Bindii wrote:and the detail in the tablecloth...is it really that important?
No, in and of itself, it's not, but it highlights the point about the exposure (or perhaps conversion - I don't yet know for sure) issues that I'm making. If we could see more detail in the tablecloth, then who knows what else we'd be able to see in these images? The bouquet in this particular shot, for instance, stands to gain from better exposure (or conversion) ...
Gosh I hope I havent come across here as rude etc....
Not at all. I welcome your comments, and your perspective is certainly most valid.
But in the hundreds of weddings that I've shot - and supervised - the most common error that I have seen (not just weddingd,
btw) are these small ones where the 'tog has simply failed to scan the viewfinder before squeezing the shutter. And here I see four shots, and three of them seem (to me) to suffer from this simple but very curable issue.
And while yes, to a point I accept that there will be some times when we cannot grab the shot perfectly, in this instance we're seeing some deliberate, posed shots, taken in a professional capacity.
We're wanting to, I think, produce the best possible work here, and with just a small nudge of the zoom ring, or perhaps a half step backwards, we're able to potentially change these shots from "good" to "wow!"
..and I know that even as myself being a tog I would have been happy with these shots....
I'm certainly my own harshest critic, and these reasons are why I'd be kicking myself on these images.
you may spank me now...

I think we'd both enjoy that.
