Faux vintage wedding pics

ajax_andy

ajax_andy

Messages
3,650
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
Is the whole faux vintage thing here to stay or a flash in the pan similar to colour popping / spot colouring?

I'm thinking mainly in wedding photographs but I guess it applies to all areas of photography really.

I can't help thinking that all these wedding togs with faux vintage effects filling their portfolio are going to be a little screwed once it passes by (if it does) leaving them with nothing but out dated looking images.

Or is the Instagram revolution changing the way photography looks long term? I was watching tv the other day and even the program had a slight wishy washy colour cast to it... so much so my wife even commented that they'd 'instagramed' it.

Don't get me wrong I've seen some really nice images processed in a faux vintage style, however it seems when togs do this they do it to EVERY picture... it's their style, and I just don't really know if this is here to stay, or if it'll loose it's appeal eventually / soon?
 
Last edited:
It's a silly fad - any wedding presented this way will "date" rapidly, and leave the photographer that did it looking a bit of a plonker!
 
They are meeting a fashionable need. Of course it will move on to something else in a few years, that is fashion. Yes the images will look outdated in a few years, again that is fashion.
 
Everything goes in cycles. The trick is to be able to move with them. The people doing 'vintage' now were probably doing spot colour back along. Customer demand and all that.
 
But surely the appeal of vintage effects is it's "timeless". People look at genuine vintage photos and like the look, so a recently faked version will still have the appeal.

Even colour pop was around in black & white film days, where people painted over the top to add colour to certain bits.

Equally, any photographer worth his salt would keep some un-edited versions to re-edit with the next fad ;)
 
People like the look now, but in a few days/moths/years that look will appear dated and photographers using it will find themselves out of fashion. It's like flairs. One day, spot colour will become popular again. :puke:
 
It will move on along with colour popping, heavy black/white vignetting etc etc!
As others have said though, what goes around comes around.

Must be cringeworthy for photographers when the client asks for certains thinks like those that have been mentioned.
 
stupar said:
It will move on along with colour popping, heavy black/white vignetting etc etc!
As others have said though, what goes around comes around.

Must be cringeworthy for photographers when the client asks for certains thinks like those that have been mentioned.
Click to expand...

I would refuse tbh... People should book a tog based on the work they do and not what they've seen elsewhere.

I did have one bride send me a link to another togs pics and say she liked that style. I told her I had my own style and she needed to understand that for me to produce my best work I had to do it in my style not a bad attempt at someone elses. (I worded it a little nicer than that though tbh)
 
One day, everybody who does stuff like this will have blocked me on Facebook.

Pretty soon actually.
 
"I would refuse tbh" - couldn't agree more, I used to get it years ago when people would ask for those dreadful "softed" or vignetted photos (one or two asked for the uber naff "couple in a wineglass" shot done in the darkroom) to which my reply was short, sharp and to the point - "I'm sorry, I don't do that style - if that's what you want there's loads who'll do it for you" - it lost me (a very few) potential clients, but I did preserve my own integrity as a photographer.

If people actually look at real old wedding photos the main differences are that they were often B&W, and the dress and hair was very different - not something that can be achieved with "effects" which are immediately "dateable"......
 
Last edited:
Was never my cup of tea (in a vintage china cup with saucer, on an old bookcase in a field kind of way). Vintage first started to make an appearance in 2008. Then it was all about the styling of the wedding (flowers, decorations etc) and then gradually it became about the processing.

Flare, muted colours, and instagram style processing are however now mainstream - you see them on the covers of magazines, catalogues, adverts for big brands and most importantly the big bridal blogs have latched on to them - and many brides to be are going to be heavily influenced by them. There will of course be couples who don't get it, and want traditionally processed natural and classic images.

I suspect that there is mileage in the style and I could easily see the processing outlasting the shabby chic styling of the actual wedding and so it might be that you have to stick to your guns and seek out those unaffected couples or have breadth in your portfolio such that you can show both. I'd say that it could be around for another 5 years - and you'll get 6 months notice of it falling out if you keep close eye on the blogs.

