Am I doing the right thing?

[DonnaV Profile Private message]

My son was married in June at an outdoor wedding (Butterfly Conservatory-Niagara Falls)
When the discussion of a photograper was brought up I offered to pay for the Photographer.
Knowing that this is the most important part of a wedding.
An aunt of the Brides offered to do the photographs for free as a wedding present.
They accepted her proposal and cancelled the photographer I hired.
This so called professional photographer showed up with a $20 35mm camera.
The pictures are disgusting. Washed out, blue tint, blurry, pixalated. I'm so ticked.
A perfect advertisment for photographers to use, as to why you should hire a professional.
I am doing the best with them as I can with Photoshop CS3, some I can only enhance slightly for the PSP video.

That is the story, here is my question:

Am I right in making a background and matching border frames, slightly busy, to distract from flaws in the pics.
To somewhat take your eye away from the pictures. It was an old trick I used years ago, wondering if this might still be the norm. I am just getting back into this.

Any suggestions to this dilemna, any help will of course help.

[seektheburd Profile Private message]

Hi DonnaV,
Sorry to hear about your son's wedding pictures. I've had my share of cleaning up these types of photos too so I can relate.
I'd say the old trick is still the norm. In addition to camouflage, graphics will aid in telling the wedding story and tie chapters. If done right, these elements will keep the attention off the flaws and on the presentation. So, in a nut shell, you're right!
It is a shame the kids didn't go with your offer hiring a professional photographer instead of Auntie. I can imagine it was a hard position for them to be put in and not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings.

Hugs, Stephanie

[DickK Profile Private messageWebsite]

Well, IMHO in the long run nothing is going to work that well. Yes, I'd use some "stuff" to dress things up a bit but I'd be a little concerned that if the other stuff gets to fancy it will just set up an unfavorable contrast with the pictures. Do what you can with the individual shots then I'd:

-- group a few on a single slide. They'll individually be smaller and some flaws won't show.
-- use lots of them but keep them on the screen for shorter periods, again give less time to study each image
-- sounds like you'll want to avoid zooms entirely but some motion might help keep the viewer's from picking up on flaws
-- if you've got color issues, go to the extreme: shift it to grey scale or colorize to a sepia
-- a caption here and there might add interest and keep the focus point moving

Another thing that might or might not help. Unless that was an unusual wedding, there were lots of cameras present. Contact everyone you possibly can and beg, plead or pay for every picture someone else took. Some of them are likely to be better than what it sounds like you've got at this point. Even if you don't get them in time to use in this show it's worth doing for the long run.

Sorry it worked out so poorly. I've shot a many weddings as a volunteer but I'll never, ever be the primary photographer at a relative's wedding. Way too much risk! Sadly, your son isn't the only groom who should have said no to an overly helpful relative.

Good luck.
Dick

[seektheburd Profile Private message]

I just wanted to jump back in to say GREAT POST DICKK! Alot of useful suggestions.

Hugs, Stephanie

[DonnaV Profile Private message]

Just wanted to thank you for the really useful information.
I had started doing most of what DickK suggested,
glad I was on the right track and doing the right things.
I diffently realize that zooming on these pics is a no no.
I hadn't thought about the sephia or grayscale, great idea.

I do have some shots from other people which are much better.
I have been using some of those and also using them for colour examples.
Trying to match them as best I can. Only problem there is that I have to be selective in placement,
as they are so much better, and it's extremely noticeable side by side.
It's extremely disheartening when she set up shots and shadows are all across the faces,
but I will trudge on.

Thanks again.

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

One comment here that may or may not help - you commented they showed
up with a "$20 35mm camera" and then commented on how pixelated it was.
If it was indeed a 35mm camera (shooting film), then you should not be seeing
bad pixelation unless it was from very poorly scanned prints. If on the other
hand, it was a cheap digital camera, then that would explain the pixelation.
Just mentioning it because if it was indeed a 35mm film camera, you may be
able to get your little paws on the negatives and have a better chance.

mikey

[DonnaV Profile Private message]

This is a pure case of being to close to the project.
gps... The thought never even crossed my mind about the negatives,
since I was handed a cd with all the pictures.
I really should have stood back and realized there was negatives.

After a few hours of phoning, I will have the negatives in my hands in a couple of hours.

I really do appreciate all the output and guidance from everyone.
I am new to forum's and when I found this one I was so impressed with it.
The wealth of information is outstanding.

Thank you all once again.

[DickK Profile Private messageWebsite]

Good catch Mikey! Those images are probably the scans made by the processing service and if the only example I've gotten is typical, they're terrible.

Donna,
With the negatives you'll want to get prints made and then do good scans of those unless you have a film scanner in which case you can skip the prints. Either way should at least get you something that will have decent resolution. Won't fix composition issues but it will be a huge step forward.

Good luck!

Dick

[DonnaV Profile Private message]

I received the negatives today for the wedding...

Problem... My HP film/negative scanner just went bye bye...

Can anyone recommend a good film/negative scanner.
I read reviews on the new HP 4050 and they were not too impressive.
Canon also has one but can't find too many reviews on that one...

PS... I'm just getting back into this and starting to think the greater powers are telling me not to with all the problems I'm encountering

[Brenda Profile Private message]

I've been using an Epson for two years with satisfactory results. Check their website to see what they
have on offer and then find some reviews.

Brenda

[Shaker Profile Private message]

I've got a PlusTek Optic Film7200 which I'm very happy with.

[DickK Profile Private messageWebsite]

When I did my research a year ago I concluded the Nikon Coolscan

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-CoolScan-ED ... 216&sr=8-1

was the best still on the market. These scanners seem to be a dying breed. Used to be lots on the market, now there are only a few. Nikon hasn't added a new one for at least 5 years for instance. The low end is being taken by better flatbeds and the high end is strictly for the pro shop at $10K and up.

Dick

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

Probably the cheapest short term solution would be to get decent glossy prints
from the negatives (4*6 for example) and find someone near you to scan
them for you. 4*6 prints give reasonable scans if you scan at 300dpi (of
course you ain't gonna get better than what was on the negative ... )

mikey

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

I've had surprisingly excellent results with my Epson 4180 flatbed (as long as I remember to turn it on ). It has the ability to do two different sizes of negatives along with slides, and it actually does a better job than my film scanner, which is an older HP and which I hate.

Barbara