Gah, its so tacky now, but the bride has requested it...

Originally Posted by NigelPaul
If you've got £49 you could buy this. Will save you a bit of time especially if you get asked often. Warning, contains tackyness:
http://www.bellwood.co.uk/ptb1.shtml
Click to expand...
I particulary like the sunflowers where you can add a face. Toolbox #2








:LOL:
 
5 mins to accurately select the colour in a few hundred pieces of confetti? A bit optimistic I reckon.
 
Betty said:
Thanks for the help :p

Seriously, I dont mind taking a bit of time over an image the customer really wants, so none of this charge extra rubbish, would just like a straight forward answer from someone please :)
Click to expand...

Thats all very well not charging for something 'unusual' for your customers, but what happens when their friends/family see the photo and want theirs done the same way? You won't be able to charge them for it, as you didn't for the first one. You'll find yourself doing hours of extra Photoshop work on lots of photos and then wished you'd charged for the first one.

As mentioned, I'd duplicate the layer and remove everything bit the confetti on the duplicate layer. Also, save as PSD file before you flatten the layers, that way you can come back to it if they're not happy with the first attempt. Good luck.
 
Bleeding christ, didnt expect this :D

How about I throw a spanner in the works? I havent taken the flippin' image yet! Its just something she has seen and really likes, if I cant do it well, Ill tell her it looked a bugger, and looks better in full colour :p

And thanks for the offer Kev, Ive actually got a tablet I never use. For shame :D
 
Betty said:
Bleeding christ, didnt expect this :D
Click to expand...

It's a wedding thread so one way or another you'll get something you didn't expect.

As for some of the comments, I'm amazed, but guess most of them are from non-pro's.

If the bride wants it she's entitled to ask for it, its then up to you whether to do it or not.

Not everyone in this world is on TP and therefore thinks colour popping is old hat and tacky, lots of people still think its cool whether we do or not

If you run a business you try and give what the client wants if you can, all this "who's the artist you or her?" *******s gets up my nose.
 
And I dont mind spending a little more time on one image if it will make the bride happy, some miserable buggers around here :LOL:
 
You just want to do that sunflower thing Dee, go on, admit it ;) lol
 
keirik said:
It's a wedding thread so one way or another you'll get something you didn't expect.

As for some of the comments, I'm amazed, but guess most of them are from non-pro's.

If the bride wants it she's entitled to ask for it, its then up to you whether to do it or not.

Not everyone in this world is on TP and therefore thinks colour popping is old hat and tacky, lots of people still think its cool whether we do or not

If you run a business you try and give what the client wants if you can, all this "who's the artist you or her?" *******s gets up my nose.
Click to expand...

Easy tiger...

The artist comment came from a full time pro.

Most comments have either been that it will take time so charge accordingly, or don't use plugins cos they look like poo.

There have been several replies advising the best way to do it, and pointing out that it's not a quick job as each piece of confetti will need to be perfectly masked, and this would be done manually.

There have also been suggestions as to using actions / plugins to fake the confetti, but that's going to give an image which is poor, and wouldn't be fitting with the standard of Dee's work. It would also leave the real confetti in there as B&W.

Dependant on the size the image, quantity of confetti, complexity of the background and how big it will eventually be printed this will take from 1 hour upwards to do to the standard that is fitting to the quality of Dee's work. 10x8 is going to need less time than 20x30.

So, by all means agree to deliver this to the client, but charge accordingly, and don't just give your time away for free.

If you're charging several thousand per wedding, then you can absorb the cost of time for the work fairly easily, but if your charging towards the lower end of the scale, your margins are much tighter, so time spent on work like this is going to eat into your profit more.

All the time spent editing that image for free could be better spent shooting for a fee.
 
Personnaly I'd be inclined to provide what your client has requested your employed to do a job and you should do it to your very best ability and then put a bit more work in... Your time wagered against a cost can sometimes be a mute point... If your client isn't happy with the results or doesn't get what they want how likely are they to tell there friends what A wonderful photographer and person you are? and how magical their pictures are... The moral of the story... How very aesop! your time editing a picture vs the value of picking up 3 extra weddings because people say when they look at their album.. "ohhh there wonderful have you got his number?"
In a market saturated by "pro's" ( those earning 50% or more of their income from photography)... Can you afford to be the one that doesn't deliver what the customer wants?... On that note I think of being a proffesional as being just that in every sense. Meeting your clients needs and expectations are the first aspect of professionalism and your reputation as a tog will only grow by adhering to it.
Cheers Andy
 
Actually has the wedding occurred yet? It may be worthwhile advising the couple which confetti (after doing some research) to use in order to help you perform the conversion. For example, large matte colour confetti would be easier to process than smaller metallic type confetti (metalic items tend to glint white in the sun) and once decided ensure they hand it out to the guests for the money shot.
 
Why dont you just google a selective colour tutorial :bonk:
There a tonnes of them out there some simple some more complex but all easy to follow and understand.
 
Because confetti tends to be pink and white? There's possible a lot of those colours in a wedding shot.
 
goldkoi34 said:
Why dont you just google a selective colour tutorial :bonk:
There a tonnes of them out there some simple some more complex but all easy to follow and understand.
Click to expand...

Selective colouring is easy, selective colouring several hundred tiny bits of paper without making it look like a dogs dinner is not so easy.
 
Betty said:
Seriously, I dont mind taking a bit of time over an image the customer really wants, so none of this charge extra rubbish, would just like a straight forward answer from someone please :)
Click to expand...

Here's one. Don't do it.

It's not in your portfolio I assume? There's a good reason. It does, and always will, look bad.

Stick to your guns.
 
