# Is their a name for this "style" of photography?



## vulie504 (Apr 29, 2015)

Hello everyone, lately i've been curious if this certain "style" of photography has a name to it. To describe it, the pictures are generally have a "dreamy" and "soft" look to them ,sometime low contrast, and the highlights are purposely blown out with the photographer deciding not to use /add external light. To best describe this "style" of photography is to provide an example, which i would like to use a photographers website http://jana-williams.com/engagements (i'm in no way trying to advertise for her, it's just that she often shoots in this "style"). It might be simple in that the style might be just called "natural light photography" perhaps?

How do ya'll feel about blowing out the highlights? Is it a photography no no? Overall, it seems as if this "style" is best suited for more natural portraits.

Thanks


----------



## underbjerg (Apr 29, 2015)

The style reminds me of something I've seen in "Fine Art Wedding Photography", by Jose Villa. I've seen many wedding photographers doing something similar. 

Personally, I like it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 29, 2015)

Backlit, wide-apertue lens, perhaps 50mm 1.2, easy on the contrast and clarity, perhaps a touch of glow.

Name? Dreamy, hazy, romantic.

Looks nice in proper measures, but certainly not for all subjects or occasions.

Good examples at your link.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 29, 2015)

Is there a name for this style?

I try not to use language like that in mixed company. ;D

I looked at her gallery. I don't really care for that type of photo. I find the higher key to be distracting and not attractive. She also has an issue with horizontals. But if her customer's like it, that's really all that matters.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Apr 30, 2015)

I'd call it "pastel" for lack of anything better. It isn't my bag but to each their own.

Jim


----------



## sanj (Apr 30, 2015)

Yes, 'pastel' comes to mind. This look is quite 'in' today both in stills and TV commercials. I liked her work.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 5, 2015)

I'd be interested in a "description" for this type of photography too.
I think a lot of it is in the post processing.
A lot of these superstar wedding photographers farm out their processing to a photoshop factory to get a repetitive look. 
I presume it's run through a set of actions. 
I wouldn't mind learning how to do it. Even if I'm not mad about it.


----------



## triggermike (May 5, 2015)

Backlit portraits with exposure set for foreground subjects - nothing tricky about it. And as sanj noted, it is a very popular 'look' these days.
I have used reflectors, especially when the suns a little lower to help balance the scene slightly - still get the semi-blown out background but a little less blown out on the subjects where the background light wraps around them.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 5, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> I'd be interested in a "description" for this type of photography too.
> I think a lot of it is in the post processing.
> A lot of these superstar wedding photographers farm out their processing to a photoshop factory to get a repetitive look.
> I presume it's run through a set of actions.
> I wouldn't mind learning how to do it. Even if I'm not mad about it.



Please tell us which "superstar wedding photographers" (even a few) use a "photoshop factory," and please name the factory.

And exactly what is a "superstar wedding photographer"? I'd think if it were someone making lots and lots of money...they'd hire a photo-editor to have a closer working relationship. I mean, after all, a star is a star.


----------



## tbadowski (May 5, 2015)

I'd almost call it "LDR" for Low Dynamic Range... because it's almost the opposite- letting the highlights saturate, and almost nothing in the darks...


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2015)

vulie504 said:


> How do ya'll feel about blowing out the highlights? Is it a photography no no?



These highlights aren't blown in camera, but in post-processing which gives it the "glow" look even though the images are low contrast.

Big difference, you can tell because the borders to the whites aren't clipped while frantically trying to recover lost highlights, but smooth ... plus they're treated with negative clarity and/or some PS blur filter. This looks "natural" and the pictures to look calm and defined at the same time (i.e. not too flat as in just lowering the contrast).

While I'm not a bit fan of this standard wedding look, I have to admit the linked shots probably are as good as it gets with this style. They certainly will be appreciated by the respective clients as they look different than the snaps Uncle Joe took at the wedding, and that's the difference people pay $$$ for.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 6, 2015)

*Pictorialism.* Popular around the end of the 19th and first of the 20th century.

The New Pictorialism http://thenewpictorialism.blogspot.com Old lenses plus PhotoShop.

