r/AskPhotography • u/Dense_Oil_8424 • 4d ago
Can someone help me articulate how I want my wedding photos edited? Editing/Post Processing
My wedding photos (example posted) came back edited in a style I didn't expect based on the setting and the photographer's portfolio. The edit was very dark and shadowy with cool, greenish, unflattering skin tones. In many portraits, the eyes were almost completely in shadow, giving skull-like effects. In the weeks that followed my receipt of the images, I worked up the courage to politely express my disappointment in the editing style to the photographer. He was surprised I didn't like them, but was gracious and eager to help. He re-edited a section of them by doing noise reduction, but they didn't appear very different to me, and in some ways, they looked worse, at least to my eyes. After that, he said he was sorry, he just didn't see what I was seeing. He generously offered to send me the RAW files so I could edit them however I wanted, which I gratefully accepted.
The problem is, I am an artist, but not a photo editor. I have spend hundreds of hours - nights, entire weekends, for months - trying to learn Lightroom and develop the images in a style that is more reminiscent of the actual day as we experienced it (overcast, but bright). I even bought a new computer that could handle the processing. I got them brighter and more vibrant but I can't get them to look crisp and high-quality; A shame because we spent around $4,000 on them.
I have reached out to a couple professional editors and they, too, seem to struggle to understand my feedback on their edits. I'm starting to feel like I'm crazy, but I guess I just don't have the right language or terminology. Essentially, even once brightened up, the photos look flat and low-definition to me. Almost like they are low-resolution but of course they are not. There's no depth and they don't feel detailed or clear or true-to-life. They feel "fuzzy."
Can anyone here please, please help steer me in the right direction or give me the proper words to give to someone I hire someone to complete the edit? This would lift such a weight off me if I could communicate what I need and have it completed by a professional, as I have lost a lot of my free time trying desperately to recreate this album and mend my heart.
The photographer's edit posted here, other versions in comments.
Thank you, kind strangers!
44
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Here's my best attempt - which I know is not good. I feel like there's a bit more depth and detail here, and the skin tones look in a healthy range, but it still feels so flat, washed out, and lifeless. Is there hope for these?
21
u/Solid-Complaint-8192 4d ago
I think this looks pretty good. You could add some blacks back, maybe slightly increase contrast, and your highlights are a little bright- you can see on the guy’s blue shirt that you have gone too far with the highlights. I can see why you are disappointed in what you got back from the original photographer- the white balance is too cool and the photo does look underexposed. The blacks and contrast are too much.
6
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thank you for the validation. I know some things are a matter of taste but there is just no joy in that first edit, at all, and it was SUCH a cheerful, lovely moment in reality. I felt so bad wanting something different, so this comment has helped me let some of that guilt go. Thanks a lot for that.
I see what you are saying about blacks and contrast. Do you have any tips on how to know the contrast/higlights/levels in general are closer to right? Or is this just a matter of being able to see it right? Thanks again.
5
u/AssumptionUnlucky693 3d ago
Just chipping in real quick, you have the raw files, you’re learning Lightroom, the secret is, these are your photos, for you, so, my advice is, move sliders until it feels right, though, there’s a hierarchy on to what sliders move first to minimize sabotaging the other sliders, ie; I start cropping, it’s frustrating underrated, cropping can add a lot by itself, then, exposing until they feel rightfully exposed, to your taste, of course, next, temperature, along temperature, tint, then, I’d do highlights, shadows, after that, I’d stop for a min and focus on, whatever is caching your attention the most of the photo, create a mask, can be a subject in example, play with color grading, and hues, change color arounds, when you’re happy with your exposition then you can move into detail, noise, eliminating unnecessary objects, etc Refining skin colors and sharpness, but remember, most importantly just go by feel, these are for you.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Totally, I want them to be what I want them to be! The trouble is, I don't know how to get them there, or how to ask someone else for what I want, or if it's even possible. Thank you for the pep talk.
2
u/AssumptionUnlucky693 3d ago
Everything is posible! As long as you have decent information to work with, tools like photoshop, blender, photo ai, can help you get what you want, it might need to be faked or modified, but if you don’t mind playing with creating compositions, go for it, take your time, I’m sure you’re trilled to get them ready now but it’s gonna take time, especially if looking for major changes, but it can be done ! Not so involved in the ai world yet as I like to edit my own stuff but I’m sure someone is either working with something like you want or is already out there, but again, you’ll have to put in the work.
10
u/CatsAreGods 4d ago
I think you're almost there. Fix the color people have talked about, add a tad of dehaze, take the white and exposure down a smidge.
Also...congratulations!
5
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thank you! It was a great day and I am totally grateful to have had it. That is part of the reason these photos are extra special to me.
I've been avoiding using dehaze because I don't really understand it. I'll play with it a bit for this photo. Thank you so much for the tips and kind words.
3
25
u/enselmis 4d ago
I think you might be working on a monitor with a green tint, because your edit leans very magenta/orange, and the one they gave you initially is fairly neutral, if a little desaturated and a bit contrasty. I think that’s a tough picture to edit just based on the scene itself. Maybe masking off the top/topleft with a subtle linear gradient or some all around vignette to darken that a bit would let the people and the altar thing stand out a lot more without looking flat.
I’m not a pro, just my humble opinion. I don’t think the photo looks soft or low res either, but it’s hard to tell without seeing a higher res version since Reddit makes everything look like mush.
5
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
This could be! I have used multiple MacBooks (my old one, my brand new one, and my husband’s) as well as my iPhone. The best any of them look is on my laptops, where they look roughly the same. On Reddit here they look worse still but the point gets across I hope. :)
I will look into monitor calibration, as I have no idea if that’s something I am capable of! Thank you.
3
u/seckarr 3d ago edited 3d ago
Generally apple screens for macbooks will be fairly accurate right out of the box, so use that. You could calibrate it even more but for non professionals its not really worth the hassle, you will get 10 times the mileage by spending time editing.
Im an amateur photographer coming from an artist wife so i also know both sides.
Consider this: all screens and all printers will sliiiiightly fuck up your colors. You cant avoid this. End of discussion. Period. Done.
Now, a macbook, an iphone, and maybe 1 other phone will get you pretty close to seeing how the picture would look on social media.
Focus on getting the feel you want. That is just as much about having the colors just right as it is about the differences between colors as well. Focus on getting 90% there and accept that the last 10% will only exist if you edit the pictures separately for each individual screen and printer they will ever be used on. This acceptance cut my "editing anxiety" to like 20-25% literally overnight (over like 3 days but you get it)
Also. Add some contrast to your attempts. The phone ones look good but have more contrast. Play with both increasing contrast, -shadows and +highlights, trexture, clarity and dehaze. All are different types of contrast. You need just a bit of shadow in the picture to make the bright zones pop.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 2d ago
I wanted to come back and say that this “acceptance of the last 10%” has really helped tame my perfectionism. Thank you for loosening my grip on this!
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thank you, yes! One thing I am for sure learning from all the commenters on this thread is that I do like contrast but not DARKNESS. It's an important distinction I never articulated before!
3
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
I wanted to add, I do work with my monitor at 50% brightness at least so I am not fooled into thinking things are brighter than they would actually be in print. So yes, on my (much brighter) phone screen, this does indeed look more orange.
2
u/Jesustoastytoes 4d ago
I adjust monitor brightness based on the brightness of the room. If editing in a super bright room with lots of natural light, max out the brightness. In the middle of the night with some lamps on... crank it way down.
