Using a perspective control lens for wedding photography

Sad Joe - my portfolio can be viewed at www.trevordayley.com. I plan on using this lens at every wedding this year on the books. It won't be my go to lens nor will it be on my camera the majority of the time. But it will continue being my favorite because it is a lot of fun to use. Stay tuned to my site or Facebook page and you'll see a lot more T/S images from real weddings. This shoot here was a benefit shoot for Thirst Relief International.

Mar 20, 2013permalink

Cy Cheze

Wonderful gear to have for a $10k job for those clients with $100k to spend for the finest.

Meanwhile, a must-have for the $500 / wedding photogs: a lens that optically reduces the subjects' girth, clothing size, dental or dermatological problems, and bad hair. Why can't that old goat (the guy footing the bill?) smile? Well, he probably thinks $500 is way to much.

Sometimes an over-bright flash, complete defocus, and general blow-out is the best "fix."

Mar 18, 2013permalink

Tee1up

LOL. Awesome.

Mar 18, 2013permalink

pfzt

and true ;)

Mar 19, 2013permalink

photography is a fine art at desk (instead of on the scene).

Mar 19, 2013permalink

Scott Greiff

It helps to have Death Valley in your backyard. ;-)

Mar 18, 2013permalink

SayCheesePlease

I want to be positive, these are beautiful images but... this is a fashion shoot not a wedding.

I have used this lens, great fun, but not on a wedding day. Shooting a whole wedding with a couple fast primes, a 35mm and 50mm can produce wonderful results.

Mar 18, 2013permalink

George Veltchev

Wonderful images ... but, that effect can be achieved easily in post processing those days!

Mar 18, 2013permalink

Mike Fried

While it might be achievable in post, to some degree, you lose a bit of the art by doing it non-optically. A lensbaby is not that expensive and produces a similar effect.

A better argument would be that you can achieve far more interesting OOF effects in post by stopping down and applying lens blur more intentionally with a more interesting mask.

Mar 18, 2013permalink

anthonyGR

Art? Most photographers do weddings to pay the bills, not to do art.

Mar 19, 2013permalink

acidic

This is not wedding photography. It's bridal photography, staged and all that. No different than a glamor shoot or senior portraits, logistically speaking.

I've been using my 90mm TS-E to shoot portraits since around 2005. Either I'm 8 years ahead of the times or dpreview is 8 years too late. Or maybe it's a combination of the two.

Mar 18, 2013permalink

diarsi

It must understand that is no for you/me only.That is for many other.

Mar 18, 2013permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1832778312/photos/2471208/scan810-custom

Here is a scan from a glass plate negative that was shot in Yorkshire England circa 1910.
Personally I think it's a very good example of movements in portraiture.

Mar 18, 2013permalink

JanRob3174

Wow. They actually had 3D looking photos back in 1910!

Mar 18, 2013permalink

RodrigoMiguel

Those aren't wedding photos. Those are, at best, from a bridal photoshoot (if not a model in wedding gown). and those are the opposite of
a) the dimly-lit church
b) avoid-the-same-posing
c) get-the-registrar-out-of-the-way
d) control-flash or the recpetion looks horrible
e) contant ISO/f/Aperture changes in the ever changing lighting conditions of the dance floor.

Great pic and maybe T/S is a good idea, but he didn't deliver what the title offered.

Mar 18, 2013permalink

pfzt

Amen!

Mar 19, 2013permalink

Rodrigo I believe the title of the original article was, "My New Favorite Lens Is Not Found In Very Many Photographer Bags" - Not sure what you mean I didn't "deliver on what the title offered." I was just sharing something that has been working for me.

Mar 20, 2013permalink

peterstuckings

Yes, agree with Lancet. Any wedding photog NOT doing this is behind the times...

Mar 18, 2013permalink

Teila Day

Photographers have been using t/s lenses in glamour/fashion photography for years. A wedding photographer not doing this is hardly "behind the times"... especially since what you're looking at is fashion (bridal) photography as opposed to "wedding photography".

The shots look nice though! :)

Mar 18, 2013permalink

ALEXADNDROS

I found it very interesting , never though to use these lens on people, portraits ,
thank you for sharing.nice pictures ,

PS: for the people commenting the alternative ways would be nice to share the work they have done

Mar 18, 2013permalink

lancet

In 2008/09 it was a new thing. Now most of the more expensive or more artistic wedding photographers use them. Even in Croatia.