Pictorialism steps in photoshop (B&W) http://www.screenr.com/RlOs

A couple of lenses:
EF 135mm f/2.8 lens with Softfocus http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_135mm_f_2_8_with_softfocus

Lomography Petzval 85mm f/2.2 Lens for Canon EF Mount (Brass) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1132028&gclid=CICnkavfq8UCFY6RfgodQZYA9A&Q=&is=REG&A=details

This should get you started


----------



## PhotographyFirst (May 6, 2015)

Looks like she is using high-key exposures with some local adjustments. She really needs to work on her brushing skills with those local adjustments. That image with the couple sitting on the back of the car has some ultra-sloppy post processing work done to it. I would be ashamed to show something like that. She does have good skills otherwise though.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 6, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Please tell us which "superstar wedding photographers" (even a few) use a "photoshop factory," and please name the factory.


I assume we're talking about film shooters who develop a personal colour profile with their printer to obtain consistent looking results. In the US, Richard Photo Lab is one of the places known for this and if you look through their blog, you can see some of the people who do this.

The style is usually achieved by shooting Portra 400 or 800 or Fuji 400H and overexposing by two or more stops. Normally this is done with a medium format camera. When used with colour negative film, it is very forgiving with the highlights. But to use the work "factory" implies this is easy. It's not. I think that any wedding photographer who is choosing to shoot with film is taking on a lot more stress and problems and relying more upon their own skill than someone choosing to shoot digitally.

Because of the slightly harsher highlights in the above link, I suspect that the shots were taken digitally in an attempt to replicate the look.

Personally, I like the style. Until the last couple of years, it never occured to me to rate ISO 400 at ISO 100, but I'm doing it fairly regularly now. Sometimes I mix it with the "Brenizer Method" to get some nice effects. You can learn a lot from wedding photographers.


----------



## jarrodeu (May 6, 2015)

To clear things up. This photographer most likely, as well as Jose Villa and many other top wedding photographers shoot on Fuji 400H film which has a far greater ability to hold highlights than digital cameras and they tend to over-expose the film by a stop or two to give it a pastel look. The #1 camera is the Contax 645 with the 80mm f/2 lens to give it that dreamy look. 

Jarrod


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2015)

jarrodeu said:


> To clear things up. This photographer most likely, as well as Jose Villa and many other top wedding photographers shoot on Fuji 400H film which has a far greater ability to hold highlights than digital cameras and they tend to over-expose the film by a stop or two to give it a pastel look. The #1 camera is the Contax 645 with the 80mm f/2 lens to give it that dreamy look.
> 
> Jarrod



The photographer shoots with a Canon 5D MkIII and her most used lens is a 50mm f1.2L.


----------



## jarrodeu (May 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> jarrodeu said:
> 
> 
> > To clear things up. This photographer most likely, as well as Jose Villa and many other top wedding photographers shoot on Fuji 400H film which has a far greater ability to hold highlights than digital cameras and they tend to over-expose the film by a stop or two to give it a pastel look. The #1 camera is the Contax 645 with the 80mm f/2 lens to give it that dreamy look.
> ...


As you can see she also shoots film. http://blog.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/1/shooting-film-in-a-digital-world-an-interview-with-lifestyle-photographer-jana-williams
Jarrod


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2015)

jarrodeu said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jarrodeu said:
> ...



I think you'll find that was an artistic diversion nearly two years ago, iPhones are much more prominent in her repertoire now! Besides she has always shot a lot of very narrow dof and uses the 50 f1.2 and 85 f1.2 for a lot of her work, indeed she has said many times she doesn't like shooting smaller than f2. Even with the crop factor equivalently fast medium format lenses are few and far between, comparative weak performers and I don't know of any AF versions, but I could easily have overlooked something. 

Certainly her 'look' has never been based on film, she started 100% with digital and her look has been very consistent from her earliest days. She has made any film images look the same as her much more prolific digital work and has, and continues, to output many more digital images than film images. 

In the context of this discussion, the photographers 'look', film is irrelevant.