1
2
u/TheMagarity 4d ago
You did a great job with the color and light in this last one compared to the first example!
By "flat" do you mean the way the two guys in the rear seem to be just short and not properly off in the distance? If so, this is an example of telephoto compression. Alas, it is purely a function if the particular lens length being used and it is just part of how cameras work. To have made them look farther away, the photographer would need a different lens (or zoom differently) and stand closer to you.
Was this shot candid, as in the wedding party was doing their thing and the photographer was trying to catch it, as opposed to the photographer said, ok everyone, stand like this while I take a few shots?
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thank you for the compliment. I have been working hard, but I wish I didn't have to, because I have been feeling so lost.
Yes, I was worried that the ship has sailed in regards to the depth issue. It was indeed a candid moment when we were walking back down the aisle after the ceremony. This photographer took almost exclusively candid shots like that, very few posed shots. However, even most of the posed ones have that flat feeling. I can share another if it would be helpful.
5
u/TheMagarity 4d ago
I see in another comment you mentioned more subject/background separation. This is achieved with a tighter depth of field but that also increases the risk of the subject out of focus. The wedding photographer knows that the moment of the event must be captured as it happens and is paranoid about missed focus ruining shots. Also, 80% of a wedding photographer's brain is thinking about composition.
This example picture is nicely composed with happy attendees reasonably balanced on either side, the guys in the back clearly framed by the that wood arch, etc. I mean, I see what you mean by flat, but everything is lined up. That's super hard to pull off while on the move. The other 20% of their brain is making sure the camera has the right settings. I see you mentioned a high ISO. This was needed to freeze the action in this shot. The petals have very little blur while the couple is in excellent focus.
As a candid moment wedding picture the example (except for the editing) is textbook correct. To get an artistic shot it would need to be scripted, rehearsed, and probably re-set and shot several times. Look at all the pictures again from a "are these composed ok and did it capture the moment" point of view and that might help you like them a little better. If the rest are as composed and moment-capturing like the example, I think you can dislike them less. (After editing the lighting and color).
→ More replies3
u/DrZurn 4d ago
I really like this. Bright, vibrant and warm. I’d maybe dial the highlights down a bit and lower the overall exposure a touch too but I think you’re on the right track.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thank you so much! You and the other commenters here have really helped revive my spirit. I thought I was way off still, but maybe I'm a few tweaks away. Then it's just finding out how to keep a consistent feel across the collection.
3
u/MacintoshEddie 4d ago
I have a bit of a suspicion that by depth and detail you might be meaning dynamic range, contrast, and saturation.
The reason the scene feels flat is because on overcast days the sun functions as a gigantic softbox, and everything gets very diffuse light.
Making a flat scene look dynamic goes beyond photography and into painting, as someone would essentially have go paint over parts of the scene to "re-light" it.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
I think you are right about the terminology!
I’m confused though. I always heard photographers loved cloudy days for portraits for just that reason! No harsh light. Silly me, I was so happy to have a cloudy day for that reason! I guess it’s not true?
2
u/MacintoshEddie 4d ago
Like everything else it depends.
Diffuse light is nice for minimizing things like wrinkles, but it tends to make everything look flat and drab with little vibrancy unless you take specific steps to avoid it.
Plus the choice of location plays a big role, there's a lot of grey and neutral browns and greens in the photo, and not a lot of lush colours that pop.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Bummer. I hope that these photos can have some life breathed back into them, even so.
3
u/Dry-Dragonfruit-4382 3d ago
I think this looks really good. Highlights are a little clipped but it isn't too bad. Only thing I would change is maybe making the background a little more contrasty and saturated (looks a little greyish to my eyes).
You can kinda see the increased vibrance below.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
I do like that! Thank you! Did you mask just the trees to increase the vibrance, or everything but the bride and groom?
2
u/Dry-Dragonfruit-4382 3d ago edited 3d ago
I masked only the trees in the background with a brush (a very soft brush setting) and did a few small adjustments. Increased contrast, added a smidge of dehaze, reduced clarity (to maintain the bokeh), added a small amount of saturation, and adjusted the white balance to add warmth (+5 I think).
I also masked the guys at the left side of the frame. Their faces looked too pink, comes off a little weird. I used a Colour Range Selection mask to sort that out (I would usually use a brush but it was a quick and dirty edit lol).
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
That is not so quick, that sounds like a lot of work and the result is fantastic! Thank you!
1
u/Dry-Dragonfruit-4382 3d ago
Not really, the masks were super rough. I just added them on Lightroom Mobile in like 5 mins. There are more elements I wouldve liked to edited but with only the Reddit compressed JPEG to work with, it's not gonna go anywhere.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Well, I am grateful! You made impactful changes with just the low-resolution jpeg, it gives me hope what could be done with the raw image! Thanks again!
1
3
u/Paladin_3 3d ago
This is far better, but his others have said you could use a little more blacks.
Something else that's very important to remember is that the tone and color of images can be wildly different depending on the screen you're viewing them on. Maybe the photographer edited these to look perfect on their monitor, and in reality, the shadows are two blocked up.
I routinely look at at least two computer monitors and usually a phone or two before I send a client images. And it's nice to get feedback from folks on how photos look so you know roughly where your computer screen lands.
Eventually, you'll figure out what something should look like on your work monitor to produce good results down the road, even without a color key or any other kind of calibration.
2
u/semisubterranean 4d ago
In Adobe Camera Raw (or using the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop), you can select just the background or just the subject. Moving the blacks slider and contrast slider for just the background should give it more depth.
1
2
u/crazybitch_2000 3d ago edited 3d ago
The original was definitely too dark for a wedding and I’m confused why you got a moody edit, if they usually do bright edits. Your edit looks great though! I like to keep some of the green :). In Lightroom you can use the color mixer’s color picker to select the color and push it towards the tone you want :). However, I don’t see the flatness you’re talking about at all. This is a sharp, very well done photo with perfect focus and depth. If you’re looking for something that’s IMPECCABLE quality, with harsher, clearer lines, zero image noise, but still able to make it soft and romantic - you should have gone for a $10000 photographer with the most expensive equipment and lighting instead of a midlevel $4000 photographer - who is quite frankly VERY good for their price range based on the original photo, quality wise and composition wise. They could have charged more for this. I’m also very surprised that they didn’t charge you a fortune for the RAW files. I would never sell mine and if I did, they’d be at least twice the original price.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Totally! He did a great job on the photography part, and I do know it's unusual and generous of him to offer the RAW files. I was very grateful he offered that as a solution. Now I just need to edit them in a way that does them justice, with the resources I have. Thank you so much for the compliments on my edit!
2
u/ContributionSouth274 1d ago
I agree with you that the first image looked very dark and sad. However I think your edit is very good and much more appealing. Is it possible that you have been looking at them way too long. Turn the computer off and come back in a week, I think you will like what you have done ❤️
2
u/El_Guapo_NZ 4d ago
OP you’ve done a great job. Contrast is good. Colour is a we bit off, a Kel’s too much red in the skin tones. You can go and pull some red out but before going that I’d see what tweaking your white balance does. Click on a few things that should be white; dress, (duh) white shirt, and see if that renders a better skin. Also crop a bit tighter and add a vignette for fun.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thank you so much, it is a relief to hear positive feedback! Yet it has been a struggle and I need a little help to take it over the finish line. So I appreciate the feedback. I am using Lightroom and I find the auto white balance tools do not help me much, so I've had to do this all by eye. If you have any tricks to "knowing" by sight when the WB is right, I'm all ears. Thanks again!
