Blown Highlights = Cool WTF??

[scootermcq]

So, I have been cruising the sites of the $10,000 wedding photographers looking for inspiration and ideas. A trend I have observed is blown out white sky, overexposed, and generally annoying images. Most of their stuff I would have deleted while cursing myself for screwing up another image. On their sites, it is predominately displayed as their best images.

Am I missing something? Is technically bad photography (albeit with a very creative eye) now in? Is the public embracing this look because it is being sold to them, or is it cool?

I work very hard on controlling my highlights and keeping detail in the images by use of light, filter and environment, but am I wasting my time? Should I just be letting 'er rip and selling this as art?

What is everyone else's feelings about what I have been seeing?

[nickbedford]

Well I don't think blowing out highlights is a bad thing at all. I don't know if their photos are overexposed or just that they're exposing for the subject's face. Have you got some examples?

I love the portraits where a bright background is blown out showing a person smiling or carrying on when the light is predominantly behind them (i.e. exposing what normally would be a silhouette).

[scootermcq]

Ohhh. I am not going to start some hard feelings by pointing faults at the "masters" of the industry. That is not a way to make friends & influence people.

I am not talking about silhouetting people, that is where I would expose for a proper background and introduce my own light from the front in an attempt to get a properly exposed image, and not blow out the background.

[zona5101]

I know what you're talking about, i see a lot of lens flare shots too. it will be tomorrow's selective coloring / lomo.... but for now - sell, sell, sell!!!!

[nickbedford]

There's multiple ways to expose a portrait such as this. Moderately blowing out a background light source (such as afternoon sun or bright outside light from a doorway) to expose the persons face is one way of taking a photo. It makes the photo glow.

But then there is always the fill-flash method too. I'm not ruling out either way, but it sounds like you want to make everything fit in when not everything in an environment needs to.

That's actually something I've come to realise myself. Why try exposing for the sky when it's the person that is what is most important.

The bokeh takes care of the background.

Again, do you have some examples of what you're talking about?

[RichardTaylor]

If it meets their customers "needs" so be it.
Personally I don't normally go for that "style".
(I am not a wedding shooter)

[scootermcq]

Originally Posted by nickbedford

There's multiple ways to expose a portrait such as this. Moderately blowing out a background light source (such as afternoon sun or bright outside light from a doorway) to expose the persons face is one way of taking a photo. It makes the photo glow.

But then there is always the fill-flash method too. I'm not ruling out either way, but it sounds like you want to make everything fit in when not everything in an environment needs to.

That's actually something I've come to realise myself. Why try exposing for the sky when it's the person that is what is most important.

The bokeh takes care of the background.

Again, do you have some examples of what you're talking about?

Nick, like I said before, I am not going to post and bash another professionals work, who has not asked for feedback. I guess I will just go with the fact that you are voting for exposing the subject and let the environment do it's own thing. I personally hate that and hate when I have no choice but to shoot that way. Others seem to embrace it and even like it, such as yourself.

[Jim Bryant]

Blown out, high key photos are a trend I see as well with many wedding photographers. For me, IO would have deleted them as well for improper exposures. Maybe that's why I'm not a $10,000 wedding photographer, then again I don't want to be grouped with those type of visual artists who seem to mimic one another. I can see using back lite images for portraits, but not to an extent where the sky is all blown out.

[nickbedford]

Well this is only my personal opinion but I find static everything in one photos to look rather bland, but blowing out the highlights is something that should be done in moderation.

I guess it's up the photographer and their client and whether the photo works. If the photos looks bloody fantastic shot that way there shouldn't be too much debate, to be honest.

I have one example, though it's not the original colour version: Portrait | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Is this what you're talking about, because there was no way you would have seen their faces if I "exposed for the highlights".

Also, this is pretty subjective anyway. If they can pull it off then they can do what they want really.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by nickbedford

Well this is only my personal opinion but I find static everything in one photos to look rather bland, and maybe blowing out the highlights is something that should be done in moderation.

I guess it's up the photographer and their client.

I have one example, though it's not the original colour version: Portrait | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Is this what you're talking about, because there was no way you would have seen their faces if I "exposed for the highlights".

Mainly up to the client as they are footing the bill and the first order of business is to please your client. Tough exposure there, nickbedford.