----------



## zlatko (May 6, 2015)

c.d.embrey said:


> *Pictorialism.* Popular around the end of the 19th and first of the 20th century.
> 
> The New Pictorialism http://thenewpictorialism.blogspot.com Old lenses plus PhotoShop.
> 
> ...



It's not called the new pictorialism.
It isn't old lenses plus Photoshop.
It certainly isn't the 135 f/2.8 lens with soft focus.
It absolutely isn't the Lomography Petzval lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2015)

I agree, it is a 5D MkII or MkIII (she used to use a MkII and now uses a MkIII), predominantly with a 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2, and 70-200 f2.8 used at 200 and f2.8 with a touch of Photoshop, mostly gentle adjustments in 'Selective Color' to various channels.

Also lots and lots of natural light, outdoors shooting.


----------



## Michael Nelson (May 6, 2015)

A lab in the UK has an extensive comparison of Fuji 400 & Kodak Portra 400 & 160 & 800 films over and underexposed:

http://ukfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

I think you'll find the 'style' you like!


----------



## benperrin (May 6, 2015)

zlatko said:


> It's not called the new pictorialism.
> It isn't old lenses plus Photoshop.
> It certainly isn't the 135 f/2.8 lens with soft focus.
> It absolutely isn't the Lomography Petzval lens.



+1


----------



## Hector1970 (May 8, 2015)

Interesting the number of people who think its film and those who think its a 5D Mark II or III.
Film and digital must be hard to tell apart which is probably a credit to both media.

I'm probably completely wrong but it looks digital to me with a fair bit of processing and some sort of pink hue added to it all.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 8, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> Interesting the number of people who think its film and those who think its a 5D Mark II or III.
> Film and digital must be hard to tell apart which is probably a credit to both media.
> 
> I'm probably completely wrong but it looks digital to me with a fair bit of processing and some sort of pink hue added to it all.



I don't think it is a 5D MkII and MkIII, I know it is, if you watch some of her videos you can see her shooting with them, the MkII in early videos the MkIII in the newer ones.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 8, 2015)

Looks similar to jasmine stars work. Lots of natural light, reversed s-curve in LR, desaturated slightly and shot wide open. Very popular style to shoot at the moment.


----------



## NancyP (May 8, 2015)

Not my favorite cliche, when taken to extremes. Yes, sometimes it is nice to take photos with an old-style lens with aberrations. For example: https://luminous-landscape.com/nikons-jewel/ AIS Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 manual everything lens. Fuzzy wide open, sharp as the proverbial tack at f/2.8 and narrower.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (May 8, 2015)

Not sure about everyone else's neck of the woods. I happen to live in California not too far out of LA and pretty much 75% of the wedding photographers and portrait shooters all have this look now (and for the past few years). Pretty simple actually. As a few others have already stated what is needed to be done in-cam, post probably just consists of laying a VSCO preset + messing with the curves a little more on top. Nothing mind-numbing and definitely dime a dozen around these parts.

As a side note, the skin tones look terrible on some of those shots which usually happens when laying these "film presets" over natural backlit photos where the subjects are in the shadows.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 9, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> Interesting the number of people who think its film and those who think its a 5D Mark II or III.
> Film and digital must be hard to tell apart which is probably a credit to both media.
> 
> I'm probably completely wrong but it looks digital to me with a fair bit of processing and some sort of pink hue added to it all.


It is hard to tell them apart. However, it's almost impossible to blow highlights with negative film.

Those needing further confirmation that this is a new style need look no further than here: -

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/my-wedding-photo-nightmare-brides-bitter-dispute-with-wedding-photographer/story-fnet09y4-1227346123553

When I read the bride was bitterly disappointed with her photos “due to blur and overexposure" I immediately thought of this thread.


----------



## TeT (May 9, 2015)

Jana Williams looks to put out a good product. She (and other capable pros) makes the style look good....


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 30, 2015)

"Is there a name for this "style" of photography?"

Yep.

"Gimmicky".

"Clichéd".

"Banal".

"This Year's Favourite But Utterly Unoriginal And Ubiquitous VSCO Filter".

For starters...


----------