Mar 17, 2013permalink

nikongnn

Should we follow the example and buy such a lens? and more learn to use it correctly in portraits...

Mar 17, 2013permalink

JMichaelsPhoto

Could achieve the same effect for a lot less money with a lensbaby.

Mar 17, 2013permalink

Hugo600si

You can always use a cheaper lens/third party brand, most of the times the image quality suffers (most definitely with lensbaby lenses)

Mar 18, 2013permalink

Matthew Miller

I woudn't say image quality "suffers". Rather, technical image quality is _beside the point_.

Mar 18, 2013permalink

Nukunukoo

Open Photoshop, mask mode and apply gradients (multiply), exit mode and apply lens blur, done.

Mar 17, 2013permalink

Jehu Fire

Yes. comment WIN!!!

Mar 18, 2013permalink

Adam L Productions

I'd be even more lazy and just apply two gradient blurs in Lightroom.

Mar 19, 2013permalink

Nishi Drew

To make the shot look like a cool perspective shift shot and not a smartphone "smudge everything to make it look shallow" filter may actually be tough.

But well, like already said where's the wedding part? Setting up and getting great shots 'in time' with a tilt shift during a wedding seems like what's really tough and talking about that, maybe, would have been cool.
And also stuff like this is pretty much saying "less in focus the better" just blow everything except the eyes OOF and wow! You're an amazing photographer for having so little of the subject sharp and recognizable! Still ok, DOF control is a great tool and I shoot shallow often, but oohing and ahhing just at how little is in focus is old

Mar 17, 2013permalink

Paco 316

I am a believer when it come to doing things in a non-traditional way. But this "look" can be achieved with any lens, really. All you got to do is not attach the lens to the camera and move it close to the camera and take a shot. A very thin line will be in focus... every thing else is blurred. Try it.

Not going to say it is crazy creative, but it does make you think outside the box and you get a kick out of it if you are a person with patience and like trying new things.

Mar 17, 2013permalink

micahmedia

...that only works properly with "unit focus" lenses. Rear and internal focus lenses tend to not mantain a sharp plain of focus in a usable place off the mount.

Although YMMV and I don't doubt there are exceptions. This has been my experience though. Try it and find out!

Also glare/flare from the light leaks can be an issue. Or a feature!

Mar 17, 2013permalink

wlachan

Not bad, but where are the actual wedding photos? And don't tell me those aren't professional models.

Mar 17, 2013permalink

gl2k

Didn't you know, that almost all modern brides are about 20 year old and look like models ? Additionally they are also in possession of georgeous & expensive gowns and know how to pose like a pro.
Even better, they all have a lot of time for their wedding shooting and can easily afford a pro photog and a crew of assistants.

Mar 17, 2013permalink

I picked up the lens about a month ago. I have shot two weddings with it but many more to go throughout this year. Stay tuned to my Facebook page or Website and you will see plenty more as I do plan on using the lens at each wedding.

Mar 20, 2013permalink

wlachan

...

Mar 17, 2013*permalink

Malyons, camera movements and lens design are first year photography subjects. For a high school photography teacher to consider such a trivial article a learning option is quite a frightening prospect. It's like a high school computer teacher getting excited hearing about command line parameters for the first time, or an auto mechanic instructor just figuring out the benefits of a manual shift.

Mar 17, 2013permalink

Dheorl

I dunno where you learnt photography but for me year one was basics of how a camera works, exposure relationships and what they effect, how to operate dark room equipment (I guess these days replaced by how to use photoshop) and basic composition.

I don't see how camera movement and lens design would be at all helpful to anyone if they haven't got the other stuff down first.

Mar 18, 2013permalink

malyons

I don't recall saying I was excited. I also don't recall mentioning what level I taught.

I do indeed teach level one, B&W photography for students who have absolutely no experience in a school setting that is less than optimal. My experience has been less than I'd like lately as well, as I do not have the time or money to spend to become a super-photographer...it isn't my entire life.

I have some students who have great potential, and I like to give them resources, however trivial you may find them, so they can learn a bit more that I do not necessarily have time to teach them (check out any available article on the state of public schools.) I don't recall this site being for "Pro's Only."

The point of my post was surprise at the unexpected level of conceit I had noticed on the site...which you have just proven. I know now I can expect to have any photo or post trashed due to my "frightening" lack of skill.

Perhaps, in time, I can reach an appropriate level of arrogance.

