and help to keep the site free for all
Faux vintage wedding pics
- Thread starter ajax_andy
- Start date
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
You're missing the point, which is if there's money to be made, a successful entrepreneur will find a way of making it. And you turn your back on that at your peril, as someone else will.
And FWIW, I've spent decades in business, building, marketing and extending brands, diversifying and creating new profit streams. As 'brand stretch' goes, a bit of post processing to create a significantly different product offering is hardly difficult.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 3,650
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
Then you should know that brand awareness comes from delivering a product that is clearly identifiable as being x company's.
Just doing many different styles and versions will create a completely confusing and mixed bag lacking in the consistant style required for anyone's brand to be recognisable and stand out from the competition.
What you've posted is a short term quick buck, not a long standing and consistant business model
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am not saying you have to follow any passing trend and you are welcome to stick to your tastes, but that doesn't mean your tastes are better than those you are happy to look down on. I may think your tastes are poor, what makes you the king of taste?
- Messages
- 25,344
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Slightly OT but isn't it time there was a genuinely different term for images which have been highly manipulated. It creates confusion when people complain about PP as if all PP is wrong, when most PP is completely necessary and part of the photographic process.
As far as Vintage goes, there's no such thing as bad taste when you're appealing to a market, I don't and won't do colour popping, but if I have customers who have a certain theme, then processing their photographs sympathetically to that theme is surely common sense? I would hope that all photographers have a line they won't cross, and it's no-one elses business to tell them where that line should be.
As far as Vintage goes, there's no such thing as bad taste when you're appealing to a market, I don't and won't do colour popping, but if I have customers who have a certain theme, then processing their photographs sympathetically to that theme is surely common sense? I would hope that all photographers have a line they won't cross, and it's no-one elses business to tell them where that line should be.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, I do know.
But let's assume that there is a business opportunity here. So you research it, see how it fits with your existing business, see how you can deliver it. Then either market it as a bolt-on extra service, maybe see how it goes, or spin it off as a separate entity.
Nothing wrong with making a short-term quick buck, especially if it might turn out to be more enduring than expected. And at least while you're playing the game, you're in there protecting your main business.
- Messages
- 4,096
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But conversely those who do not modify to accommodate tastes of customers a changing market, whether they have a "brand" or not, will not survive. Very few in any industry are able to dictate style to their customers. Those who can will not spend time arguing about it on forums.
Last edited:
"isn't it time there was a genuinely different term for images which have been highly manipulated" - couldn't agree more!
Personally I've always stuck to my "style" and refused to do gimmicks (politely but firmly) - of course you have to pander to their taste, once they've chosen you for your style.
Fr'instance I'd always offer to present some as B&W, and they'd have full choice of photos to present in the album (this can be incredibly variable, some want every photo you took, some want to leave out all the guest shots). If they tell you in advance that they particularly want a "bias" in what you take (I want some shots with my pet ducks, and loads of shots of all the kiddies", then that's fine too)
I'm not saying my "taste" is better than anyone else's what I am saying is that as a photographer there's nothing wrong with having your own "style", and leaving others to slavishly follow the "trends" (copying other people's gimmicks).........
Personally I've always stuck to my "style" and refused to do gimmicks (politely but firmly) - of course you have to pander to their taste, once they've chosen you for your style.
Fr'instance I'd always offer to present some as B&W, and they'd have full choice of photos to present in the album (this can be incredibly variable, some want every photo you took, some want to leave out all the guest shots). If they tell you in advance that they particularly want a "bias" in what you take (I want some shots with my pet ducks, and loads of shots of all the kiddies", then that's fine too)
I'm not saying my "taste" is better than anyone else's what I am saying is that as a photographer there's nothing wrong with having your own "style", and leaving others to slavishly follow the "trends" (copying other people's gimmicks).........
OP
- Messages
- 3,650
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
I just don't see it that way mate... to me a photo is a piece of art created with vision and style, not some mass produced product that can have bolt ons to suit all ranges of people like a mobile phone package. I don't even know how you'd sell that to customers as your portfolio will dictate who comes to you with an enquiry so therefore your portfolio would have to be a real mismatch of styles in the 1st place :shrug:
I understand what you are proposing but I just think it isn't ever going to be more than some average at best mass market product without any real soul or long lasting appeal.
Maybe I'm wrong and sure money is what drives a business... the more you make the more successful you are... I just don't agree that it would work as you think or appeal in the way you do.
