editing photos and difference in 'ideas'

pearljamfan · 05-09-2012 04:06PM #1

bit of a confusing title,

ive taken some photos as a bit of a favour, edited them, and my 'client' is asking me to re-edit and make them sharper, less vintagey looking, which i dont mind at all but im a bit stuck - i dont think theyre very vintagey ( one or two had a preset on them ) and theres not much i can do to them apart from changing white balance.
photos taken with a 50mm 1.4 so DOP is narrow.
does anything stand out that i can do?
or just try and send something back different? WB , sharpen etc.

http://youtu.be/r4SSw-INyGk

(first time making a slideshow in lighroom, go easy on me!)

artyeva · 06-09-2012 01:12AM

hmm... apart from the few that as you say you've used a preset on, i'm not seeing 'vintagey' photos. without being in any way smart about it, they're shots of vintage books, vintage crockery, vintage style labels with vintage style fonts, wild flowers in vintage vases, and there's a vintage typewriter and vintage suitcases in there too... see where i'm going with this?

and by 'sharper' do they mean they don't like that depth of field? cause i have to say, when yer talking details like this of a wedding, what you've done absolutely works for me. SOME of the processing on SOME of them look like they're edging a bit towards the twee side... but they've taken a lot of trouble with those details and they're well excecuted - how you've shot them works. apart from WB here and there and get rid of the presets i'm not sure what else you can do.

pearljamfan · 06-09-2012 09:06AM

thanks for the reply! kinda thought i was going mad there for a bit cos im quite happy with most of the pics- if i had to choose ten perfect ones i could.
yeh, i guess ill just do that then carry on, get rid of presets, WB etc if its the DOP then they should have said something to me at the start because all their photos on their website are like that! :eek:

cnocbui · 06-09-2012 11:52AM

The photos look like they could do with upping the color temp a bit as they seem to have a beige cast to them.

AnCatDubh · 06-09-2012 12:40PM

artyeva wrote: »

hmm... apart from the few that as you say you've used a preset on, i'm not seeing 'vintagey' photos. without being in any way smart about it, they're shots of vintage books, vintage crockery, vintage style labels with vintage style fonts, wild flowers in vintage vases, and there's a vintage typewriter and vintage suitcases in there too... see where i'm going with this?

and by 'sharper' do they mean they don't like that depth of field? cause i have to say, when yer talking details like this of a wedding, what you've done absolutely works for me. SOME of the processing on SOME of them look like they're edging a bit towards the twee side... but they've taken a lot of trouble with those details and they're well excecuted - how you've shot them works. apart from WB here and there and get rid of the presets i'm not sure what else you can do.

+1 I agree here. Ran through it last night and wondered if I had missed something so though I wait before posting. Perhaps they weren't clear enough to you in the brief of what was required?

pearljamfan · 07-09-2012 10:12AM

thanks ancatdubh, i didnt really have a brief, i had 2 hours to just go in take loads of closeups of the flowers, books etc, i just went with the style of the photos on their website and the last job i did with them, so that could be the problem, i loved the setup they did and really the pictures i took were almost SOOC, the 50mm is the only lens i have apart from the kit 18-55 which is nasty so i make it work on everything i do, i like them anyway

ill carry on making them look bright and crisp and hope for the best.

thanks guys for soothing my nerves, lol.

editing photos and difference in 'ideas'

Comments