Mar 19, 2013permalink

Malyons, I would suggest you give your students a heads up on books such as The Camera, The Print, and The Negative, by Ansell Adams. The first one in particular giving one much more grounded and accurate information than most articles online.
Regardless of what you or I feel, the fact that so many people here are dissing this article should be a cause for concern for you as far as using it as a resource.
With photography involving so much exacting science, it should be no surprise that many people are picky about the correct information, terminology and impression being given on precise tools and procedures.
Yesterday, I had one of my class peers (who is a working journalist at the moment) confidently tell me that an ISO800 shot out of a 5D mk3 would produce a result way brighter than an ISO3200 shot from a 5D mk2, because the newer model has better ISO performance. What a scary thought.
Studying Diploma of Photoimaging in Australia by the way, and apologies if I caused you offence.

Mar 19, 2013permalink

malyons

Point taken.

I'm not a pro photographer, just a knowledgeable hobbyist who teaches photo and art at a school where I'm lucky if the students don't hock the cameras we provide, so I'm not always up on who really has it "right." It'll take another 42 years to muddle through...

Thankfully I have a few very skilled students with potential, and good AP scores, so there's hope.

Good luck on your studies.

Mar 20, 2013permalink

malyons

Wow! And by Wow I mean, based on the comments I've read thus far, I will be careful as a new member not to post or write anything that isn't the resolution of Einsteinian and Quantum physics.

If you read the caption, it states that it is an opinion piece he wrote, hence "why it is his favorite" etc. Unfortunately those of us relatively new to things don't have the Encyclopaedia Brittanica of photographic history entrenched in our brains to recall how many of this type of photo we've seen.

I appreciate the info I've gleaned from the article and many of the comments. As a High School Photo teacher (who is still also learning) I am looking for resources of all sorts, and this gives me one more thing to add to the list of learning options.

There is certainly a wealth of opinion to be sorted through...

Mar 16, 2013permalink

Thanks Malyons. I appreciate your comment.

Mar 20, 2013permalink

spitfire31

Not to sound negative (some good ideas in the article, I think), but that heading profile photo, with a distracting strand of hair going right through the model's eye…

Personally, I'd have sent it straight into the Lightroom trash can for that reason.

/Joachim

Mar 16, 2013permalink

one reason that I can think is the lens was very difficult to handle that there were few usable shots.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

ValkuraReigns

I like that piece of hair going through her eye.

Mar 17, 2013permalink

Teila Day

I like the strand of hair over the eye as well- it makes the photograph have a more realistic look instead of the all-too-typical sanitized text-book stuff that often is counter reality.

Women have their hair blown, and strands of hair across their face, such hardly makes a photograph less attractive on that alone.

I didn't find the hair distractive. I found it refreshing, normal, and a relief that the photographer isn't chained down to technical convention that has reached the point of utter ridiculousness. :)

Mar 18, 2013permalink

RobertSigmund

Good photos made with a good lens.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

basically we use perspective control to get things within focus. some very simple tricks can put things out of focus. just raise one side of the plate under the enlarger in the darkroom where you can have much more control than on the site (like the paper can be curved, or you put two cents under the face and focus to the raised place, you cannot do it in camera).

now we can do it more easily and comfortably in the livingroom, and lens makers begin to use "optical bokeh" in their advertisement.

my advice is "do not do anything on the site that you can do later at desk" and the "perspective bokeh" is one.

Mar 16, 2013*permalink

Dylthedog

What you are talking about is 'Chocolate flavoured' and full-on Chocolate made from 90 cocoa.

When you have the genuine 3 dimensions to work with things happen that are lost once they are flattened and both the darkroom and photoshop have the same limitation.

I'm not saying they can't produce something similar, but they can't produce the same thing exactly. TS lenses and polariser filters can't truly be recreated after the fact, at least with current capture technology.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

I know they are different but as I said only when you want to put something in focus (or almost in focus) like in the first portrait if the woman reaches her hand toward the camera so that to put her wedding ring in the focal plane while the backgroud (breast-belly) is blurred. this is difficult in darkroom but we can do in software now.

you can do a lot of tricks in the darkroom that are not possible or very expensive on site, and with much fun.

Mar 16, 2013*permalink

PMC1

think you mean to tilting the lens buy using the scheimflug principle
perspective control is to shift the lens and aids control on perspective
and a large format camera uses these effect much better than any T/S lens as you can control movements at the lens plain and the film plain with any lens

sometimes the really old way is still far the best way to go

Mar 17, 2013permalink

THANKS yabokkie for teaching WAY MORE then the non-article, uh publicity!

