Had a small wedding on Friday. We hit some spots around the city after the ceremony. This was one photo that I wanted to get. I wanted to show lens flare with the sun to the back, but I also wanted to see their faces. So I used some flash to get the faces lit up. It worked and I got a result that was very similar to what I had intended for the shot.



So, do you think I am out of my mind here, or is this something that works for you. I am interested in hearing the good, the bad, and the ugly.

p.s. Just for the record, this is one out of about 4 or 5 that I did this way in a gallery of 180 photos. Just so no one thinks the whole gallery looks likes this hehehe

I don't really care for it.
But not for the reason of flare. You already stated that was your purpose so in that you are 100% successfull and still clearly a useable image (all mine woulda been 255 across the board)

What bothers the most is that green circle bottom of tree and the white trash behind the groom !! no pun intended

Please read my sig. for info on what qualifys this comment

The green is part of the lense flare I think.

Personally I like the flare idea and I think it works. The only thing I don't like about the picture is how washed out the groom looks. However I have no idea how you would correct that or not get it in the first place when the sun is right over his shoulder.

The green circle is indeed part of the lens flare. This is as yet unedited, so the trash will be gone for any prints and such. And as far as the contrast on the groom, that might be improved with some spot editing. I have not tried it yet to know if it will be effective or not.

Thank you both for the comments.

This is one of those shots that we love (as photographers), but I'm afraid the average person would not appreciate it. I enjoy thinking about the lens physics that caused the flare, but most non-photographers will look at this and think you ruined what should have been a nice portrait. Just MHO.

I can here it now, "That Shay guy was supposed to know what he was doing! Didn't he realize that the sun in that shot would cause all those little doohickeys in the picture?"

mitch

Hi Shay,

Creatively I think this can work. You have already identified the areas that you intend to PP. The only thing that distracted me was the grate that the bride is standing on. Of course that too can be removed. It kind of struck me as humorous in a way, it reminded me of Marilyn's infamous photo! I was waiting to see the bride's gown blow up!

I have a different view than many others so I am not surprised that I believe this can and will work. Most people are so hung up on technical perfection they lose sight of creativity.

I like it!

Originally Posted by bfjr I don't really care for it. But not for the reason of flare. You already stated that was your purpose so in that you are 100% successfull and still clearly a useable image (all mine woulda been 255 across the board) What bothers the most is that green circle bottom of tree and the white trash behind the groom !! no pun intended Please read my sig. for info on what qualifys this comment

Shay I am with Ben on this one but an option is just that

Shay - generally I like the shot. I think the sun is a bit brighter than need be but what the hay! My comments will come more from the "stylist" perception rather than the technical photography...

Her hair needed to be combed / smoothed, her dress and veil could've been better draped, the sewer grate is grating, his pose seems unnatural and his pant leg and jacket needed to be straightened.

<angelo ducks for cover>

Thank you all for the comments. Continuing the theme, same day, same Bat Channel:





Do you get the same feelings with these two as you did the first example?

Personally, I think it's a kewl effect. One not often used in wedding pics. It is risky, as evidenced by the responses you've gotten so far. IMHO, 4 or 5 out of 125 that look like this is about the right number. Not too many, making the clients think you were trying to exhibit your "style" (or forgive the pun, "your flare" ) instead of capturing their memories more traditionally. And just enough to show that it was done on purpose and with intent.

I'm not too big on the small green flares, but I do like the larger orangish ones I also like shooting, and viewing shots taken, into the Sun. So maybe I'm a bit biased on the blowouts behind their heads. I like them

Too flare, or not to flare? That is the question.

Proof of the pudding will be what the clients have to say about them


Whether people agree or disagee, this thread has caused us to think (how dare you? ). Thanks for posting it.