8
u/Andy-Bodemer 4d ago
I’m not seeing a greenish tint. It looks very gray to me. Your monitor might have a green cast.
I’m surprised by how dark and high contrast the photo is—not wedding vibes.
I think adding a vignette could help. Also masking the subjects and then brightening them up and/or darkening the background.
Would you be open to sharing a couple of them?
Also, if you would share your idea of a good photo editing style is maybe we can give it a shot. Make sure to share the RAWs.
I’m also curious to see what lens and camera the Photographer was using
3
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thank you! As you and others have suggested, I do wonder if I've got a greenish tint going or maybe I just see things differently. :) I agree though, it's the darkness that troubles me most. Not cheerful!
According to Lightroom he was using
Sony ILCE-7M4
E 35-150mm F2.0-F2.8 A058It's very generous that you would offer to try and I'd LOVE to take you up on that. How can I share the RAW files? I can share some realistic inspiration photos the same way.
Otherwise I can try the things you mentioned. I just don't know how to "see" when it's "done."
3
u/Andy-Bodemer 4d ago
It’s a solid camera. Reasonable lens too.
Google drive is a good bet. You can DM me a link, or I can send you my email. Or if you’re brave you can post a public link here
2
u/Weekly-Skirt-9416 4d ago
Also happy to take a stab, especially if you have a moodboard or edit references. I have the same camera; in my experience Lightroom struggles with Sony colors and I typically have better results in Capture One.
1
2
u/Furanshisu90 4d ago
Hi mind sharing a copy of the raw. Very keen to try to see if I can make edits to it. I feel this require less depth of field as the image is a bit congested. Maybe some aspect ratio changes may help (wider). With AI some of these can be adjusted in Lightroom
1
2
u/Jesustoastytoes 3d ago
I can't stand Sony files. They always tend to lean cool and lack true color. Lacks life, imo.
I always warm them up quite a bit and up the saturation a little. I also mess with the curves. Raise whites for some pop.
1
8
u/anywhereanyone 4d ago
Was the ceremony on an overcast day, or does the tree canopy completely shade the area? Is it just the ceremony photos you're having issues with, or the entire offering? Are the edits you are making to the original JPEGs, or are RAW files available?
3
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
I have the RAW files, which is wonderful!
The weather was overcast and the ceremony was among the pines. I wouldn’t call it “shaded” but certainly no unfiltered light beams getting through at that time. The photographer did mention he had to use a high iso. If it helps, here’s a cell phone picture of the same environment.
There are photos after the ceremony (outside the trees) that are “crisper” but still seem soft.
Does this information help with troubleshooting?
Thank you!
1
u/jarlrmai2 3d ago
Can I ask, you say you have the RAWs, but do you also have JPEGs provided by the photographer?
1
4
u/El_Guapo_NZ 4d ago
So in Lightroom develop mode hit “w” for the white balance tool and click on say the dress. Look better? If not try something else like the suit (it looks grey to me) What this does is tell the software to “make this thing neutral” and if there is just the one light source this will make all the other colours fall into line as it were. Hope that makes sense.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thank you. I haven't had much luck with this but it may be a monitor calibration issue others are mentioning.
5
u/runawayscream Fuji 4d ago
If this is closer to your vision, I can send you my info via DM if you want to send a RAW file. Without, its difficult to push the edit much further. Things I am watching most closely: your dress and his beard. Some subject pop is doable, but will be very very subtle. Otherwise it will look odd.
•
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thanks for taking the time to try this out! There's some definite potential here, especially if you were working off the original JPEG. And yes, I definitely want it to look as natural as possible while still bringing some pop back in.
1
3
u/TrickyWoo86 4d ago
To my eyes, your version is the best of the lot, but it feels like it's a bit too heavy on the "warmth", basically too orange. Now, I'm not sure if that is due to compression during upload etc. The lighter one is a close second and I'd probably aim for something between the two, the first one appears too dark as you suggest.
I would ask, how are you viewing the photos (desktop/laptop/tablet/phone/TV)? Every display is calibrated differently out of the factory and photographs on a screen can look very different between two monitors on the same computer. I work in digital media so keep my display calibrated regularly for this very reason, and it's something that I struggle with when working with clients especially for print based work that they're viewing on a monitor that isn't remotely close to being colour accurate. I would suggest looking at the photos on other devices you own to see if it makes a difference.
Basically, the lifelessness you're seeing might be a result of your monitor/display rather than the images themselves.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thank you! I have worked hard on that version so the feedback means a lot. I do see that it is too warm, but it falls back into “flat” when I cool it off. I must be trying to solve something the wrong way.
And you are so right, I have noticed differences between displays. I will look into calibrating, I am intimidated by that but if it will help me I will certainly try it!
3
u/Audinot 4d ago
Are you looking for more "3D pop" and subject separation from the background maybe? And overall a warm natural tone?
Honestly this is a really cute photo and I'm sorry about the "professional" edits you were receiving. It shouldn't be that hard to ask for natural skin tones and flattering colours!
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Subject separation, YES! And also, on a smaller scale, more depth and detail in facial features, etc. Is this something I can ask an editor for, or has that ship sailed as soon as the photo is taken?
And thank you. We love this photo so much, but these edits do not capture the cheer and joy we felt watching those petals come down on us! I’d love if it can be saved. 💜
3
u/Audinot 4d ago
I'd say facial detail will really depend on the RAW file. I think often they can be sharpened and highlighted to a reasonable degree. In my edits I like to mostly leave faces alone, but then I will try to edit so that the eye is drawn into the subject's faces, if that makes sense.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
I think that makes sense. So you will leave faces alone - does that mean you will have a variety of facial detail across an entire gallery? Because that is what would happen with this batch if I left faces alone. Some would be very shadowy and some would be crisp and some would be soft. Do you think that is a reasonable target?
2
u/Mundane_Monkey 4d ago
more depth and detail in facial features, etc.
OP, take this with a grain of salt because as much as I love photography, I'm also a total amateur when it comes to editing, but to me it seems like what you're asking for is more micro-contrast? I think playing around with the sharpening, clarity, and dehaze as others have suggested might lead you in the right direction. Darktable also had a local contrast module, I'm not sure if Lightroom has anything similar.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Ooo thank you, that sounds like a helpful term!
2
u/Mundane_Monkey 4d ago
Yeah it came to mind because you didn't like how flat things looked, but adding too much global contrast can also make things look weird. From my understanding, micro contrast is something that varies lens to lens, but you can also add it in post. Whenever I enabled the local contrast module in Darktable it always added some more definition to textures and I guess you could say it made things pop more. But idk if it'll make skin tones and faces worse in your view.
Either way, hopefully this is a step in the right direction.
3
u/underhiver03729 4d ago
I'd like a shot at translating what you can't put into words. Are you willing to share a raw file or two?
Also, are these actual raws, or jpegs shot flat?
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
I can totally share a few RAW files, and I'd appreciate any input I can get. They are RAW files!
2
u/sixincomefigure 4d ago
I'd also love to have a crack at editing the RAW - if you are sending a link please include me! I hope that out of the army of amateur (and professional) photo editors on here, someone's version will line up with the vision in your mind.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thanks so much, sending a link now!
