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

[Michael Nelson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Keith_Reeder]

"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...