The good news is that the majority of the effect is entirely post-processing and so you could go knock up some vintage looking stuff without actually needing to shoot a wedding.

The bad news IMVHO is that the style actually masks the lack of a bunch of skills critical to "good" wedding photography around exposure, colour and white balancing - and consistency across 200-300 images and therefore further reduces the visible difference between those who can deliver high quality work week in week out and those who don't have the experience or skill. The focus on details as the main part of the wedding also lifts the pressure on capturing high quality portraits and moments of emotion.

This is a more technology driven change in style than the move to more documentary coverage than traditional portraits/groups only wedding coverage of the 50's-90's.

Just one more thing putting pressure on those people who chose to enter, or stay shooting weddings as a profession.
 
I think the term 'vintage effect' is applied too often to images that don't fit that category.

"That image has a yellow overlay. Vintage effect"
"Red colour cast in the shadows. Vintage effect"
"Those greens aren't exactly how they looked on the day. Vintage effect"

No, it's just colour grading.

Admittedly, when it's done too heavily like a lot of people insist on doing, it does look nasty and ironically nothing like a vintage photograph. Colour grading has been going on for years though, it's not going to change but hopefully people's tastes will.



JonathanRyan said:
One day, everybody who does stuff like this will have blocked me on Facebook.

Pretty soon actually.
Click to expand...

Why's that?
 
meonshore said:
Was never my cup of tea (in a vintage china cup with saucer, on an old bookcase in a field kind of way). Vintage first started to make an appearance in 2008. Then it was all about the styling of the wedding (flowers, decorations etc) and then gradually it became about the processing.

Flare, muted colours, and instagram style processing are however now mainstream - you see them on the covers of magazines, catalogues, adverts for big brands and most importantly the big bridal blogs have latched on to them - and many brides to be are going to be heavily influenced by them. There will of course be couples who don't get it, and want traditionally processed natural and classic images.

I suspect that there is mileage in the style and I could easily see the processing outlasting the shabby chic styling of the actual wedding and so it might be that you have to stick to your guns and seek out those unaffected couples or have breadth in your portfolio such that you can show both. I'd say that it could be around for another 5 years - and you'll get 6 months notice of it falling out if you keep close eye on the blogs.

The good news is that the majority of the effect is entirely post-processing and so you could go knock up some vintage looking stuff without actually needing to shoot a wedding.

The bad news IMVHO is that the style actually masks the lack of a bunch of skills critical to "good" wedding photography around exposure, colour and white balancing - and consistency across 200-300 images and therefore further reduces the visible difference between those who can deliver high quality work week in week out and those who don't have the experience or skill. The focus on details as the main part of the wedding also lifts the pressure on capturing high quality portraits and moments of emotion.

This is a more technology driven change in style than the move to more documentary coverage than traditional portraits/groups only wedding coverage of the 50's-90's.

Just one more thing putting pressure on those people who chose to enter, or stay shooting weddings as a profession.
Click to expand...

Great post this :clap:
 
You should tell the client fine and accept the job with your normal fee and then show up to the wedding consultation with a battered old 35mm Praktica and advise that will be the equipment that you will be using in the day to meet their requirements. You will soon see how quickly they don't want a vintage look anymore. :)

I have the same argument with my partner all the time. She shoots all the photos of our son with an Instagram filter and I constantly tell her that when the fad dies she us going to be left with a whole host of photographs from our sons early years that look stupid and dated.
 
Last edited:
I'll chip in here, even though I'm exactly the type of photographer your talking about.

As soon as I was able to post process, I have always processed on the side of softer, less contrasty and a more "film like" aesthetic. Not that I know what film looks like, I've shot 3 rolls in my life.