Here's an easy way. Take a picture of some confetti and highlight a few pieces then copy and paste them into a photo that you would want the confetti to be in. Keep pasting and moving them around untill you have the desired effect. You can change the hue/color of them and copy and paste a few of those as well so you don't have all the same color...
 
Dee if you've not taken the image yet then I'd ask the bride to buy some suitable confetti that will make your selection as easy as possible. I don't know if it's possible to get confetti that's in larger pieces and nice and colourful but if you can then you should insist she uses it.
 
MagicMynx said:
I'd imagine it'd be a layers job, as suggested. That's how I'd do it anyway, colour layer, mono layer, erase the confetti on the mono layer.

I can't imagine that it'd look great but it's what the customer wants and that's what's important. The bride is queen, end of :LOL:

Would love to see it when it's done.
Click to expand...

Spot on IMHO, all this "it looks naff, I AM AN ARTIST YOU KNOW" posting is ridiculous.


Then try HDR'ing it! (y)
 
timbo46 said:
Spot on IMHO, all this "it looks naff, I AM AN ARTIST YOU KNOW" posting is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No it's not. It's naff, has always been naff and if it's my work it simply is not happening. Just because one bride likes it I'm not risking the other several dozen who will run a mile just because I did it for one.

You don't go into John Lewis and berate them for not serving the same food as Lidl.
 
So you would tell the bride that you have better taste than her?

Sadly we don't have Waitrose over here!
 
Last edited:
timbo46 said:
So you would tell the bride that you have better taste than her?
Click to expand...

If you wanted to be confrontational and lose business then yes?

Otherwise no but you could guide your client into your way of thinking gently to help them get over the fact that coloured confetti may not work.
 
timbo46 said:
So you would tell the bride that you have better taste than her?

Sadly we don't have Waitrose over here!
Click to expand...

No. I'd tell her I don't do it. Just like I don't do sepia. If that's what she wants I'm not for her and vice versa.

I've done it a few times and they've all still booked.
 
I'd just apologise most profusely and say it's not something I offer.

If that bride chooses to go elsewhere over it then that's actually OK. Not every client and photographer are meant for each other and I'd much rather work with someone on a similar wavelength to me.
 
Fair enough, frankly I'd do it if she wanted it. The last wedding I shot was in the 90's on a Hasselblad, so we didn't have much opportunity for post production, But there was a fashion for double exposures in camera, and that was naff :D
 
:thinking:

I'm no pro and have a only a basic understanding of Photoshop but firstly, wouldn't it be easier to be a bit more selective with the setting of the shot when taking it so the background isn't too busy.

Then instead of overlaying a B&W over the colour layer and erasing each bit of confetti, try the opposite. Pull out all the colours that aren't the same as the coloured confetti (this would do most of the hard work for you), then erase whatever remains on that colour layer with the brush.

This way there will more likely be larger, less tricky areas to erase instead of lots of small intricate bits of confetti ????????

As i said i'm no pro but this is how I would have approached it.
 
AliB said:
I'd just apologise most profusely and say it's not something I offer.

If that bride chooses to go elsewhere over it then that's actually OK. Not every client and photographer are meant for each other and I'd much rather work with someone on a similar wavelength to me.
Click to expand...

I agree completely, i think what people are missing is that when you turn pro you have a reputation to uphold and you dont put work out that is of a certain type with your name on it. If you are doing it just cos they are paying you more for it then dont stick your name on it.

Selective colour is something i will not do full stop.
Its not a question of preference, some things are just crap and some things arent.
Lets not pretend art is subjective cos it isnt.
Mozart will always be better than S club 7. Selective colour will always be rubbish.
 
Bloody hell there are some opinions on this one!

The op has been asked to provide something, which a client likes, and just asked what was the best way to do it. I'm unsure where this whole " tacky" and "artist" stuff has come from. He is a business man and has been asked to supply a service.

I would suggest to the bride that it can be done, with varied results and you would give it a go for her. Get them to get large petals for this shot, colours to match the theme and as vibrant as possible. This will give you the best chance, yes it's a headache, but from that wedding you never know what may come from that bit of extra effort.

All seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion to me. :)
 
And as such can decline offering that particular service.

It always looks bad, so I don't do it. Simples.
 
if the bride wants it, let her have it. however - if the shoot isnt done yet, email the bride an image where this has been done... explaining that you "can do it" but its not normally something you offer. Also, if you havent done the shoot yet, a closer crop shot will be easier for you (less confetti, easier cut outs, easier to get a good result)

Also, if you haven't done the shoot yet, go for a compromise - insist on red rose petals for the confetti - you can then desaturate (almost) everything that is not that shade of red - Its sort of the New York style, and looks a load less tacky
 
on a different note - have you noted that confetti seems to be thrown really randomly nowadays, wherever, whenever the guests feel like it. We have had to start coordinating it to get the shot
 
I wonder how the bride would feel reading this?!
 
Why?

I've been asked to do it twice in 4 years. I declined on both occasions. I showed them why with examples and both booked. Not doing this has never cost me a wedding.

I'm booked for the work I do, and people see that work on my website. Why would I then start doing something completely different? People won't see spot-colouring on my website, or sepia. So they know it's not what I do before they even talk to me.
 
The way to do it has been mentioned numerous times with its two variations of mask and eraser. I use both dependent on what I am doing but to those mask users saying that it is non destructive and you can undo an error you can with the eraser too! If you make a mistake CTRL/CMD Z or if it was a while ago you just use the history brush the same way that mask users would use the white brush! so mask + white&black = eraser&history brush. The real advantage of the mask is with transparent parts although this too can be done with the eraser. People learn a way and to them that it best but there are often multiple ways of doing everything in PS and the way you normally do it is often the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top