I hear what you are saying melanie. Of course the subject matter has a huge impact on the look of the photos hence why so many shoots are now being styled, who isn't getting fed up of kids being placed in a field with bunting rigged up and a vintage tea set, and a florabella action ran over the top of it.

In terms of Amanda Holloway, her processing does stand out for me, but of course if your exposure is off and your subject matter is a bit meh, then no amount of great processing will make the image look like one of Amanda's. I still want to do her course though

Florabella does have great actions and for Lightroom I would use Pretty presets. That's all you really need (maybe also MCP and One Willow but that will be overkill).

Crispe, the point you made about good lighting is very valid. Expose right and you have a great start.

Now here is my theory regarding many of those over exposed vintage looks and such: Most of these "photographers" that sell them do not know how to use flash!!

Let me detail what I just said; to be able to capture texture in the background and the sky you will have to under expose the subject, providing you're doing it right posing her/him so sun is behind them (so they don't squint). Again, if you posed them right and meter for the sky (blue sky is almost 18% grey) then your subject is completely dark.

To have them properly exposed you have to use flash. That's where everything becomes way more complicated.

I bet you that 99% of those female photographers (They are just about all female sorry), do not know how to use flash. Period.

I remember reading two web sites of known senior portrait photographers and in both they were making sure you know that A) They use available light ONLY and B) Flash is artificial and not complementary for portraits and that's why they don't use it.

They might as well write: I have no clue how to use this freaking flash so I have to use what Nature gives me. I have a hard time already with ISO/Aperture/Shatter speed combination, you want me to add flash?

Also, most of those photographers use only prime lenses (85mm 1.4 being the most popular) so they get the widest aperture possible and do not have to zoom (that can also add to the equation soemtime)

A side note:
Why else Nikon will come with a completely new 85mm 1.4 that now they call "Portrait grade" and sell it for over $2,000? Because they know it will sell like crazy. The old 85mm does exactly the same for a fraction of the price. Trust me on that one.

And that's why all those looks became so popular. By creating the washed look the background becomes over exposed and therefore not important.

I also like the over expose look but I also like to take photos late in the day when the sun is down and the faces is properly exposed while the sky is a brilliant red. That can be achieved only with flash and it will not work with TTL either, you have to work at it manually and more importantly, you have to know what you're doing.

My beef with all those savvy marketing "Pros" is that since they don't know how to use basic photography equipment and they know that there are hundreds like them, they capitalize on that.

Fair enough, but isn't it about high time that we, the real pros, stop with this "fast food" photography mentality? Ya, it's so much easier to walk into one of those garbage food chains and order a burger but I prefer a nice Middle Eastern salad with oven grilled vegetables Moroccan style, nicely grilled Salomon and a good Red Merlot to go with it.

ya, I know, I am crazy like that.

To me, all those overpriced actions, seminars etc are fast food. The North American mentality prevails again and we are looking for shortcuts.

Crispe, I don't think you will learn much except mimicking her style and a year from now you will want to go to another workshop because somebody has something new to offer.

I still maintain that you will grow so much better if you use these web sites for inspiration only and learn how to create your own. Save your money for other things and just learn on your own.

My 50 cents (or maybe by now it's a dollar

Actually Melanie I don't agree at all regarding flash! Don't get me wrong, I know of photographers who use flash and off camera flash brilliantly, but it's quite a particular look which has it's place, but not 100% necessary. I also shoot studio so understand lighting, but much prefer using natural light. There are many ways you can achieve perfect exposure with interesting backgrounds by finding the light. Sometimes a blown out sky is the price you pay for a stunning portrait, I would rather the subject be the focus of the portrait than the background in every instance. Shooting commercial stuff for advertising/magazines is a different ball game, I admit. I also find that the best and most creative photographers aren't necessarily the best technical photographers, but if I was paying someone to take my children's portraits I know who I would rather hire. Just a thought.

With regards to lenses, well I have both the Canon 85 1.8 and 1.2, and the 1.2 whips the 1.8's arse by a mile. The image quality coupled with the 5D mark III is amazing. It isn't that great images can't be captured on the 1.8, they can but the 1.2 is just better. I currently own the 50mmm 1.4 which is great but would love the 1.2! Prime lenses totally rock and I would shoot all prime if I could.

I agree about the workshops and actions though. As for Amanda Holloway, I don't want to mimic her style, but I love learning about processing and seeing how other people achieve their looks. I've been doing this for over 5 years and learning photoshop in that time, but there is always something new to learn and I try to do that every day!