I'm happy to admit I might be wrong... it's certainly not how I'd go about things but maybe I'm looking at it through a purer set of glasses and not one's with big pound signs painted over the lenses obsuring my sight :shrug:
OP
- Messages
- 3,650
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
How much have photography styles changed though? If you look back at some of the top togs from 20 years ago the photos are still amazing, they are just processed differently. That different processing to say Faux Vintage works well even today because it wasn't just a fad or gimmick.
I also don't think not adding a faux vintage filter will mean someone doesn't survive... I'd actually argue the opposite and that if 8 out of every 10 ARE doing it then it's those who aren't who will stand out from the crowd
Isn't wedding photography a 'gimmick' then as not all B&G want a photographer!
Wedding photography is now pretty mainstream, as such, not, by definition, a gimmick.
We aren't (hopefully) producing a "product" as defined by many - we can only do one wedding properly per day, so we are automatically "limited", and can afford to pander to our own market - if "everyone else" is offering hyper-naff, all the more reason to be "different"
We aren't (hopefully) producing a "product" as defined by many - we can only do one wedding properly per day, so we are automatically "limited", and can afford to pander to our own market - if "everyone else" is offering hyper-naff, all the more reason to be "different"
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
In my opinion, wedding photography is more documentation than art. The artistry has already been created by the dress designer, hairstylist, cake decorator etc.
(I expect to be shot down for this comment!!).
Steve.
I think you will find it is the minority that offer 'vintage' look or a 'gimmick' - the mainstream tend to shoot 'their' style - whatever that maybe.
a couple of decades ago, many photographers were shooting more than one wedding a day - times change!
Not really to be shot down but the photographers art is to portray the already 'produced' artistry in the best way possible. That in itself can be artful.
OP
- Messages
- 3,650
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
A lot yes... have a look at say Ross Harvey who posts on here (or at least did but I haven't seen him post for a while)... whilst he is very much documenting the day it's done with a real flair and creativity IMO.
I think those who can add flair and style to their wedding images will be the folk who rise above the average wedding tog. Most seem to think taking standard images and clicking a filter is the other way.
"I think you will find it is the minority that offer 'vintage' look or a 'gimmick' - the mainstream tend to shoot 'their' style - whatever that maybe"
Thank heavens for that.......
Twenty (and more) years ago I was often offered more than one wedding on a day, and having once had a "near miss" (the first one over-running badly) decided it was impossible to do justice to more than one wedding in a day.
Now and again you'd get a bride who'd say "oooh I do like those misty jobs, and I love the couple in a glass shot" - simple answer was "suggest you go and have a chat with my friend
Ray, he specialises in that sort of thing" - he would reciprocate and send me people who wanted "reportage", that way, everybody's happy - I wasn't producing work I'd be ashamed of, the couple got what they wanted too.........
Thank heavens for that.......
Twenty (and more) years ago I was often offered more than one wedding on a day, and having once had a "near miss" (the first one over-running badly) decided it was impossible to do justice to more than one wedding in a day.
Now and again you'd get a bride who'd say "oooh I do like those misty jobs, and I love the couple in a glass shot" - simple answer was "suggest you go and have a chat with my friend
Ray, he specialises in that sort of thing" - he would reciprocate and send me people who wanted "reportage", that way, everybody's happy - I wasn't producing work I'd be ashamed of, the couple got what they wanted too.........
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Rose tinted perhaps.
I'm not particularly banging a drum for this Instagram style of photography, just saying that there's a new business opportunity here, a clear market demand with customers paying good money.
That presents both an opportunity and a threat that should be considered with an open mind. Eg, how can I serve this market, how big is it, how can I make it work alongside my existing work, how can I make it profitable, and how can I protect my position? Rather than, I don't like this style, it's not proper photography, it's a gimmick, it'll never catch on, and I'm above all that naff stuff.
At least you'll then be in a position to make a better business choice.
- Messages
- 2,775
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't actually know what's being referred to when people say 'faux vintage'. Can you link to some examples? I know Marianne Taylor could possibly fall under that bracket for some, but again it's more just colour grading with pastel tones than trying for a vintage look. Plus she charges around £3k a wedding and has lots of happy couples, so it obviously works. Emulating the film look is quite a popular one at the moment, does that count as faux vintage?
As long as you get good exposure, composition and genuine moments in a photo, that's all that's important when shooting. Everything else is now down to an editing style of your choice - if couples like it too then you're going to do well.
Photography has moved on a log way from the days of film. It's time to accept that.
"how can I serve this market," - What cobblers - you're as good as the last wedding you did - if I produced one uber-naff result, it would forever haunt my reputation, as I said, you should not equate it with "products" (with an "s"), we aren't knocking out tins of baked beans.