Yeah, vintage can be over done. But so can HDR, colour popping, tilt shift or any other gimmick. And a properly exposed, white balance corrected images doesn't nessacery mean its a better image. Sounds quite dull and soul less to me tbh.

As long as your style is consistent and authentic, and you can explain why you do it, then why the hell not.

The problem starts when you drop everything and do a 180 every time the trend in photography changes. You end up all over the place trying to fit in, and you and your clients will just end up confused.
 
Last edited:
"Sounds quite dull and soul less to me tbh" - excuse me while I indulge in primal scream therapy......... a good photograph needs no "gimmickry" to stand on it's own as a good picture - as I've said, I view such frippery as transient gimmicky fashion that has clutter all to do with good photography - this sort of nonsense has been going on for years - look at the past fads and how sad they look nowadays ("softed" everything, vignettes, crude superimpositions, the worst excesses of Mr Cokin's products.... etc)
 
Last edited:
Great photography on it's own is not enough. Great post processing on it's own is not enough.

A great photo requires both. Hardly any, if any photos at all could not be improved by PP but at the same time PP cannot rescue a bad photo. PP is certainly not a gimmick. As with anything though, it has to be done well - vignettes, selective clouring, over the top vintage. It's all tacky.

Subtlety is key.
 
iamchrisphoto said:
I'll chip in here, even though I'm exactly the type of photographer your talking about.

As soon as I was able to post process, I have always processed on the side of softer, less contrasty and a more "film like" aesthetic. Not that I know what film looks like, I've shot 3 rolls in my life.

Yeah, vintage can be over done. But so can HDR, colour popping, tilt shift or any other gimmick. And a properly exposed, white balance corrected images doesn't nessacery mean its a better image. Sounds quite dull and soul less to me tbh.

As long as your style is consistent and authentic, and you can explain why you do it, then why the hell not.

The problem starts when you drop everything and do a 180 every time the trend in photography changes. You end up all over the place trying to fit in, and you and your clients will just end up confused.
Click to expand...

Sorry I agree with Martin and Ben here... largely because people create the faux vintage look by opening Lightroom and clicking on a pre-set and going 'yep that's done'.

To me doing that creates a dull and soul less image... taking a nice image and doing selective adjustments to key areas to make it an even better final product creates a far better result.

I do agree it's important to be consistent in a portfolio... I just don't agree that a good image taken well and processed correctly is dull and soul less. I would say it's the opposite and produces a classic and timeless image.
 
Last edited:
Who really cares and why does it matter? If the people paying are happy then everyone is a winner.
 
Just to be clear, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with making a photo have a particular style, as long as it's done well. As I said though, I think people sometimes confuse any image that has a certain style as being vintage.

A vintage look (whatever that actually is) can still have had a lot of attention and work gone into creating it, just not in the traditional sense of perfect exposure, exact white balance, accurate colour - but who cares about that if the image still looks good? I think it's unfair to suggest it's thoughtless, it's just a different approach. No PP should be the substitute for capturing genuinely great moments, just enhancing them.

For me, I hate editing for the sake of editing, to the point it becomes way over the top and makes the image look worse, just to be different.
 
I just don't see why vintage has been pointed out as fad, photography is literally made of fads, trends and cliches.

I have always followed the idea that photography can either create fantasy or record reality.

If the final intended result is realism, to capture the scene as we saw it in real life, with correct colours and sensible amount of contrast and definition. For art to mimic life, then great, it works.

But I enjoy so much more, the ability to make art, something fantastical and just a bit unreal. Mainly because I can. HDR, vintage, hell even making a B&W out of a colour photo is messing with reality.

We have all the tools, the knowledge and the freedom to create what we want. Why play it safe? As long as it looks good and we have fun doing it?!

It's like building what you want with lego vs building what's on the box. Neither is bad or wrong, but I know which method is more fun, even if the results can sometimes be a bit hit and miss. But that's the chance you take...
 
