If you’ve looked at a magazine recently, I’m sure you’ve seen it. There is a trend that has emerged in commercial photography that has become almost expected in higher end advertisements. It’s been called by many names, but the one that I’ve heard more often is “hyper-realism”. Those images that kind of toe the line between photo and illustration, where the subject and their surroundings look so incredibly real, and yet they look like they were drawn? That’s what I’m talking about. It’s a technique that was brought into the main stream by photographers like Dave Hill and Jill Greenberg. Their images are lit a certain way, shot a certain way, and then heavily post-processed in a way that transforms the photo into something else… This technique is usually not something you see with wedding photography, because it is pretty intensive on the post processing work (read: can take a long time to work on each individual image), and only works for certain pictures that have the right characteristics. However, this is not to say that it can’t work outside the commercial photography domain, and here’s the proof!
Like I said, in order for the technique to work, the image has to meet certain criteria; there have to be distinct highlights and shadows. Durring Rachel & Kevin’s engagement session, which we shot at the Fairmount Park Water Works, and near the Philadelphia Art Museum, I managed to get some images that fit that bill. Images with flatter lighting don’t seem to work nearly so well with this technique (although they have their own charm to them, as I will show below), and the truth is that most photos taken at a wedding have much subtler highlight and shadow areas. I always strive to put as much depth into my images as I can, but the drastic contrast that makes this technique shine is not something that’s always possible, nor is it always desirable! As any technique goes, this one should not be overused. On the other hand, a couple of images done this way can really add spice to a set. And the more I think about it, the more I feel that the technique lends itself better to the engagement session.
To get the images like the ones above, the way the photo is initially shot, and the way it is processed after the fact have to work in tandem. The photo right out of the camera gets you a huge part of the way there, but what happens after gives it that magic that transforms the photo into something more than a photo. But what happens if you try and do the same post processing on a photo that does not quite meet all of the criteria above? You still get a neat look! Once again, not one to be overdone… but very neat in its own right.
It’s pretty clear that these images lack the sheer drama of the images shot with this technique in mind… but they still have that illustrated cross-discipline feel to them!