I'm very against pretension, but a good wedding photographer is using his artistry and flair to present his view of your wedding, to have to resort to silly fads is a pretty sure sign of wanting to gild the lily, do it right, and it doesn't need gilding.....
As I said, there's a market for faddish stuff, but that's fine for those who are only commercially driven and are happy to bandwagon hop - I was a photographer for one reason, I loved doing it, the fact that people paid me was a bonus, to compromise that would have removed the passion that fired me...........
"Photography has moved on a log way from the days of film. It's time to accept that" - don't agree at all, digital and PP has made it "easier", but it's also made a lot of people very lazy, and they try to substitute "Photoshoppery" for good technique, and I think that there's a lot of real rubbish about masquerading as "photography"
I'm very against pretension, but a good wedding photographer is using his artistry and flair to present his view of your wedding, to have to resort to silly fads is a pretty sure sign of wanting to gild the lily, do it right, and it doesn't need gilding.....
As I said, there's a market for faddish stuff, but that's fine for those who are only commercially driven and are happy to bandwagon hop - I was a photographer for one reason, I loved doing it, the fact that people paid me was a bonus, to compromise that would have removed the passion that fired me...........
"Photography has moved on a log way from the days of film. It's time to accept that" - don't agree at all, digital and PP has made it "easier", but it's also made a lot of people very lazy, and they try to substitute "Photoshoppery" for good technique, and I think that there's a lot of real rubbish about masquerading as "photography"
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,775
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Definitely. I'd say an actual shooting style is much more important and distinctive than an editing style, and in my eyes, much more impressive to see.
"Lumieres"? They used photographic techniques to produce what became cinematography -nothing to do with blasphemy, something totally different - most people use on this forum because they enjoy producing "stills" - if you enjoy video making I'm sure there's fora dedicated to it........
As Phil said, we probably do need a new word for overprocessed images (to which I'd add "lomography")
As Phil said, we probably do need a new word for overprocessed images (to which I'd add "lomography")
- Messages
- 2,775
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have you ever thought that people aren't just jumping on any type of band wagon and actually just like the style, and love doing it that way, much in the same way you love doing it your way. The style is popular for a reason, whether you like it or not is up to you.
People are still paying thousands for this stuff "masquerading as photography". You may think that people have become lazy, but I can only assume you're looking at poor examples of work - I can tell you, just as much attention to detail, if not more goes into creating a style not aimed at replicating the exact same settings from the day, as it does if you do*
*when done properly
I've always been very conscious of the history of photography, if you look back at what we can see what was clearly naff in days of yore, then it is pretty easy to spot what will go the same way - I want my images to be "timeless" as far as is possible.
Like many people, back in the days of film I spent hours in the darkroom experimenting - when I now look at the results I wince that I'd have spent several evenings producing a blue-toned nude, when a straight black and white print was so much better in every way - I avoided various fads like the "false brushed emulsion edges" much favoured by the arty-farty brigade -these things are not "new", they're just far more accessible (what took ages in a darkroom now needs a bit of button prodding)
As I've said several times, there is a market for over-processed faddish stuff, (dare I say it?) "but is it art?"
Like many people, back in the days of film I spent hours in the darkroom experimenting - when I now look at the results I wince that I'd have spent several evenings producing a blue-toned nude, when a straight black and white print was so much better in every way - I avoided various fads like the "false brushed emulsion edges" much favoured by the arty-farty brigade -these things are not "new", they're just far more accessible (what took ages in a darkroom now needs a bit of button prodding)
As I've said several times, there is a market for over-processed faddish stuff, (dare I say it?) "but is it art?"
They also developed a process to make colour images which was a 'gimmick' at the time - don't you see why your argument about gimmicks is a little shallow.
Using Velvia film instead of Kodachrome was a form of PP - just like many other instances of new film innovations. It has just carried on with the age of digital and the digital darkroom.
What I see in this thread is that because you do not particularly like it - you think it is wrong or naff. it is up to the customers to decide and YOUR business practice to allow 'gimmicks'.
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But surely that's only like playing a Les Paul rather than a Strat because the sound suited what you were doing more? Maybe I'm massively missing the point but I'm not getting that one!
"it is up to the customers to decide and YOUR business practice to allow 'gimmicks' - you offer your services and style, they can "take it or leave it" - as I said I'd want to offer something based on my passions in photography, not to slavishly follow fashion (which history usually shows is irrelevant ephemera) - if you want "trendy" absolutely fine, but don't tell me that I should pander to it, and offer sausage and chips, bell bottomed trousers and desaturated badly-framed images.........