"Hardly any, if any photos at all could not be improved by PP but at the same time PP cannot rescue a bad photo. PP is certainly not a gimmick" - no it's not a gimmick, it's taken over from the work usually done by a good processor, but like all tools it depends on how it's used - to my mind a bit of colour-correction, perhaps a modicum of "dodging and burning" or the production of a black and white image is about all a good photo needs - what I find totally painful are the images that scream "over-photoshopped", or where yet again some plonker thinks you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by prodding a "filter" button.

There's nothing "wrong" with people using the Picasa type effects, and there's undoubtedly a market for it (there's always a market for "naff"), but I don't think it should be confused with photography - it isn't, it's "software manipulated images"

If you can't detect the use of PP then it's about right.......
 
Last edited:
Organnyx said:
"Hardly any, if any photos at all could not be improved by PP but at the same time PP cannot rescue a bad photo. PP is certainly not a gimmick" - no it's not a gimmick, it's taken over from the work usually done by a good processor, but like all tools it depends on how it's used - to my mind a bit of colour-correction, perhaps a modicum of "dodging and burning" or the production of a black and white image is about all a good photo needs - what I find totally painful are the images that scream "over-photoshopped", or where yet again some plonker thinks you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by prodding a "filter" button.

There's nothing "wrong" with people using the Picasa type effects, and there's undoubtedly a market for it (there's always a market for "naff"), but I don't think it should be confused with photography - it isn't, it's "software manipulated images"

If you can't detect the use of PP then it's about right.......
Click to expand...

Is a 2 stop filter you stick on the front of a camera any different using a 2 stop filter effect in PP?
 
Take it right in the first place - otherwise it's just adjusting the exposure however you do it
 
Last edited:
iamchrisphoto said:
I just don't see why vintage has been pointed out as fad, photography is literally made of fads, trends and cliches.

I have always followed the idea that photography can either create fantasy or record reality.

If the final intended result is realism, to capture the scene as we saw it in real life, with correct colours and sensible amount of contrast and definition. For art to mimic life, then great, it works.

But I enjoy so much more, the ability to make art, something fantastical and just a bit unreal. Mainly because I can. HDR, vintage, hell even making a B&W out of a colour photo is messing with reality.

We have all the tools, the knowledge and the freedom to create what we want. Why play it safe? As long as it looks good and we have fun doing it?!



It's like building what you want with lego vs building what's on the box. Neither is bad or wrong, but I know which method is more fun, even if the results can sometimes be a bit hit and miss. But that's the chance you take...
Click to expand...

But by that logic taking a B&W HDR image of a bride and groom and adding a vintage filter would be ok... because you know it's messing with reality & it's fun right? :bonk:

I've already said that actually I've seen some nice faux vintage wedding pics... that wasn't really my question, and more is this thing here to stay or a passing trend?

There are many ways to post process an image, however a large majority of togs who do the 'faux vintage' look do just click a preset in LR and burn to disk. I even saw one full time established tog round my way take a landscape of a lake and add their usual browny vintage filter they do to wedding pics and it looked like someone had dumped 500 barrels of sewerage in it. Within a few seconds someone had liked it and commented 'wow so beautiful' :bang:
 
I think its a passing trend and it will look dated in the future.

I also think that it's fashionable now and brides want what's in fashion. The hair styles, dresses that are fashionable now etc will also look dated. And then probably come back into fashion in a slightly different way again.

I look at some galleries with very low contrast 'vintage' images and I have to admit - I like them. They appeal to me as images, so I can understand them appealing to brides. And vintage is very, very in - there are vintage fairs, markets, clothes, hair, dancing all over the place - of course it's come into the wedding side of things too.

I think good processing should be like good make up - it's there but you don't really notice it, it just looks 'natural' even though it's not.

The more it looks like Instagram, the more it will be the 'colour popping/heavy vignette/funky angles' of the future...
 
