was nasty – why not capitalize on that? I would be very tempted to a mild de-saturation of the background – not all the way to B&W, but just a bit. This way it might look like it was on purpose!
5. ”My” kiss shot! The lips are right and there’s enough light coming between them (their lips) that you know it’s about to happen. Their relative postures is causing me problems – it’s almost like he’s pulling away from her a bit. Is that them, or is that camera tilt?
6. That rust-red metal wall is sooo cool! I agree this one is really nice. Her expression is alright – she’s into him and his focus is all on her. Not really liking the hand in the pocket though.
7. Same smile on her – just huge!!! Love her expression.
8. This one ROCKS!!!!! You plagiarized “my” kiss shot. I’m going to steal this one from you! I’ve even got a place or two around here where I might be able to execute something very similar – though we don’t have canals, we do have rivers with bridges. I’ll find something!

Lynne, I have to confess being made a little uncomfortable by these shots, #1-5. It's that something which I don't think I should be part of I am made part of. A level of intimacy between two people which shouldn't include me looking on. Most of these shots cross a line for me. The out-in-public locations accentuate the dissonance for me.

On the other hand, 6 & 7 are too bland.

#8 is the most successful for me, though I am not taken with the silhouetting, and the one-leg-up stance of the girl is a hair's breadth from a stock porn idea.

Crikey, I'm sounding grumpy

You know, when I look at engagement photos of my own family (older) members I find myself mining them for signs of the feelings between them, and imagining them being intimate and finding happiness in each other. The photos are the start of a kind of imaginative discovery of the two people. In the first lot of your pics here I am not required any more than as a passive observer. It's movies. It's a performance. I have the impulse to look out of the frame for a couple of dogs in the park who are similarly taken with each other. Outrageous comment, I know. But there it is!

I have done nothing like this kind of photography to establish my credentials to comment. I am giving you my raw reactions, gratuitously you might think

I do admire the work you have done with these shots. Your own commitment to sincerity and quality is very clear in them and in your comments about them. When I look at these images from your perspective the challenges become palpable. For example, how do you give the customers what they want but at the same time keep them from unwise demands? How do you make a story satisfying while not revealing all. How do you maintain distances and roles for subjects and viewers when you depict intimacy?

My impression of these images, from a compositional and technical point of view (and a very inexperienced one, I hasten to add!) is that they don't have good answers yet to those challenges.

Do you feel comfortable with these images yourself, let me ask? How different would these images look if your were comfortable with your solutions to those challenges? There is a relationship between approach and technique/look.

I would hate to have been too unbearable, Lynne. I might be having to draw on our reserve of goodwill.

Neil

Originally Posted by NeilL Lynne, I have to confess being made a little uncomfortable by these shots, #1-5. It's that something which I don't think I should be part of I am made part of. A level of intimacy between two people which shouldn't include me looking on. Most of these shots cross a line for me. The out-in-public locations accentuate the dissonance for me. On the other hand, 6 & 7 are too bland. #8 is the most successful for me, though I am not taken with the silhouetting, and the one-leg-up stance of the girl is a hair's breadth from a stock porn idea. Crikey, I'm sounding grumpy You know, when I look at engagement photos of my own family (older) members I find myself mining them for signs of the feelings between them, and imagining them being intimate and finding happiness in each other. The photos are the start of a kind of imaginative discovery of the two people. In the first lot of your pics here I am not required any more than as a passive observer. It's movies. It's a performance. I have the impulse to look out of the frame for a couple of dogs in the park who are similarly taken with each other. Outrageous comment, I know. But there it is! I have done nothing like this kind of photography to establish my credentials to comment. I am giving you my raw reactions, gratuitously you might think I do admire the work you have done with these shots. Your own commitment to sincerity and quality is very clear in them and in your comments about them. When I look at these images from your perspective the challenges become palpable. For example, how do you give the customers what they want but at the same time keep them from unwise demands? How do you make a story satisfying while not revealing all. How do you maintain distances and roles for subjects and viewers when you depict intimacy? My impression of these images, from a compositional and technical point of view (and a very inexperienced one, I hasten to add!) is that they don't have good answers yet to those challenges. Do you feel comfortable with these images yourself, let me ask? How different would these images look if your were comfortable with your solutions to those challenges? There is a relationship between approach and technique/look. I would hate to have been too unbearable, Lynne. I might be having to draw on our reserve of goodwill. Neil

Hey Neil, thanks for weighing in. I don't find your comments unbearable, but I am definitely curious (as others are) for examples of the kind of images that marry (pun intended) the right combination of characteristics you are suggesting.

On one hand I understand that these are images unwelcoming of an outside viewer/intrusion. You're saying their voyeuristic? I would agree some of them are by design. Yes they are staged, but they're (hopefully) not static or stiff/forced, which is what I try NOT to do. I am trying hard to understand then what you ARE looking for:

You know, when I look at engagement photos of my own family (older) members I find myself mining them for signs of the feelings between them, and imagining them being intimate and finding happiness in each other.

I know you don't know these people, but for the sake of argument, are you not able to imagine this couple finding happiness in each other when you look at, say #2 or even #1 (minus the distracting compositional and processing tastes, but looking purely at interaction?)

I am trying to capture the energy they have together, as a couple.... with a visually complimentary context. This is, as you correctly surmised, definitely a challenge. People expect to be captured in a flattering way, yet they rely mostly on the photographer's direction and technical ability to accomplish that.

I would love to see some examples so I could understand better how you would balance the connection of the two without showing any intimacy, and avoid looking like a performance yet un-voyeuristic?

Originally Posted by urbanaries Hey Neil, thanks for weighing in. I don't find your comments unbearable, thanks Lynne but I am definitely curious (as others are) for examples of the kind of images that marry (pun intended) the right combination of characteristics you are suggesting. On one hand I understand that these are images unwelcoming of an outside viewer/intrusion. You're saying their voyeuristic? I would agree some of them are by design. Yes they are staged, but they're (hopefully) not static or stiff/forced, which is what I try NOT to do. I am trying hard to understand then what you ARE looking for: No, not voyeuristic. That would mean the viewer is seeking to look. I feel, and it's not something I am doing by choice, that I don't want to see this couple's intimacy beyond a certain point. Yes, I agree, success would lie in bringing off suggestiveness, rather than documenting/staging an enactment. I know you don't know these people, but for the sake of argument, are you not able to imagine this couple finding happiness in each other when you look at, say #2 or even #1 (minus the distracting compositional and processing tastes, but looking purely at interaction?) I am trying to capture the energy they have together, as a couple.... with a visually complimentary context. This is, as you correctly surmised, definitely a challenge. People expect to be captured in a flattering way, yet they rely mostly on the photographer's direction and technical ability to accomplish that. I would love to see some examples so I could understand better how you would balance the connection of the two without showing any intimacy, and avoid looking like a performance yet un-voyeuristic?

Well, I will honor my obligation, and I am happy to for the sake of our discussion, to follow up my comments with finds of what I like. Give 's a little time.

Thanks for acknowledging my irritating post. I'm glad to have the chance to explore these ideas with you, a far more advanced practitioner than myself.

Neil