On 07/07/2011 20:13, Ron Kelly wrote:

In my own defence, however, I do feel that blasting away with ambient light only, not much thought of formally posing
or detailed examination of the composition (these included the "formal" portraits at the wedding after all) is
perilously close to letting the camera take the picture, something any monkey could do.

Ron I do agree completely with you there, and sadly for too many couples
I fear the Black Macaque might do a better job...

There's no doubt that ambient light photography can be beautiful, and does definitely seem more spontaneous and
hence, "natural." It's also a lot easier for the photographer, coincidentally.

you miss my point about quality of light, it is usually more difficult
to find available light that will provide good lighting (without heavy
shadows under hats and in eye sockets). It is the difference between
good photography and bad photography, just as after I have the RAW files
in Lightoom/Photoshop I start from what I learnt in the darkroom and
follow similar principals, though with vastly greater speed, accuracy
and ease.

My guess is that this is a trend based on new technology, and eventually the pendulum will swing back. The aesthetic
of noise in skin tone will not last.

IF it isn't a pendulum it is a circle, but always nudged on by
technology, (too) heavy retouching is back in fashion, higher capture
resolutions mean in portraits you can often see every pore and hair on a
face IF it has been well lit and correctly exposed - at that wedding did
you hear the photographer's camera shooting like a machine gun? I have
heard that some modern wedding photographers bracket everything at 6 or
8 frames a second - I seem to remember reading that Ansel Adams may only
take 6 or 8 plates on a hike lasting several days when photographing
Yosemite.

Ansel Adams and Yousef Karsh may have burned and dodged every one of their prints, and I don't doubt that they
did, but I would wager that they would agree that effort in creating the "perfect" original is far better than all the post production you can bring to bear.

Again I agree and I strive for that perfect original, but I will use use
all the skills I have learn't from Dan's books and many contributors to
this list and will compromise knowing as I press the shutter what I
expect to do in Photoshop to achieve the result I can 'see' as I compose
a shot.

best regards
Paul

Paul Lawrence T:01903 216621 M:07711 185478