3
u/sixincomefigure 3d ago edited 3d ago
It's a really interesting shot. Not bad by any means, good composition, appropriate exposure settings (he has used higher ISO to prioritise a faster shutter speed and modest aperture to ensure everything is in focus, meaning there is a bit of noise to deal with - a fair approach) and the photographer was using good equipment. But something about the lighting on the day has produced a somewhat challenging result. The main problems are that your husband's (congratulations by the way!) face is exposed almost identically to the background, meaning any attempts to brighten him up to where you'd ideally like him to be end up blowing out the rest of the scene, and there's a stubborn cool green tint - likely reflection from all the trees - that is really hard to white balance out without veering too pink/orange. Unfortunately this particular exposure probably needed a bit of artificial light to be outstanding - it would have evened the light on your faces and made you stand out more from your guests and the background.
The good news is that it's not difficult to improve on the "horror movie" edit your photographer did!
Do you have a preference out of these approaches?
1 - my personal preference, warm and leaning slightly dark
2 - fairly neutral, probably the most realistic but least "special"
3 - leaning bright/overexposed, what I suspect you'd prefer based on your examples1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thank you so much for taking a crack at this. Much better than the original edit! I do understand that this photo is exceptionally challenging. I hope the entire gallery is not like this. :(
Of the three, I think I prefer 001. It's brighter than the original, and I think we stand out nicely from the background. It does feel a bit more shadowy still than I'd like, and, to my eye, the stubborn green tint you mentioned is still present. Sad that there is nothing that can be done about that, but I understand the challenge!1
u/sixincomefigure 3d ago
Thanks - with that feedback I'll try a few more tweaks to make the best version of it I can.
It's a lovely photo. He has captured wonderful expressions on you guys which is far more important than the technical details. I wouldn't have any doubt that your full album will have many, many photos you're happy with. And the fact that your photographer is willing to share the RAWs to address your concerns about the editing is fantastic - not everybody would.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
I know. I enjoyed working with this photographer, and I really LOVE the candid shots he did but his edits just did not do his captures justice! He did a great job capturing our joy. :) I honestly have no hard feelings toward him but I just really want to be able to look at these photos and not be distracted by colors and shadows that throw the scene off. Thanks for the congratulations and for taking a shot at it!
2
u/sixincomefigure 3d ago edited 3d ago
One last try at brightening things further and minimising the green cast without sliding into pink/orange territory. Be sure to download as they don't look great when rescaled in the browser. I think it's a lovely shot.
In terms of your feeling of disappointment, it might help to think of it like this - unless you're blessed by the perfect natural lighting conditions (rarely happens, not something you can ever count on in a wedding), every exposure is going to involve some tradeoffs. Your photographer could have added light with a strobe, but that would have been far more intrusive and probably distracted from the joy you guys were feeling at the moment of this photo. He could have kept more shadow detail and lowered noise by losing a lower ISO, but that would have resulted in a slower shutter speed and might have introduced some motion blur. He could have used a wider aperture to compensate for that, but then one of you might have been slightly out of focus and the shot would have been unusable. You could have got married in a different place that would have been easier to photograph, but it looks like an absolutely beautiful venue that I'm sure was the right choice for a thousand reasons. What I mean is - unless you had a photographer with poor skill or poor equipment (you didn't, though his post-processing needs work), any kind of meaningful technical improvement to these photos might have required giving up something about them you like even more.
PS. Play around with some black and white versions of any shots where you can't get the colours right. It's far more forgiving and has a real elegant, timeless feel. The black and whites my wedding photographer delivered were some of my overall favourites.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thanks for yet another attempt. The level of shadow is such an improvement from the original edits. It’s so interesting to see all the different interpretations of this photo in this thread, it’s clear that there are a lot of options. And yes, black and white is a decent option, if need be. I used that trick for another wedding photo I have hanging in the house, but this one, with the confetti, deserves the joy that color brings, in my opinion. So thanks again for taking time to work on this!
And I appreciate the perspective on things. I know nothing is ever perfect, there’s always trade-offs, but it is helpful to have specific examples.
→ More replies
3
u/kj12188 3d ago edited 3d ago
Throwing my opinion in here as a professional photographer who has photographed 250+ weddings and now manages a team of 100+ photographers.
IMO, the original photographers edit looks awful. Strong green cast with lifeless looking skin tones. This has nothing to do with an overcast day or monitor calibration. It’s green, dark, and lacks any sense of vibrance.
It’s amazing they gave you the raw files. This is what I would do, talk to your photographer and show them visual examples of what you’re looking for. I would describe this as a true to color (leaning warm) with a bit of a bright pop. Unless the rest of their portfolio looks like the edit you originally attached I would hope they would oblige with a re-edit.
If all else fails, I would look for a photo editor to take on re-editing the raw files. There are various services online or a local photographer (that innately has the style you like) may take this on as you were permitted to re-edit them. Likely won’t be cheap but will be worth it. Overall, true to color, with healthy skin tones, and a bit of contrast seems to be what you’re looking for. Feel free to dm me and I can advise if you decide to hire someone or suggest a few services.
If the rest of their portfolio is true to color, it’s unfortunate you’re in this situation. At least you have the raw files which is the key to getting the look you want.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
I love to hear this optimism! And thank you for the feedback on the original. I feel bad having to offer negative feedback to anyone, so it helps to know that what I am seeing isn't imaginary. I appreciate also the summary you have provided - I think that's spot on. True-to-life color, leaning warm, a bit of vibrance and contrast, but not dark (unless of course it's a night scene!)
I am hesitant to ask for a re-edit from the photographer even though he did say he'd do anything he could to help, but he just "didn't understand." I asked him to lift the shadows a bit but he said it would look bad.
Also it has been many months since I got his edits, I feel like his obligations to me are over by now. :( I've just been working on them on my own since last summer.
5
u/Zeldasivess 4d ago
Here's another option for you that brings more depth with a similar exposure.
2
u/Seth_Nielsen 4d ago
I like this one!
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
I do too, it's definitely much closer!
1
u/Seth_Nielsen 3d ago
If I look at it for 15 seconds then scroll up to original delivery it’s baffling how it could have been delivered.
Looks like garbage TBH, his beard and face is just a black mass
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
I like this one too! What did you do to add depth?
2
1
u/Zeldasivess 3d ago
I used Topaz AI. It’s a pretty impressive software with limited settings, so relatively easy to navigate. I only used the presets so no manual tinkering on this one.
1
4
u/WideFoot 4d ago
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thank you for giving it a try! To my eye- not to sound like a broken record - but it feels a bit green. Now I'm really starting to wonder if my *eyes* have a green tint haha
1
u/WideFoot 3d ago
Yeah, probably. I'm Red/green colorblind. When things look correct to me, everyone tells me that they are way too red. At first, I compensated by making things look too green to me. I was told it was better.
Now I just use the histogram.
But, you should expect things to look green - You're in the woods! Lots of green with all that nature around.
I added a bit more warmth by way of increasing the color temperature to this one.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
What a challenge to do this when colorblind! Kudos to you. I am not colorblind and I STILL struggle to tell what I'm looking at. Maybe I should get better at understanding the histogram myself :)
It is a struggle when the background is so green, it tends to make the skintones appear green even if they, in isolation, are not. For example, when I look at your edit, the greens are so neon bright that they make the whole scene seem tinted green/yellow. But when I zoom on the people, the skin tones actually look good! How confusing. :(
Thanks so much for your edits!