I took the workshop also. Didn't like the fact she shot JPEG completely and was editing from that point. I know all those edits she does to them look good on the computer but how do they look in print? We are only seeing a little image on the screen. Not zoomed in. I wanted to learn more technical things in photoshop. That was what I was taking the class for!! IT wasn't worth what I paid. I already knew about blending modes. Wanted to learn more from editing from RAW FILES! It was a rip off in my opinion. I guess I should have asked more questions on what she was actually going to be teaching.

She also stated that she would teach you about editing without actions! Every technique she showed you ended in using actions you had to buy or download for free! If I could have my money back I would.

Crispe, I did not say that you do not know how to use flash . Really, for all I know, you are much better than I am.

However, I still maintain that many of those "pros" do not know how to use flash. By the way, you can have a beautiful photo taken with a help of flash and you will not know it.

Good for them if they can make so much money with very little technical knowledge of photography. If people keep buying and signing up why not.

I took it, and use absolutely NOTHING she showed us. Save $300 or however much it is now. Just play around and learn to use your dodge and burn tool and blending modes on layers. Like I said I utilize nothing she taught, was so disappointed. She does get it right in camera which is an important aspect of any editing. She only used a couple of actions to “tone” her image at low opacity at the end. She is very good at marketing and she came into this at a good time, plus met the right people to help push her mentoring. Save your $$$ and just practice 

just because someone chooses to not use a flash does not mean they don't know how, or are taking poor pictures in those conditions. of course you can have great pictures with flash, but photography is an art, and can be relative. there isn't only one way to take photos.

What are Amanda Holloway's step in editing her images? For those who have taken her class!

i went to school... i know how to use my flash on and off camera... ttl or manual. i just don't like the look in most cases. i actually used it in a session a week ago for the first time in months.

i took the class. honestly, i agree with some and not with others. i agree if you REALLY want to learn her methods you could by googling it, but if you already knew her methods then you wouldn't need to take the class in the first place. i feel like i learned 1 or 2 things (or mostly just refreshed my memory). To me $300 is a small price to pay for a beginner wanting to learn some basics. If you are more experienced then the most you'll learn is workflow. I was honestly surprised by the number of steps she went through in each photograph. If you honestly did all those steps every single time then you'd spend 30+ mins on each image. I just don't have that much time to commit to every image.
oh, and she didn't use a lot of actions in my class. she did use one for tone as others said, but if i remember correctly then she didn't even use one on all images. i've already forgotten.

Google?... is there a specific place someone has them posted? lol its a steep step for some of us to pay the extra $$ on it because there are not enough open reviews. People are very easily "wowed" and will give a A++ rating on anything that they felt knocked their socks off..

yes, Please. If anyone knows a similar style of editing DVD or PDF online somewhere. Please forward to ASTA. I would actually pay for it and share if I knew if there was a good one out there. The layers and blending modes of multiply and soft light do work but it cannot be what she's doing entirely. To much detail is lost doing those things alone. I wanna know but do not want to be ripped off by a bogus online workshop.

Hails, how does she achieve that "juicy" light she talks about? Seriously thank you for the tips!!!!!

she uses the multiply (first) and soft light (second, if needed) blending mode at low opacities per image, and sometimes only uses one or the other for part of the image with masks. She burns the shadows to taste and then doges the highlights--and honestly, that's how she does it. She's spent hours and hours doing it so she's very efficient, but that's the basics. Towards the end, she usually runs a florabella action and reduces the opacity, but much of what she does is achieved above. I think the difference is the layering and building upon of lower opacities of everything and dodging and burning at 5-10% until it looks right.

anyone know how she gets the creamy skin and light? Im thinking about taking her online mentoring but its $350 and want to know if its worth my time

Anyone know which Florabella action she uses for toning, which action does she use to achieve the vintage look and how does she get her creamy skin tones? Thanks!!!

Wow Amanda Holloway $500. All I could see was absolutely no skin texture left what so ever and a lot of over processed plastic looking faces. I am only new to photography but I honestly preferred the befores to the afters. At least they still looked some what human. I do remember sitting through a workshop and being shown how to load a mesh to keep skin texture while still taking out blemishes. It went over my head and I wish now I could remember how he did it. I think everyone is just trying to learn enough to get by which is a little sad and dangerous. Reminds me of when I first learnt how to smooth skin with a gaussian blur. Looking back at my plastic over photo shopped face is scary and quite funny all at the same time!