Audrey Woulard Child Photographer

I've had a good look at some EXIF's on a couple of shots of mine I know for sure are using "vivid" and my EXIF looks no different to the one you've posted.

I don't think thats recorded in the EXIF.

The contrast, saturation and sharpness values are for the manual adjustment you can make to the picture control in camera.

So all we can say is that whatever picture control she is using, she has added two stops of sharpness...
 
nice pics, I guessed Nikon from all the vibrant colours and was right
then she says " With lenses, I use all prime lenses. I have a 28mm 1.4, 30mm 1.4, 50mm.1.4, and an 85mm 1.4"
I would get a full frame body too.

probs repeating everything but haven't read all of the above...:(
 
POAH said:
cause her website is a strain on the eyes.

look just below the header you get catagories, about, links, and email

http://www.audreywoulardblog.com/index.cfm?catID=29
Click to expand...

thank you! I saw her links and clicked on them. She doesn't say she uses vivid on her camera on her blog or her website. I think the other poster is right when she said she must have read it on another forum.

I emailed her to ask, but I haven't heard back yet. Im so curious to know as I've been trying to use that technique, but the skin comes out so bad when I do it. :( She seems to have perfected it!
 
I've just had a look at her site, very hard on the eyes. Maybe it's just I'm not used to such a bright environment.

I just noticed that nearly every close shot of a child she has taken, always has the reflection of a brightly lit window visible in the child's eye. Anyone else see that?? I've discovered the secret!! I also think they are sharpened. :shrug:
 
I've followed Audrey Woulards work for a long time and I really love it.

BUT ..... she does PP, you can bet your life on it. One persons view of what "minimal" PP is, is very different to anothers.

She works on those eyes and definitely does some skin smoothing

Go to http://www.alwphotography.com/#newborns-f4990 and look at the third picture in, a newborn baby with skin that smooth? don't think so. Pc 11 and 21 of that set is much more like what a newborn babies skin is like.

But I don't care, not sure why doing PP would be seen as negative, her shots are fantastic. She was over here in June or July of this year doing a session in London.
 
Last edited:
keirik said:
the eyes are all way overdone in my opinion, it looks weird
Click to expand...

completely agree. some of the eyes are way too glossy.

Not saying I don't like her work though. I've had her blog bookmarked for a long time.
 
I think the eyes look great, but only on other peoples children lol. If you actually make someone you knows eyes like that you end up thinking it's weird.

I did it to my daughters pic and the first thing my wife said was "What have you done to her eyes, they aren't like that in real life"
 
ACFE5C1.jpg


"Look into my eyes"

Eyes like that look ever so slightly unnatural, makes me think of children of the corn...
 
Heres some evidence of skin smoothing

http://www.alwphotography.com/#seniors-f52c1

check photos 20 and 21, same person, same clothes, same hair, logically shot on the same day. shot 20 see the blotchy parts of skin under the right eye, shot 21 - no where near as prominent. Clearly in the first the lighting is different and this would have increased those pars but still they wouldn't be as subtle in the second without some smoothing

Same with shouts 25 and 26, skin is smoother on the first than the second
 
For me the one thing defining the look on her shots is the fill light. Don't know if it's diffused, some flash or even in pp but it's well controled wherever it comes from.
 
dazzajl said:
For me the one thing defining the look on her shots is the fill light. Don't know if it's diffused, some flash or even in pp but it's well controled wherever it comes from.
Click to expand...

There is no flash used, I would imagine it's just a reflector she might use, but also the fact she spot meters on the face will assist with this
 
The exposure is good joe but some of those shots have subjects in the sun, backlit beautifully and there is very little difference in brightness from sun to shadow.
 
dazzajl said:
The exposure is good joe but some of those shots have subjects in the sun, backlit beautifully and there is very little difference in brightness from sun to shadow.
Click to expand...

Like this one for example:

ACFE5C4.jpg


a look at the exif:

Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Metering Mode: Spot
Light Source: Unknown
Flash: No Flash
Focal Length: 85.00 mm

so it's either a reflector of PP, but it's not flash
 
That's exactly the one I was thinking of. It's not digital fill, looking a bit closer as the shadows show lighting from in front and below the kids. I suspect it's a reflector, as you say, because it's more gentle and doesn't need to recharge between frames. Just because the exif says no flash doesn't mean there isn't one though. I use flash all the time that doesn't show in the file data.

I don't see why the technical side of these shots should be beyond anyone here that has a fast short telephoto and someone to hold a a big cream reflector. Oh and some sunshine and cute kids of course. ;)
 
dazzajl said:
Just because the exif says no flash doesn't mean there isn't one though. I use flash all the time that doesn't show in the file data.
Click to expand...

interesting, how does that work then? is it if you use a flash that isn't the brand of the camera or something?
 
Vulkan75 said:
Id say its basically.........fast lens in bright light with and maybe + on the exp comp.

Its also possible to achieve similar results in lightroom in about 30secs.
Click to expand...


when checking the exif there is no exposure comp on her shots, instead though she shoots in manual so she's probably just picking the shutter to exposure to the right.

your PP effort is exactly what I predict she does though
 
joescrivens said:
interesting, how does that work then? is it if you use a flash that isn't the brand of the camera or something?
Click to expand...