Thank you!!! :)

Mar 18, 2013permalink

the art of photography is in the war- and darkrooms.
send dispensable GIs to the front.
keep the best talents at home,
and let them control over satellite link.

Mar 18, 2013permalink

fujidanny

You mustn't give all those negative comments!
For me as a beginner it's very interesting to learn from the article about those possibilities, that you get by t/s lenses. For me it's a good input. Thanks a lot!
For the so called 'Pro's': I think you're only envious, that you didn't write that article. Sit down and write a good article. Than you'll see: it's not that easy...
Have a nice weekend! Go out and come down taking better photos...
Fujidanny

Mar 16, 2013permalink

> learn from the article about those possibilities

possibilities yes, but I'd like to tell people to avoid.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

this was NOT an article! JUST publicity!!!
If you want to learn anything about T&S lenses or related stuff just google it because the only thing u learn here is that the 90mm T&S exist!

Mar 18, 2013permalink

Thanks FujiDanny.

Mar 20, 2013permalink

pancromat

if you look at the first big vertical picture of this article, you might notice something that always displeased me when i used TS lenses. the tilted focal plane frequently meets something in the background (or the ground here) or elsewhere that should not be sharp. this distracts the viewer. like in this case. that's why i prefer using software to create a sweet spot these days.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

amazing... NOT!

JUST ANOTHER supposed article with half dozen nice pictures and no real juice to get from! Nothing to learn here, people DID use tilt for this more then 1century ago already!!! Good that he feels like he discovered the wheel! The article is just another one about publicity!!! And even for the canon lens at that! :/

Indeed like someone said: he asn his budy and the store get a few more hundred clicks from all this when i believe most of us would like to ACTUALLY learn something.
A waste of time. :(

Mar 16, 2013permalink

qwertyasdf

I had been looking at TS portraits on photography forums everyday for years!

Mar 16, 2013permalink

You guys are a tough crowd. I never claimed to "discover the wheel." I was just sharing something that I was enjoying in my photography work.

Mar 20, 2013permalink

Roland Karlsson

What Trevor Dayley do is making the eyes, and nothing else, sharp. Thats it. As far as I can see from the example photos. Thats a nice effect. And he himself says, he likes to get the effect directly on site, and not doing post processing in Photoshop. Why not?

What would be interesting though is to see if the same quality of an effect can be made in post processing. Similar kind of effects can definitely be made in post processing. But ... can you get similar quality?

Mar 16, 2013permalink

singernot

I'm heavily using the TS-E 90mm for my work since several years. I find it fascinating to discover new ways of taking pictures diretly on-site, not using PS in post pro. Check yourself: http://www.gernotsinger.com/

Mar 16, 2013permalink

motion

Awesome photos Singernot! I'd like to get my hands on a lens like that some day and try it out myself.

Mar 17, 2013permalink

Kodachrome200

basically he is throwing the bottom of the image out of focus

blah

Mar 16, 2013permalink

Photomonkey

For those sneering at his work he starts out saying that this lens is not for everyone.
Frankly his work is very appealing despite the detractors.
As for it being in use for over 100 years that is true insofar as view cameras have been around that long. However the usual use has been to increase DOF and only rarely to decrease it.
The technique is enjoying a fashion these days because of the renewed interest in alt. lenses.Just as Instagram and any number of PS actions give a photographer a look, this effect is another enjoying some fashion at the moment. As fashions/fads go at least it is attractive.

Mar 16, 2013*permalink

Kodachrome200

view cameras have been used for ultr shallow dof since they were created

Mar 16, 2013permalink

Increasing DOF has never been the point of TS lenses, and they are just as good at it as other lenses are. Perspective correction and plane of focus adjustment is what they are technically made for.
While controlling what is in focus, you are also controlling what is out of focus. This is nothing new, even for portrait and fashion photography. Anyone with a fast prime lens can achieve a similar result by not shooting parallel to the subject.
It's just that when you get some overzealous article writers who disregard history, and only look at the last 10 years of the topics they are enthused about, then news like this gets posted and some photographer gets a whole bunch of extra hits on his page that week.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

Petka

Tilt was invented (shift is not used here, almost never with this effect) to make pictures sharper by making the plane of focus follow the plane of the subject (ground, wall etc.). For some strange reason the whole idea has been turned around recently by using tilt to make most of the picture blurry. In some circumstances the same effect can not be perfectly simulated in post, but often it can be done.