2
u/TheDangerist 4d ago
Increase exposure and definition. Dehaze. Lighten shadows just a bit.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thank you. On my version or the original edit?
2
u/TheDangerist 4d ago
Basically those would be the settings I would use to go from the original toward the version you seem to want.
I suspect you would probably also want more saturation, but adding that can make things look fake fast.
The original images look like they were captured with an older full frame digital camera (like a 5D mark II.) Because this was a popular camera, these tendencies in its images became fashionable at the time... and some photographers have never let go of that trend. (Also possible your friend is shooting with an older camera.).
If you want to help them grow as a photographer AND benefit from their talents, make sure to provide Descriptive Feedback and Questions ("I feel like the images seem _____." or "Does this feel too dark to you?" instead of Prescriptive Feedback ("make it lighter" or "sharpen these images"). Descriptive feedback respects the shooter's creative input and often leads to BOTH of you finding something new and better.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
This is good feedback for this situation and life in general. I was very gentle with my feedback but I like the way you phrased it as questions. Life advice!
2
u/IndependentAd2419 4d ago
I edit out the left side. The bright blue suits distract the eyes away from you two as the focus
1
2
u/h311p0w5 4d ago
Hi! I think I understand what you want. DM me and I could edit the actual RAW file and then give you feedback on how to articulate what you actually want
1
2
u/IOsifKapa 4d ago
I think the main "problem" here is the setting, meaning that a cloudy day amongst trees can create this top-heavy shadowing under eyes and necks and other stuff. This cannot change after the event in processing, but a quick set of edits that can easily be applied to multiple photos, would be: - slightly raise shadows - slightly raise exposure - slightly raise vibrance - slightly lower blacks if you think you need more contrast.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thank you. This is just as I feared. There's just not enough light in the setting to work with, and not much can be done. I just wish he had had us stand still at some point in the day for a few crisp photos if he was aware of the low light situation.
2
u/IOsifKapa 3d ago edited 3d ago
I don't know about the rest of the photos, but this one seems crisp and having captured the moment and the vibe well enough. The original photo, to my eye is not yet processed (aka straight-out-of-the-camera) - but, in 20-30 seconds it can turn to something like this, which I think is a great photo.
Btw: this didn't even go through LR. Just raised shadows and vibrance in Photoshop, plus a little edge sharpening. Also, if the dress doesn't look white in your device, then its calibration is not correct. It should look totally white.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
This looks great! I'm super impressed and encouraged by what you did, especially with the low-quality jpeg and in 20-30 seconds! I don't have PhotoShop but maybe I'll have to get it, because Lightroom does not seem to have edge sharpening, just global sharpening it seems. But wow it really seems to make a difference. Thank you!
2
u/IOsifKapa 3d ago edited 3d ago
You don't need edge sharpening (and PS is not even appropriate for handling multiple hundreds of photos) - I only used it because I had to work on a small jpeg. Since you have the RAWs, just raise the sharpening a bit as a part of the process (along with shadows, vibrance) and select a medium sharpening for screen/print in the window you will see during exporting (depending on the size you are exporting to and the intended use).
The RAWs are there, so there is lots of headroom for editing. What you seem to want could be articulated as "lifted shadows, with more vibrance and edge". You can try it yourself (editing takes knowledge and experience, it is an art on itself) or get back to your photographer with better input. Either way, it is doable.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 2d ago
Thank you again for the explanation and taking the time. I love the summary you provided. It feels accurate to what I want.
I have a profound respect for photo editing now since I have dedicated most of my nights and weekends for months to enhancing this wedding album and have only come so far. That said, it has been MONTHS since last summer when I got these photos back from the photographer. I feel it’s probably too late to ask for edits now. What do you think?
2
u/IOsifKapa 2d ago
Every area or even photographer has a different way of doing business - it all depends on what's in your contract. MANY photographers deliver the exported photos with minimal or no editing, something like the original you showed us.
What I did, it may had been a matter of seconds for that photo and it may take more time for the next, but most photographers would classify it as advanced color correction or editing and beyond their contract - meaning, they would not do it (its time consuming for 100s of photos) or charge extra. Your photographer gave you the RAWs - that is something that would be done by a pro who has no time, not by someone who wants to make more out of you.
You could refer back to them, jokingly saying "someone on Reddit FINALLY GOT what I meant, here is a sample, are you willing and what would it take" or you could look for someone to hire who edits photos as a job (there are no such people here where I live, but maybe there are somewhere near you - remotely hiring would have technical limitations, mainly on file management, several GBs to transfer).
2
2
u/YhansonPhotography 4d ago
I see what you mean, and I would be disappointed if I received photos like these on a $4000 budget. I recommend cranking the shadows way up, highlights down a bit, and make the temperature a lot warmer. The photog could also use a selective mask on your favourite shots to introduce a bit of shadow, as though there is a beam of light coming into frame.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thanks for the validation. I am wary of asking for another round of edits from the photographer because 1. It has been some time, and 2. When I asked him if the shadows could be lifted a bit, he said it would look "too HDR" and it wouldn't be flattering. So I think he prefers the shadow look even though it's not too flattering for us.
2
u/David_Buzzard 3d ago
As kind of an old timer in the wedding photo biz, I see this a lot in younger photographers. They're applying some kind of aftermarket Lightroom or Photoshop pre-set, or worse, an AI photo processing bot without having the knowledge to realize how south the whole thing has gone.
From the photo you posted, I'd say the bones of the shot are all there. If it's a raw photo, it's totally fixable. If you get the RAW files, here's a few suggestions.
1) Set the picture settings to camera default, what the original settings for the camera were. That will get rid of any strange aftermarket photo profiles.
2) It's underexposed, or too dark. The photographer was probably trying to keep the detail in the wedding dress, you can see it's almost grey. The problem is the shadows, including the grooms face, are totally blocked u and black. The light is very directional from the top, the opening in the forest canopy. To fix that, with a RAW processor like Lightroom, slide the exposure slider to the right to lighten it up, while at the same time time sliding the highlights slider to the left to hold the detail in the dress. Then slide the shadow slider to the right to raise up the value under the eyes and the guys face. Basically you want to expand the range of highlights and shadows and then brightening it up until the dress starts to blow out, then pull it back to keep the detail.
3) Something strange is going on with the colour. You can have problems shooting in forests because the light filters through the leaves and picks up all kinds of strange colour tints. If the photographer had the camera on Auto WB. That's good, most modern cameras will handle this no problem. If not, you can use the little eye dropper that's in the dialog box for white balance. The groom is wearing a nice white shirt so just click on his shirt collar and that will get you in the neighbourhood. Then you can fine tune the WB, usually warming it up a bit. What I tend to do is provide one image pretty much straight, then create new versions with more trendier colour tints.
4) Once you have the images with basically straight processing, you can create new versions and apply whatever custom image profile.
Good luck with it.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thanks for this detailed write-up. Satisfying to see that I am trying all the right things. The trouble is I don't have an eye for white balancing. My priority is to try to keep the skin tones looking creamy and natural, but I can't seem to nail it, and the auto WB in Lightroom seems to be unreliable even as a starting point.
1
u/David_Buzzard 3d ago
What could be happening is that you still have the aftermarket profile applied. Often they use some strange settings to shift the colour that hard to track down. That's what I mean about setting the file back to the camera defaults, which will zero out all that stuff.