If it's not on camera flash (i.e. built in or running from the hot shoe), it comes up as flash not fired. So.... pretty much any off camera manual flash trigger will give the same results.


Anyhoo...

If she doesn't edit / PP why does she offer it in her mentoring?

Mentoring - $375/2 days. We can get indepth with portfolio reviews, step by step editing, photographic techniques, business marketing questions...etc.

There's an AMWAC near me that's trying to replicate this type of work and failing miserably (though people are paying so hey ho). Last I heard a week ago she was doing bracketed shots and merging them....
 
She certainly does some lovely work.
I've only speed rear this thread, so someone may have already said this, but she definitely uses some serious reflectors to get the balance of light without using flash.
I reckon large panels like California sunbounce, reflectors and diffusers.

Thanks to the OP, good post :)
 
treeman said:
She certainly does some lovely work.
I've only speed rear this thread, so someone may have already said this, but she definitely uses some serious reflectors to get the balance of light without using flash.
I reckon large panels like California sunbounce, reflectors and diffusers.
Click to expand...

Her house might be a white cottage!

Shame we don't have any full rez pictures - we could zoom in on the eyes and see the lighting/reflector.
 
It's looking at shots like hers that make me want to go straight out and buy a selection of fast primes, the shallow depth of field really makes the subject pop.

Just out of interest what would a 'natural light studio' look like? A big conservatory?
 
The eyes are far too creepy in some.
 
joescrivens said:
I've followed Audrey Woulards work for a long time and I really love it.

BUT ..... she does PP, you can bet your life on it. One persons view of what "minimal" PP is, is very different to anothers.

She works on those eyes and definitely does some skin smoothing
Click to expand...
I agree. Defintely PP going on there, she's at least lifting the eyes and smoothing skin.
 
The clarity and use of natural light in many of the pictures reminds me a bit of Alexsander Babis (spelling) - the Lithuanian wedding pics guy who regularly posts his sets here.

I'm not sure if he uses much PP but he has said that he regularly uses a D3 and an 85mm 1.4.

Apart from that similarity though, I think his pictures and the way he is also able to tell a story are a few notches above.

Some of his youth pics here: http://www.meninenuotrauka.lt/en/portraits/
 
Last edited:
Spuff said:
The clarity and use of natural light in many of the pictures reminds me a bit of Alexsander Babis (spelling) - the Lithuanian wedding pics guy who regularly posts his sets here.

I'm not sure if he uses much PP but he has said that he regularly uses a D3 and an 85mm 1.4.

Apart from that similarity though, I think his pictures and the way he is also able to tell a story are a few notches above.
Click to expand...

do they remind you of his? I think they are both completely different and both superb - the story telling he does is excellent but he also is shooting a story, audreys shots are simple portraits, there's no event as it were.
 
joescrivens said:
do they remind you of his?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think they do...

If you look at the portrait link I added, OK his compositions are different, but do you not think there is more than a passing resemblance in terms of light and vividness of colours?

Or is it just me? :shrug:
 
Spuff said:
Yes, I think they do...

If you look at the portrait link I added, OK his compositions are different, but do you not think there is more than a passing resemblance in terms of light and vividness of colours?

Or is it just me? :shrug:
Click to expand...

i hadnt seen that stuff of his, only his wedding stuff.

i mean they are both similar in the way they are natural light in natural settings but i think the style is quite different, woulard is all about those vivid eyes and very saturated colours, his seem more of a fashion style and a bit more natural. i like his a lot too.
 
Nice to see the thread has re-surfaced. I attended the AW London Workshop and it was great. I love Aleksandras' portraits aswell as his wedding images.....he is so talented.
 
I would agree the shots are vivid...
It is clear that she uses reflectors and shoots to a large extent againt the light, with a well shaded lens.
She also seems to use one of the popular software offerings that widen the distance between the eyes and enlarge them slightly.
She also keeps the tonal range as wide as she can as there are deep blacks and soft highlights in nearly all her shots.
 
jeniveeev said:
Nice to see the thread has re-surfaced. I attended the AW London Workshop and it was great. I love Aleksandras' portraits aswell as his wedding images.....he is so talented.
Click to expand...

How much did it cost and did she take any shots in the workshop and process them? If so what kind of setup was she using and what processing did she do?
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I would agree the shots are vivid...
It is clear that she uses reflectors and shoots to a large extent againt the light, with a well shaded lens.
She also seems to use one of the popular software offerings that widen the distance between the eyes and enlarge them slightly.
She also keeps the tonal range as wide as she can as there are deep blacks and soft highlights in nearly all her shots.
Click to expand...

You think she uses software to widen and enlarge eyes? What makes you say that, thats some pretty heavy PP.
 
joescrivens said:
You think she uses software to widen and enlarge eyes? What makes you say that, thats some pretty heavy PP.
Click to expand...

Portrait Professional does it as a matter of course unless you tell it otherwise...
 
joescrivens said:
You think she uses software to widen and enlarge eyes? What makes you say that, thats some pretty heavy PP.
Click to expand...

I saw some software demonstrated where it was virtualy a one click process.
It seems it is popular in the USA. Though I can't recall the name. ( not for me anyway) makes those spookey eyes. It is used more on babies than children.
Make them GooGooo.


It helps to wear a flouncy white dress if you are a lady Photographer. It gives a lovely natural fill light to close ups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top