(Kodachrome was sharp but horribly "blue" - in Velvia the colours were more accurate but over-saturated) - prints made from them tended to be pretty contrasty
(Kodachrome was sharp but horribly "blue" - in Velvia the colours were more accurate but over-saturated) - prints made from them tended to be pretty contrasty
Last edited:
You are soooo missing the point.
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have to admit I'd never really thought of it like that but I don't see it that way personally. Neither the Strat or the Les Paul were the first electric guitars to be made so neither are really innovations, just developments from what came before. Neither Kodachrome or Velvia were the first colour photographic films (although obviously Kodachrome came waaaay earlier), so again I see them both as developments rather than innovations.
It's certainly an interesting point of view though. I can maybe see how some who are perhaps very used to one way of working may see something new as unnecessary (and from that perhaps gimmicky).
Paul - treat the sound as post processing and that is where the innovation/different way of doing it is similar to the Velvia film being introduced. If it wasn't for you - you would go back to the Les Paul sound - or Kodachrome film. Why is there a big deal?
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Where did this big deal thing come from? I'm just saying I don't quite agree with the view that shooting a different type of film is similar to post-processing, there's no big deal that I can see. :shrug:
"shooting a different type of film is similar to post-processing" - some people are just being deliberately obtuse - if PP is used sensibly (to colour and exposure correct) then it's just a substitute for what the film processor would have done.
If we're talking wedding photography, hardly anyone used Kodachrome or Velvia (which were slide films, and used for projection or publication) - the most widely used colour films for weddings 20 or so years ago were the 160asa Kodak offering, and latterly the superb Fuji Reala - the main quest being colour fidelity, fine grain, and "good temper" - from my recollection the Kodak print films were very much inferior to the Fuji offering (from which you could also take superb B&W prints) - you chose a film for it's performance, rather than for an "effect".
As an aside, I'd often use a roll of the Fuji 1600 colour film in the church - grain like golf balls, perhaps those shots could be seen as "period", but they weren't done for effect, that's what fast colour film was like in those days..........
If we're talking wedding photography, hardly anyone used Kodachrome or Velvia (which were slide films, and used for projection or publication) - the most widely used colour films for weddings 20 or so years ago were the 160asa Kodak offering, and latterly the superb Fuji Reala - the main quest being colour fidelity, fine grain, and "good temper" - from my recollection the Kodak print films were very much inferior to the Fuji offering (from which you could also take superb B&W prints) - you chose a film for it's performance, rather than for an "effect".
As an aside, I'd often use a roll of the Fuji 1600 colour film in the church - grain like golf balls, perhaps those shots could be seen as "period", but they weren't done for effect, that's what fast colour film was like in those days..........
- Messages
- 2,775
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Did you like them because you like the look they gave? Or just because they were popular?
I bet there was some people who hated those rolls of film.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I tried every type of film available (even Konica!) - before I did a lot of wedding work I "cut my teeth" on pro photography for a company that used the Kodak film for "function work" which to my mind was dreadful (shadows "blocked up", unnatural colours, relatively grainy, look at it funny it developed colour casts) - I wanted an "as near natural" colour film as possible with a fine grain that was good-tempered (tolerant of abuse in exposure).
Along came Fuji with their bright colours, and eventually came out with the utter revelation of Fuji Reala - it was such an improvement over all the others that there was just no comparison, it was the difference between a Findus Lasagne and dinner at La Gavroche.......
The colours were accurate, the grain was very fine, it was very tolerant of under and over-exposure, and in the hands of a good processor the prints had a "quality" never before achievable - it was a relatively low contrast film, which allowed them great latitude in how they printed (and B&W prints taken from it were knockout)
When I started using it, the pros I was working with doing function work were somewhat sniffy, then I noticed they all quietly moved over to it themselves when they saw how much better it was.....
Along came Fuji with their bright colours, and eventually came out with the utter revelation of Fuji Reala - it was such an improvement over all the others that there was just no comparison, it was the difference between a Findus Lasagne and dinner at La Gavroche.......
The colours were accurate, the grain was very fine, it was very tolerant of under and over-exposure, and in the hands of a good processor the prints had a "quality" never before achievable - it was a relatively low contrast film, which allowed them great latitude in how they printed (and B&W prints taken from it were knockout)
When I started using it, the pros I was working with doing function work were somewhat sniffy, then I noticed they all quietly moved over to it themselves when they saw how much better it was.....