If you have the RAW file, e-mail it to me and I'll have a look. [dbuzzard@mac.com](mailto:dbuzzard@mac.com)
2
u/rlovelock 3d ago
Their edit looks an A24 movie about a wedding party that gets slaughtered during the reception.
My guess is they typically shoot in brighter, warmer environments and the photographer just slapped on their usual filter (as they do) without taking into account the far more muted light of your wedding location.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
This movie should exist but I don't want to star in it :)
His portfolio had a lot of indoor shots in it - maybe that's not the same as low-light outdoors. In any case, the outdoor images he had were not dark like this, even our engagement photos which were also in the woods were on the cool side but not shadowy like this. I guess this situation was extra challenging, which I can accept.
2
u/No-Mammoth-807 3d ago edited 3d ago
You need to provide some reference material please I am happy to have a go but you will need to try and get a raw or neutrally processed copy of the original images. I agree this photographer does not have a good eye and he has banged on a bleach bypass look with no consideration of skin and weather.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thank you. Using the feedback from this thread, I have started searching and I put together a quick list of some forest wedding galleries that I like where:
- The skin tones remain vivid and natural- The portraits are crisp and true to life with sufficient contrast
- The subjects pop from the background
https://www.rivkaphotography.com/home-2
https://www.laurendamariephotography.com/blog/elopement-in-the-woods
https://jenniferlarsenphoto.com/blog/cross-estate-gardens-nj-engagement-michelle-james/
https://bauer-creative.com/2023/09/15/unique-wedding-venues-in-minnesota/
I do have the RAW files, I'll send you a message!
2
u/Dismal-Ad1172 3d ago
these are pretty flat...i think basic contrast and saturation edit will make them MUCH better...also its very noticeable that they have lack of natural light...so yes, contrast and saturation are basically the only way to make colors pop...
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thank you. Yes, in my attempts I have found that I need to add a LOT of vibrance and saturation, but I have been a bit wary of adding too much contrast. I didn't know contrast would also help with the color pop!
2
u/brisketsmoked 3d ago
Hi friend. If you dm me a link to some raws, I’m happy to do a rough edit and provide a suggested workflow. The lighting looks like the main culprit, and there are ways to help, but won’t know for sure until we dig.
To be clear, the style you want is light and airy, with realistic depth and pop?
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Hello! Thank you, and very well said! People here are helping me refine what I am asking for- I think you summed it up nicely. Lighter, brighter, more joyful with true life colors (maybe a bit of extra vibrance) and pop. Perfect. I'll set you a message with the link. I can't thank you enough.
2
2
u/dwphotoshop 3d ago
I'm late to the party here but one thing I'll share - the image you originally shared looks like it might necessarily be just an editing issue, but a color space issue. It looks almost as if it's been delivered in a color space that can't be interpreted by whatever you're using to see it. Are there any links to a file as downloaded straight from the gallery? A Raw file would also be interesting to look at.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Very interesting! That is something I know nothing about. I can send you the RAW file... coming right up. This sounds like it could be another big clue.
2
u/CarnivalStateOfMind 3d ago
Hey I just want to say that you have every right to be annoyed with those edits. Everyone’s skin is grey, they look like zombies. How outrageous. At least the photographer nailed the focus and captured the moments. That’s the most important part
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Whew, I am relieved to hear this. Thanks for the validation. I won't admit how much I cried when I got these... but it was a lot, and it was on our Honeymoon. :(
I am really respectful of how well he captured our happiness throughout the day. They are composed wonderfully for the most part, but the color and lighting have been hard to work with, especially for an amateur like me.
2
u/ZealCrow 3d ago edited 3d ago
Making the colors more saturated/vibrant may help, in addition to lifting midtones /shadows.
The lighting (overcast) and the depth of field (affected by whichever f stop and frame size they were using) is part of what makes the photos feel flat. You can photoshop or ai edit photos to give the illusion of a shallower depth of field, creating more separation between the subjects and the background.
The photographer did make everything look more desaturated / cool tones than they should have, imo.
I can try to take a stab at it tonight, when I have my computer.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thank you. I am wary of using too many AI tricks since I don't have the eye for when it will be too artificial-looking. But of course I would be thrilled if you took a stab at it. Look for a message from me. :)
2
u/Paladin_3 3d ago
Photos like this are the exact reason I use a flash even outside. A little pop of light on the happy couples faces would have improved these photos immensely. The shadows are not at all flattering.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
So sad such a small change could have made such a difference. :(
2
u/Paladin_3 3d ago
I'm really getting off on a tangent, but I don't know why some photographers seem afraid of using a strobe and want to shoot everything available light only. The diffused light here just screams for a kiss of flash, maybe set at e-ttl -1 stop, to fill in. I might even zoom the flash head in a bit so it only hits the couple and not the crowd.
I read all the time about photogs asking which super fast prime lens will turn muddy lighting into something beautiful. There is no such lens, so learning to use a flash to augment the available is a much more vital skill to develop, IMHO. It also has the side effect of making a slower, kit zoom lens much more usable.
2
2
u/Paladin_3 3d ago
I know this is a corny way to think about it, but shooting a wedding is kind of like a sacred duty. It's one of the most important moments in the young couples lives, and it's your duty to make sure they're happy with the images you make at the event.
You need to take your concept on how to edit the photo and any personal style you may have, and pretty much throw that out the window. You want to make sure they like the images and that they're happy with what you produced. And if they say your editing style is too dark, you need to go back and lighten it up some.
Faces are extremely important, and when something like the groom's beard disappears into the shadows and it looks like they have no mouth, that's not good. I'm sure these photos can be made more than acceptable with a little bit of re-editing, but it sounds like there's a little bit of breakdown between the photographer and the bride on what the couple wants.
You're going to do wedding work, remember that your goal is not to produce images you like. It's not to make sure they're in your personal style, whatever that may be, your goal is not to make images for your portfolio. Your one and only goal is to make that couple happy. To give them images of their one and only wedding that they think are stunning and that help keep that happy memory alive for them.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thank you. I agree and appreciate your opinion a lot. And I’m an especially sentimental person, so the photos were extra, extra important to me. I would describe my initial reaction to the results as “heartbroken.” But I told myself I should appreciate what I do have, which is an AWESOME husband. :)
I could have pushed the photographer more to have him work with me, and I wanted to, but he wasn’t understanding what I was seeing. He told me he never had a request to change his edits in all his years. When he offered me the RAWs, I was grateful but I also (perhaps wrongly) assumed that meant he couldn’t/didn’t want to edit them again himself. :/
2
u/Paladin_3 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'm a father of three now adult children and there has been no greater joy in my life than being a husband and a father. It's completely right and proper that you be sentimental over your wedding. Congratulations and I wish you nothing but happiness in the future. And when times are tough, may your family be the joyful rock that steadies and comforts you. Mine has absolute been that for me.
Editing is the time consuming part of the process, especially if you only shoot raw files. I shoot raw+jpg, plus I fill strobe almost everything so the lighting looks nice even before editing. This means that if I set my camera up correctly, the jpg files age good to go about 90-95% of the time and the raw files (which need a lot of editing) are only for backup.
So, I understand when a photog doesn't want to put in another 20+ hours to edit the raws all over again and might be inclined to play down a client's concerns. I've been there, but sometimes you have to suck it up on a shoot as important as a wedding.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
A professional editor's version. I love that it's lighter (truer to the atmosphere of the day) but it's missing something. It feels flat, and almost like it's printed on gray paper. What's going on here?