This is a fad, I agree, and I admit I use it also sometimes to direct the eye to the most important part of the picture. It is one tool among many.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

jeffcpix

There was a time when head shots were done with large format cameras. In order to reduce exposure time, images were made using large apertures which meant DOF was extremely limited.
Unless the sitter was looking directly into the camera, DOF
was not sufficient to get both eyes in the same plane/focus.
In order to get the plane of focus to correspond to the plane of the eyes when the sitter's face was not parallel to the film plane, the lens was was rotated slightly around its vertical axis. This resulted in both eyes being sharp and the fall-off in
sharpness extending in front and behind equally (Scheimpflug). Both eyes would be very sharp -- but the tip of the nose and the ears were quite soft.

It was a look -- one that few photographers today are capable of reproducing or even recognizing.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

qwertyasdf

I guess why he didn't use it to increase apparent DOF, is because reducing apparent DOF is much easier, just tilt it to the max the "wrong" way, done!

Mar 16, 2013permalink

Thanks Photomonkey!

Mar 20, 2013permalink

This 'unique' approach has been in use by photographers for over 100 years.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

Sovern

In my opinion the photos look artificial almost like someone applied gassuain blur to the bottom of the dress or other areas which removes details and most brides want to see in their photos and I would like to see in the photos.......

I like the effect that shallow DOD gives even better as if you can get your subject completely in focus you can blur the backdrop out but you don't lose the detail as is lost using a tilt shift lens.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

The Davinator

I agree. I prefer the look of the Lensbaby over the Tilt lens....or simply working with shallow DOF.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

Hi Sovern, I definitely wouldn't do this on all the photos, but I do think it is a great effect to apply to some in order to draw your eyes to certain areas of the photo or even more attention to the subjects eyes.

Mar 20, 2013permalink

to all those detractors/negators of shallow DoF images shot 'in-camera' on the spot with the mounted lens...

why not just settle for a focus-free, 'infinite' super-high deep DoF everything is in focus, via tiny apertured tiny lensed tiny sensored cellphone cameras (or something smaller than a dSLR), and photoshop all the '3D pop' shallow DoF to your hearts content POST-PROCESSED (ad nauseum)... (blurry tunnel vision lens-baby optional)

happy now?

sdyue

Mar 16, 2013permalink

sagebrushfire

Using a large aperture and getting a shallow DOF in-camera gives you an effect that you can't truly replicate in post because there's certain information that the camera didn't pick up and is lost forever.

That being said, there is some merit to the "use a camera as a data capturing device" approach. If you shoot in raw, use small apertures for the greatest depth of field and make your exposures as bland as possible (try to avoid any blown highlights or blackened shadows) you have a LOT of creative freedom in post. This is sometimes beneficial for a client that doesn't know what they want or needs many different effects but doesn't want multiple shoots, etc.

So I think there are merits to getting it right in the camera and making it right in post, it all depends on your workflow. Some people don't have time for ANY processing so in-camera has to be perfect; other people have no time for setting up shots in the field but all the processing time they want.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

GraemeF

Most wedding photographers don't have the time to do extensive post processing on their images, so getting the right results or as near as possible straight out of the camera is pretty important.

It's far easier to take a few extra seconds setting up a T/S to capture the right look than it is to create that look using minutes/hours in post.

Photoshop CS6 has a lot of refinements over CS5, but I still don't think the 'blur' effects that can be added in post look anywhere near as convincing as those created by the camera and lens.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

@Steve D Yue - even then u wouldn't make them happy Steve!!!
AND...

then the FF group would start whining about it!!! ;)

Mar 16, 2013permalink

onlooker

The first B&W is magic. The second is flat and dreary. Strange the same person would showcase both.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

five5pho

Cool but that is a life style shoot, where is the wedding ?
( nice images don't get me wrong )

Mar 16, 2013permalink

hey five5pho - keep an eye on my Facebook page and I will be posting a number of T/S wedding shots throughout the wedding season. There are a few up there already, but I will be using it quite a bit more.

Mar 20, 2013permalink

huyzer

Very cool indeed.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

AshMills

Lovely pics. Not sure how many times I personally will have the time required on a wedding day to spend that time on a shot, and the look is not a million miles from post-processing, but I do like the idea a lot!