Steve

Since I love shots taken straight into the sun, having this huge contrast between light and dark, with blown areas, underlit areas, flares and stuff, and still trying to get the atmosphere you're going after. I really like this. So it might not be a mystery that I think these shots have a lot of potential to be the "odd one" bringing artistic flavor to a wedding galery, but I'm sure not everyone will feel the same.

I do know that when I show people shots of mine against the sun, hardly anyone gets it and they only see what they call "defects". Some even advise me never to shoot into the sun (probably learned at Photo 101). Some do appreciate the special effect you'll get when you careful balance lighting in those conditions. And these examples of yours in my opinion proof that there's a place for this special effect!

As to the difference between the first and the second two: although I like all three, the latest two feel better to me. I don't think that has as much to do with the effect, as it was that the first one has the couple obviously posing, and the second two are more in the reporting style which I like better. In my opinion, when you have them posing, you want to show them at their best. A lighting effect like this might lessen that effort. If you aim for the same lighting effect in a "reporter style" picture, all people might think is that is was very sunny that day, and that might be the message you want to bring across.

And as Steve said: it's all about what your clients like in the end.

Jen, my able assistant and Sherpa doesn't like the first one, loves the second one, and is 50/50 on the third one.

We just contacted the Groom, and he said he has no access to the Internet until he gets to work tomorrow! They were very excited over the phone, so I can only imagine they will get little sleep tonight or go make a crash visit to a Friend with a computer or Internet café back in Norway hehehe

Thank you all for the comments, it is very interesting to hear and see what the variety is on the perceptions of an image.

Please let me know if this image or images grows on you over the coming days. Do you continue to hate it, or do grow to like it? That would be an interesting thing to hear.

I see it kind of like contrast. In a photo, you can't tell if something is truly white unless there is something black to compare it to. If you have that, then the white can look whiter and the black can look blacker than if one was just by itself. So not liking a photo can be ok, as it makes the ones you do like that much better by comparison

I love the second one. The flare is subtle and really adds to the shot. The position of the sun over the bride's shoulder works well.


mitch

Sherpa doesn't like the first one, loves the second one, and is 50/50 on the third one. A VERY WISE SHERPA i like this better and with out the guy with the glowing shirt I am ok with that shot but this comes from soft shot Jeff remember

Originally Posted by Shay Stephens Thank you all for the comments. Continuing the theme, same day, same Bat Channel: Do you get the same feelings with these two as you did the first example?

I just did the, Honey, come here and tell me what you think thing.
Her response, she digs this one, why, She likes the way the sun is hitting bride because all brides have a glow(real or imagined) and this shows it off. In joking (I think) she said can you remove the groom

Originally Posted by Shay Stephens Jen, my able assistant and Sherpa doesn't like the first one, loves the second one, and is 50/50 on the third one.

Funny, that's exactly how I feel. The sun's too dominant and distracting in the first one. It's just right, and the overall effect works in the second - looks photojournalisty (new word.) The compo in the third one doesn't strike me as much as #2, which really works rather well, IMHO.

Thanks for sharing this with us. Fun!

i like how you stretch your creative boundaries, shay, and you always give the client a "little more." top shelf, my friend, top shelf. were i the client, i'd be very happy to have these shots to choose one from, amongst the many that i'd be buying from you.

Shay,

The second is truely a great pic. I know others say the average customer may not like it, but it really works. Has a journalistic style to it. Excellent work.



Taking plenty of notes.

Originally Posted by wxwax Funny, that's exactly how I feel. The sun's too dominant and distracting in the first one. It's just right, and the overall effect works in the second - looks photojournalisty (new word.) The compo in the third one doesn't strike me as much as #2, which really works rather well, IMHO. Thanks for sharing this with us. Fun!

I agree completely. I think the appropriate world is photojournalesque, though.

I like the idea you're presenting. It's unique and cool.

In #1, the sun is too distracting. #2 works for me. #3, the
light/flare coming through the pedestrian's arms is
annoying.

I'm actually torn on #1. The background light is nice and I think,
minus the sun, this would be a great shot.

ian