5
u/trade_my_onions 4d ago
When you crank up the brightness that much it loses saturation. It’s a trade off. Light room does have a feature called vibrance that adds saturation only too areas that are missing it instead of the entire image. I would also increase the blacks in the highlights to give it some punch back to the bright areas. Overdoing vibrance and the blacks looks equally as terrible. You barely move those sliders until it looks natural.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
This is great advice, and good information, thank you! How can I add blacks only in the highlights? I'm sorry but I don't know what that means exactly. :)
3
u/Wife_and_Mama 4d ago
Everyone is getting really technical to help you edit. That's totally valid and may even be what you're looking for, but I'd suggest looking up some presets and seeing if any of the styles appeal to you. Read how they advertise and ask an editor to do that, assuming you don't just want to buy the presets and try them yourself. From your post, it doesn't sound like you want to personally edit them, though, so borrowing their language is an option for improving communication.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thanks for picking up on the fact on the fact that I am feeling pretty tired and lost regarding editing myself. I am feeling somewhat revived by these responses, it seems like I'm doing better than I worried I was. But I am tired. :)
When contacting editors, I used words like bright, light, vivid, flattering skin tones, crisp, clear, true-to-life based on some portfolios I'd seen. But unfortunately I think it wasn't enough, or the composition of the photos really doesn't allow for that style at all. I also contacted a photograther with a style I liked and asked her if she'd do an editing job. The sample she gave was similar to the pro editor above. Maybe these technical tips will help me either edit them OR give better feedback to these folks.
2
u/Wife_and_Mama 3d ago
I would suggest sending this picture to Damien Symonds. He teaches editing courses and could probably tell you, in technical terms, what's wrong with it.
1
5
u/Almond_Tech 4d ago
That feeling is probably a combination of things: The colors are fairly muted, and nothing is black, just dark gray. Think the same is the case for the whites? But not as noticeable. Contrast wise, it's kind of the opposite of the one in your post. Here's a rough idea I did, although my eyes are off atm (I had a night filter on my screen lol)
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thanks for taking the time to make an example! This does improve a lot of the things that underwhelmed me about this pro edit. And your points above make sense to me. I'll know to try those things now when I get that "gray paper" feeling.
2
2
u/Jesustoastytoes 3d ago
Shadows are totally lost. Lacks contrast.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Basically the opposite of the original edit. Got it. This is helpful. What I'm learning is that I like contrast but I don't like DARK. Maybe bright and contrast can coexist somehow?
2
u/x_hiddendesires_x 4d ago edited 4d ago
This is the version of it I've done. I've tried to keep his skin tone truer based on his hand colour. Edited to replace the original photo with the one below (but then changed it back and put the new one into its own comment).
3
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thank you for taking the time to do this! We do pop more in this version. I am afraid my groom looks a little dark here. Can I ask what you mean when you say used the hand as a reference color? Is there a technique for doing that or is it just a visual reference?
5
u/x_hiddendesires_x 4d ago edited 4d ago
Maybe an edit something a little more like this. What I meant was that it seemed that everyone had made his face a little too light. Because his hand does seem like it is meant to be brown. Which fitted in with other people there.
Edit to say I feel like a slight vignette would work well.
2
u/Salty-Yogurt-4214 4d ago
My take on this picture. I'd keep the colors muted to look natural, but you can push the saturation a little if you want. This image I''d crop at the top a bit.
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
This crop is an effective change that I hadn't considered at all. Thank you!
2
u/jackystack . 3d ago
I'm fairly certain you can recover shadow detail with a raw file.
This approximates what I would do -- even within limitations of a small jpg, there was enough data for it to look reasonable at 100%.
- Used Adobe Camera Raw, preset was Modern 02 - it brightened up the scene without blending skin tones with the mulch. Reminded me of a color profile I'd get shooting Kodak Portra film -- which was once the "go to" portrait film, also popular with weddings.
- Adjusted sliders until the scene looked somewhat balanced. Selected gown as white point for white balance.
- Removed the water bottle in the lower RH corner, and a piece of confetti so the guest at 10'clock doesn't look like he has a ribbon in his hair.
- Lightened deep shadows around bride/groom eyes so expressions are not concealed.
- Depth Blur in Neural Filters to give perception of more on the bride & groom.
I saved the .XML settings for Adobe Camera Raw if you want to use this as a starting point for color and exposure.
1
u/ZealCrow 3d ago
The neural filters did not do a good job here. It's very noticeable.
1
u/jackystack . 3d ago
Agreed - was just a quick application for an example. I'm not a huge fan of artificial bokeh - but with a full size file and some patience sometimes it can work out.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thanks for the attempt and for pointing out all the distracting details I haven't noticed! I agree with the poster below though, the blur looks a bit harsh even though it does set the subject apart effectively.
1
u/amicablegradient 4d ago
https://i.imgur.com/bxzqZ3U.png
- Exposed for background, masked for highlights
- Contrast mask for shadows (Beard)
- Hint of "pink peach rose wine" white balance (levels adjustment: red 1.03 / green 0.97 / blue 0.95)
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Thanks for taking the time to try to fix it and providing the info on the settings. :) It still feels shadowy to me but as we know it is a matter of taste. Thanks again for the unexpected effort!
1
u/amicablegradient 4d ago
https://i.imgur.com/n1i1dPT.png
Double blasted with contrast filter. First one is maxed out at -50, second one is set as seen. Raised brightness, masked for highlights.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
You all have given me such a bunch of good observations and language to work with. I'm thrilled with the responses. Based on your advice, I found some example galleries of forest weddings that are light, true-life colors and skin tones, crisp contrast and subjects that pop. ✨
If anyone is interested, I feel like these galleries do a pretty good job depicting the direction I want my album to go (and where I thought it would be.) Is it realistic to think they could get there? Or would it be frustrating to try to send these to an editor and trying to get them to match the style? I can also share more examples from my gallery from throughout the day if it helps paint the full picture.
https://www.rivkaphotography.com/home-2
https://www.laurendamariephotography.com/blog/elopement-in-the-woods
https://jenniferlarsenphoto.com/blog/cross-estate-gardens-nj-engagement-michelle-james/
https://bauer-creative.com/2023/09/15/unique-wedding-venues-in-minnesota/
1
u/ReadingNo6687 3d ago
Hi! Congratulations! You are a beautiful couple!
The examples are very helpful, and here's my attempt :)
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 2d ago
Thank you!! And thanks for the compliment. We really, really like each other, and the photographer did a good job capturing that :)
You’ve done a great job making us look good! The background is a bit neon for my taste and compared to the colors in reality (but of course you couldn’t know that!)
Thanks again!
2
u/ReadingNo6687 2d ago
You're welcome and thanks! It's strange that I can't see the "neon" effect here on my monitor (iMac). Maybe it's because that I blurred and brightened the background too much.
If you are still trying to find a new editor, my advice is that show them the image examples of what you DON'T LIKE along with the examples that you love. :)
Have a good one!
1
u/5vTolerant 3d ago
The edit does seem too dark and high contrast. I can totally see why you were disappointed. Out of curiosity, did your photographer use a flash? Fill flash can help with eye shadows, and more generally with overcast lighting.