George53 I think you are being a tad tough on many working professionals- the article is after all titled "wedding photography" - a title that to me (as a working pro who only does weddings when I'm asked nicely) tends to mean covering a couples wedding day, rather than a glamorous portrait shoot- which may well not be the same occasion.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

Mssimo

Can't wait for the "using fisheye for wedding photography" article.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

hmmm... isn't covered under wedding lomography? or lensbaby lomography?

sdyue

Mar 16, 2013*permalink

Peksu

Your wishes have been answered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-WxCoDewbY

Mar 16, 2013permalink

RoelHendrickx

Look here for fisheye shots (not all of them of course) at a wedding:
http://roelh.zenfolio.com/p627552318
In my book, anything goes as long as it supports a creative vision.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

qwertyasdf

This world is moving too fast, I can't stand the tide.
I want my wedding to be taken in Daguerreotype.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

deep7

These photos are epic. The photographer combines a real artistic vision with sound technical knowledge and I bet he is sought after for his work. His use of a tilt/shift lens is stellar.

That said, I note all the photos in the article only have the bride. While my favourite part of shooting weddings is the brief time away from the throngs, when I am able to be a bit artistic, I tend to focus on the couple in the arty shots, for a good reason, duh! I'd love to see some TS shots with both bride and groom.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

TS shots are best on single subjects than multiple/paired subjects

after all, non-TS shots rely on 'easy' single equal 'known' focal planes, but for TS, any altered 'slant' focal planes make focusing more than one subject even more difficult, if not unnecessarily time consuming

finding the focal point of two subjects standing at different distances 'on purpose' is considerably harder than for the conventional 'equal distance' focal plane of non-TS shots

sdyue

Mar 16, 2013permalink

tkbslc

Mar 16, 2013*permalink

deep7

Hmm, not so sure. The idea of the tilt is to be able to have a focal plane not parallel to the camera, hence allowing two subjects to be in focus while most other things aren't. I'll allow it's difficult but a wedding is about two people, so single person shots have limited value (though I do it, I balance the people so both have some solo shots, or even the rest of the bridal party if it works.)

Mar 16, 2013permalink

Thank you! Super appreciated.

Mar 20, 2013permalink

George 53

I forgot to mention that one could use "Lensbaby" and create similar and even more interesting images at that time.

Mar 16, 2013permalink

magneto shot

lensbaby is manual isnt it...that would be way too slow to focus in a wedding...

Mar 16, 2013permalink

AshMills

And they could be even softer/blurrier too. Awesome. ;-) The 90 TSE in this article is MF too. Just 18times the price and somewhat more controllable.

Mar 16, 2013*permalink

lens baby = semi-TS mostly tunnel vision, if not suffers lomographically

sdyue

Mar 16, 2013*permalink

George 53

Looks like we have so many arm chair wedding photographers making comments but never-mind, free speech and all that.

Just a few of my comments. Not all the wedding couples in this world want a McDonald's 5 min photographic session. Some like to pay more and leave the photographer to create the magical images, some may like it some may adore them, everyone has a different perspective.

Secondly for a photographer to use a standard lens and then change the image in Photoshop according to the likes of the client meant the couple have not looked at the photographers portfolio and the photographer is probably some amateur who likes to dale in Photoshop because he or she is not creative enough on their feet and they need to plonk their bums on a chair to try and be creative.

Mar 15, 2013permalink

Sean Clark

These shots look like bridal portrait sessions before the wedding, although the blog talks about using the lens at the wedding.
I find blur in front of or below the subject usually detracts from a conventional portrait. It feels like somethings in the way when the print is viewed.

For dreamy, other-worldly styles I can see a T/S shining. Really high key shots where everything but the bride is blown out should work well. The kind of artistic intent that a lensbaby works with should suit a T/S too.

The B&W shot on the beach with the bride striding out of frame seems to work, while the one below it with the bride squatting really isn't to my taste at all.

Mar 15, 2013permalink

Lift Off

If you ask me, that's staged portrait photography (with wedding dresses), not wedding photography.

Mar 15, 2013*permalink

all weddings are staged to one degree or another, no matter what.

sdyue

Mar 16, 2013*permalink

wlachan

Those shots were done with professional models, not actual average people getting married I bet. There is a HUGE difference.

Mar 17, 2013permalink

sammy_j

Exactly, where's the wedding? it looks like he has all the time int he world out there to play around.

Being at an actual wedding when you have 30 minutes after the ceremony and have to deal with the family all aroudn does not merit this kind of photography.

You would have to go out on a separate occasion to even think about doing a shoot like this.

Mar 17, 2013permalink