ALL wedding photos date. 'Timeless' is a fantasy. Fashions change, room decorations date, vehicles change design, hair styles are of a period. Even the food at the reception will be of its time.

An appealing photograph remains an appealing photograph, however its processed. But it will look dated in a few years time no matter what you do to it, straight or vintage.
 
"But it will look dated in a few years time no matter what you do to it, straight or vintage" - "of it's time" certainly, but I still reckon that naff is naff - if you look at "old" wedding photos, "style" has changed and moved on, but there are some truly cringe-making "gimmicky" shots that are frankly laughable nowadays, I think we're wise not to fall into the same trap.
Photography must progress, but to be frank, there's an awful lot of "naff" about these days (thanks mostly to the likes of Photoshop), but there's also some pretty awful "fads" about too - (like the much copied "couple's heads at the bottom of the frame - the vast proportion of the shot being a characterless and partially out of focus bit of shrubbery"), which will in the context of history be every bit as risible as a montage of the couple in a custard glass much favoured a while back.......
 
Organnyx said:
"But it will look dated in a few years time no matter what you do to it, straight or vintage" - "of it's time" certainly, but I still reckon that naff is naff - if you look at "old" wedding photos, "style" has changed and moved on, but there are some truly cringe-making "gimmicky" shots that are frankly laughable nowadays, I think we're wise not to fall into the same trap.
Photography must progress, but to be frank, there's an awful lot of "naff" about these days (thanks mostly to the likes of Photoshop), but there's also some pretty awful "fads" about too - (like the much copied "couple's heads at the bottom of the frame - the vast proportion of the shot being a characterless and partially out of focus bit of shrubbery"), which will in the context of history be every bit as risible as a montage of the couple in a custard glass much favoured a while back.......
Click to expand...

To be fair that may well be your opinion, everyone has one.

In regards to the vintage stuff when done well it can be very effective especially with wedding photography.
 
"effective" ? - pandering to a passing fad certainly, and as I've said before there'll always be a market for that sort of thing, but I still maintain that if you avoid "gimmickry" your shots will date far less - looking back on weddings I shot over 20 years ago, they are still as fresh and crisp as when I took them - many of them you could only date from the clothes and hairstyles - I'm happy with that! (the same vintage Rollers are still being used as wedding cars)

"Vintage stuff" just isn't, as many have said, it's not something you can achieve with software manipulation, and is visibly "tampered with" - to do it properly you'd need an entire production company to "get it all right", and then you'd probably shoot it with a Hasselblad using Pan F...........
 
Organnyx said:
"effective" ? - pandering to a passing fad certainly, and as I've said before there'll always be a market for that sort of thing, but I still maintain that if you avoid "gimmickry" your shots will date far less - looking back on weddings I shot over 20 years ago, they are still as fresh and crisp as when I took them - many of them you could only date from the clothes and hairstyles - I'm happy with that! (the same vintage Rollers are still being used as wedding cars)

"Vintage stuff" just isn't, as many have said, it's not something you can achieve with software manipulation, and is visibly "tampered with" - to do it properly you'd need an entire production company to "get it all right", and then you'd probably shoot it with a Hasselblad using Pan F...........
Click to expand...

PP is not a gimmick as you keep suggesting, you just don't like the style of certain types of PP. That's fine. Everyone's idea of what's right is different. What exactly is 'right'? I like what most people would class as underexposed. It's personal taste and if couples strike a chord with your style, that's great.

I've never seen any top class wedding photographer's work, who just shoots and gives unedited files to couples. Because apart from very rare cases, an image will always be improved with PP.
 
Whatever happened to what the customer wants? In the lighting forum here, there's resistance from some to the pure white background look (Venture style) that's been done to death, but the punters still love it.

The Instagram look seems to me to be a great opportunity to sell two albums from the same set of images.
 
HoppyUK said:
Whatever happened to what the customer wants? In the lighting forum here, there's resistance from some to the pure white background look (Venture style) that's been done to death, but the punters still love it.