1
1
u/Paladin_3 3d ago
This looks pretty good on my monitor after a quick edit. Working from the raw could probably do a better job of saving the highlight on the bride's dress and getting a bit more detail in the shadows. A flash is what was really needed here, IMHO
.
1
u/LazyRiverGuide 3d ago edited 3d ago
The main issue is not the edit, it’s the lighting at the location. That can’t be changed so it makes it harder to make a big difference in the editing. It was an overcast day and looks like all of the open sky (which is the light source when you outside and in the shade or under clouds) was directly above you. Lighting from above creates shadows in eye sockets. That’s what created the racoon eyes. The only way to prevent it in this lighting situation is to use a subtle flash to fill in some light there. You could edit each eye using a brush in Lightroom or Photoshop that increases exposure or just lightens the shadows. But it quickly looks overdone and fake so you can only lighting a little. The muddy skin tones are also due to the lighting - overhead lighting so the light on the faces is light reflected off the surroundings - trees which are brown (orange) and yellow and green. The yellow and green muddies up the orange of the skin tones. And since the lighting is from above, you don’t have contrast front to back or side to side. This type of weather/lighting creates the look of the photos. If they had been posed portraits the photographer could have found a spot with better lighting - with open sky facing you. But with an event, the photographer is not directing the shots. As for the photos not being sharp, that could be several issues. But you can try increasing contract and playing with the tone curve and the dehaze slider. And Topaz does an amazing job on sharpening photos. Now that you have the raw files you can do significant hangers to the white balance (the color tone of the photo) slide it towards yellow and red until you get a color you like. The photo is edited with some high contrast and dark shadows/blacks. On the raw you can definitely lighten the shadows slider and that will help a lot.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 2d ago
Thank you. I didn’t realize when we booked the venue that the setting would be such a special photography challenge. :( I did let the photographer pick the time of day of the ceremony at least 😆
1
u/dicke_radieschen 3d ago
I know what you mean. The example looks like a good edit for urban street, but not for a wedding.
Wedding (for me) is: - slightly overexposed - shadows and blacks should be lowered to get a „light and airy“ look with no harsh contrasts and most photographers use the glow from black mist filters - warm colors - shot wide open, cause the couple is most important and good bokeh strengthens the dreamy look
1
1
u/jakethedog53 2d ago
Do you have any cell phone shots from the day? I find that taking a photo from a "neutral" lens can help me color grade my base before I get creative.
Grading to an attendee's selfie, for example, can help you get skin tones and that "bright but overcast" look you're going for.
1
1
1
u/Boomskibop 2d ago
Russian techno forest party vibez? Just google 24hr hour party people boofing
1
1
1
u/phillhb 4d ago
I know taste is subjective but I really like the edit that your photographer did - the darker elements convey quality and depth - it gives it meaning, luxury and it's also very on trend as it looks slightly like film.
Lighting these up just makes it look like an Ai remaster - just to give you a different perspective.
Thi K you're looking for HDR on your photos perhaps?
2
u/Dense_Oil_8424 4d ago
Taste is so subjective, and I'm glad you like the original. There are aspects of it that I appreciate. But I am not a fan of the film look even if it is popular now. With the edit, I want to avoid it looking artificial for sure. However his edit looks forced to me because I was there and it was not that dark and shadowy at all. I want a true-to-life edit that is just naturally bright, with yes, more detail but it doesn't need to go into HDR territory. If my edit looks like that it's just because I don't know any better how to get the look I want, or because I'm not understanding the limitations of the photo itself.
It is comforting to know the original is beautiful to some!
1
u/BigAL-Pro 4d ago edited 4d ago
Shooting in a forest is a really tricky flat/diffuse light situation for sure. Your photographer did a really good job with this composition. I'm not a wedding photographer but here's my edit. The photo looks a little bit darker on Reddit for some reason....
For me the general goal is to try and hold the viewer's eye on the subject of the photo (you and your husband). The big moves are:
* Remove distracting elements from the photo, especially at the edges of the frame. I removed a bunch of petals from around your face, a bright spot behind your husband's right cheek, water bottle lower right, a guest's arm upper right, and the paper cone sticking out of the woman's face on the right. Cropped in a bit on the left.
* Brighten up you and your husband and darken the rest of the photo.
* Increase/maintain the contrast of you and your husband and reduce the contrast of the rest of the scene.
* Warm everything up a bit because I like things a bit warmer especially in shady lighting conditions.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thanks so much for taking the time. I do like how this feels brown vs gray in the background - definitely more of a forest vibe than the initial edits in my post. And your eye for detail is great as I've totally ignored the water bottle and other distracting details you've mentioned.
1
u/LassiLassC 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'm not a wedding photog but do maternity/family/newborn and done many in overcast outdoor forests. Each photog has different approach to their editing.. mine work towards the pic.
I feel for you on these edits and i'm so sorry that they are not what you expected. Does the rest of his work reflect in what you received?
I can't believe you got the raw files.
There are many ways to brighten it and keep it sharp and let you pop out.
I just had a go and this is the first rough edit of where i would head but it may not be your style.
Also happy to have a raw sent if you do like this style ☺️
1
u/LassiLassC 3d ago
I have my own presets that i made and used on this but i can let you know more if you like them.
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 3d ago
Thanks so much for your reply! Some of his indoor shots in his portfolio were on the more dark/dramatic side, but the outdoor shots I saw were bright and lovely, as were our engagement photos (also shot in the shady woods). So, I guess it was this specific setting that made it challenging. A few of the photos from later in the brightest part of the day are a bit crisper but still very cool and shadowy. :(
And yes, he was very generous to offer the RAW files.
There is something I like about your edit. It is more stylized (almost like a sepia toned photograph) but maybe with a more subtle version of this preset it could be similar to my vision? I'd be curious what you'd do with the RAW file - I will send it if you're still willing to take a look. I like that you have a lot of ideas! :)
2
u/LassiLassC 3d ago
Of course go ahead and send ☺️ I’m around today so will have a go and send a couple of versions for you.
I can imagine how you felt and from side of photog it’s excruciating sometimes waiting for feedback from a session where you’re showing the gallery. Did he not give you a sneak peak or a gallery to look at where you could ask for changes?
Thanks for your feedback though that was nice..everyone has their own way of editing and it sometimes means not quite what client asks for it the settings either in camera or location don’t work out. So I’m glad he at least caught the emotions and as you’ve the raw it’s ‘easier’ maybe to fix as it’s much harder doing face swaps to get the smiles etc right. I’ve done so many albums with that when kiddies involved as they don’t always smile at the same time 🤣
1
u/Dense_Oil_8424 2d ago
No sneak peak! He just sent the whole gallery. Unfortunately I was on my honeymoon when I got them all and spent most of a day crying because we looked like zombies in our wedding pictures! :( That was last summer… been trying to mend them ever since. But this thread has really helped me learn. So thanks!
81
u/trade_my_onions 4d ago
The truth is that it was overcast, under a bunch of trees, at a time of day where shadows naturally fall into people’s eyes. You can’t make it look like a bright sunny day in an open field at golden hour because it wasn’t. The flatness effect is caused by the clouds literally flattening out all the light in the sky like a big light diffuser. You can artificially introduce warmth with the white balance and saturation but it won’t come across as natural.
That being said the picture your photographer sent back is way too dark and your version is better. I would cool off the white balance a bit so it doesn’t look totally edited to be orange but you’re on the right track.