The Instagram look seems to me to be a great opportunity to sell two albums from the same set of images.
Click to expand...

Really? So you would spend x amount of hours editing the pics one way (maybe 400+ of them), and then again go back through and re-edit them in a 'faux vintage style' and try and sell both to a bride and groom :cautious:

I don't see how that would work... a photographer should have a style and be consistent with it... presenting the same pics edited several different ways is a very odd way of working IMO. Also what happens if they want 50% normal editing, and 50% faux vintage? They end up with an album of a real mismatch style and everyone they show it to thinks it looks odd and doesn't then book you for their own wedding.

By all means embrace the faux vintage look, but then stick to it and not try and sell B&G's numerous albums all with different processing styles :bonk:
 
As I've said several times, PP is often grossly over-used, often as a substitute for "doing it right" in the first place - if you can't see it's been used, then it's about right -as for "I've never seen any top class wedding photographer's work, who just shoots and gives unedited files to couples. Because apart from very rare cases, an image will always be improved with PP" - Of course you "optimise" the photos you've taken, but what I'm quibbling about is when the PP takes over from the photography - the distinction was far more obvious in the days of film - you took the pictures right, then had a favourite processor who did the "optimisation" for you, usually limited to getting the colour balance and exposure right, perhaps with your preference for a "bias" (slightly warm, slightly dense please) - you just didn't "faff about" with the shots - nowadays it's very easy to do so, and sadly it is to my mind grossly over-used.
Of course it's subjective, of course it's down to "taste", I err on the side of classic and timeless photography, not software faffing, which I reckon will date like mad.
 
HoppyUK said:
Whatever happened to what the customer wants? In the lighting forum here, there's resistance from some to the pure white background look (Venture style) that's been done to death, but the punters still love it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, we are not to judge other peoples tastes. Those who do are assuming their taste is in someway superior which is dodgy ground to be on.
 
"Exactly, we are not to judge other peoples tastes" - of course we do, we do it all the time - as a photographer we need to have our own "style", it is an expression of our "taste" and preferences - to just follow any passing trend "because it's popular" really is denying what it is to be a good photographer.
A gourmet restaurant gets a reputation and justifies it's premium price by showing their taste and being very selective, when asked for "brahn sorce" the waiter will politely say "I'm afraid we don't have any sir, most people don't find it necessary" - if people want to cater for the sausage and chips market, that's fine too.
I'll certainly confess to being a "snob" about technically appalling shots that have been PP'd to death in an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - to my mind, if it's a good shot, the lily does not need gilding, it should stand on it's own.......
 
ajax_andy said:
Really? So you would spend x amount of hours editing the pics one way (maybe 400+ of them), and then again go back through and re-edit them in a 'faux vintage style' and try and sell both to a bride and groom :cautious:

I don't see how that would work... a photographer should have a style and be consistent with it... presenting the same pics edited several different ways is a very odd way of working IMO. Also what happens if they want 50% normal editing, and 50% faux vintage? They end up with an album of a real mismatch style and everyone they show it to thinks it looks odd and doesn't then book you for their own wedding.

By all means embrace the faux vintage look, but then stick to it and not try and sell B&G's numerous albums all with different processing styles :bonk:
Click to expand...

You don't see how that would work?! If there's business to be done, you'll find a way - doesn't sound very hard either. Not many photographers can afford to dictate to the customer.
 
HoppyUK said:
You don't see how that would work?! If there's business to be done, you'll find a way - doesn't sound very hard either. Not many photographers can afford to dictate to the customer.
Click to expand...

I think you're very misguided on this subject and also how to create a brand a fan base as a business.

Feel free to disagree, makes no difference to me as I can't take you seriously when IMO you are clueless.

I don't mean that in an offensive way and I apologise if it comes across that way, i just don't believe you understand what is involved in brand and image recognition for companies to be successful
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top