A few more bit unusual shots maybe?
C&C appreciated.
DSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
Wedding 2nd Shooter pt2Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
10 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Y'ip,
Yo're making what I see as a far too common mistake here. You're (correctly) keeping your attention on the primary subject and making sure that it's in the image etc, but you're (incorrectly) failing to scan the whole viewfinder yo make sure that you're getting all of the details before making your exposure. Let's look at these images more closely to see what I mean ... #1 ... the bouquet is clipped on the LH edge of the image. The image is basically a little too tight; brides spend a lot of $$$$ on their bouquets; it needs to be fully included. I'd like to see more work done on the B&W conversion too - whwere's the detail in the bride's dress, and particularly in the veil? It seems blown, and that may well be the case. #2 the bouqut's edge has again been chopped. And there's little shadow detail here: should there be a little more texture evident in the dark tablecloth? #4 "Does my bum look big in this?" 
Seriously, where is the rest of the bridesmaid? Again, she's been chopped. And again, the bride's dress looks blown. With three images showing these "exposure" issues, but all of these images having undergone conversions from colour to mono, I'm not sure if what I'm seeing is exposure related or a conversion issue. My inclination is towards this being an exposure issue, because a bride's dress is difficult to expose for in the first instance, and the conversion seems to me to be actually wanting a bit more contrast, which I suspect will only make the bride's dress look even more blown. Just my thoughts. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
I think your choice of subject in each is Great!!!
I'm interested to know if you were using a prime for these, like an 85mm, where you had to capture the moment, but couldnt quite frame back enough to avoid the cropping? Love the treatment of the champagne, agree with Gary, the flowers need a touch more detail. He will look at the booze, she will look at the flowers 
The rings, I would have liked to see a little more DOF. A little too tightly cropped, but overall, they are really nice.
Sorry Gary I disagree with some of your comments...
Sure we always try to include all the bouquet etc in our images when we are shooting a wedding...but I don't feel that its neccesary to have all of it in every shot... and the detail in the tablecloth...is it really that important? The crop on the last shot...I love it...and I am sure that somewhere in Yips images from the wedding that there is a whole bridesmaid shot too...the composure/crop has given this shot a lovely modern feel to it...and its what I have found most of my clients are asking for... sure the images are not technically perfect....but the whole idea of wedding photography is to record someones special day....capture the moments and the emotion of it.... I guess what I am trying to say...in a really round about way...is that I know its important that we do a good job....and we have all seen very bad examples of wedding photography....but what point is technically perfect shots without emotion.... Gosh I hope I havent come across here as rude etc....but I am rushed for time as I have a wedding myself to shoot shortly and am about to rush out the door...I dont mean to sound curt ...nor am I disregarding your comments cause they all have merit....I am just trying to look at this as if I was the bride....and I know that even as myself being a tog I would have been happy with these shots.... sorry.... you may spank me now... The last thing I want to do is hurt you... but it's still on the list...
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) ...
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!"
I'm certainly my own harshest critic, and these reasons are why I'd be kicking myself on these images.
I think we'd both enjoy that. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Thanks Gary, Bruce, & Bindii for the wonderful comments.
Yes I know I make this (common) mistake from the speed of which things are happening and having in mind that I must get the 'moment' before it goes away. I'm learning from this mistake and correcting it each time I go out for shooting. The very much reason I really want a good quality, fast, midrange zoom which I can work with. They were taken primarily with a 85mm and 35mm on the table shots. I will keep in mind to work around on the feet zooming and keeping the viewfinder with whole view next time. Things that day were happening really fast as we were running late back to the reception, I was not the one in command and can't be telling them to stop for a shot I wanted to get, even provided that I had a better view than the official photographer there from far away. The 'table' shot of the boutique was taken under really dark room lighting and had to depend on the flash output to get an exposure, I dailed down the FV so the glass will not come out too flashy with blown highlights. Am I doing this right? Or should I expose properly to the dark table cloth? I did get a full view without cropping of the last shot, but after stepping 1 step back, reframe the picture, the bridesmaid is in full view, but the bride has already walked into the bush of grass to the RHS which the image has no sense of having bridesmaid in full focus and bride hidden in the grass (IMHO). Weddings are events which will not stop and wait for you to get things happening, but to capture what is happening. It is a bit of pressure and tension on which you have to keep up the shutter count and get the right shots. I learned my lesson and will keep these comments in mind. Thanks,
heh, that was my first thought when I saw the shot. As Gary said Yip, it's hard to tell what's post processing and what's not. Everyone might be critical, which is what you want, but after seeing some of the 'other' photog's shots just now there's alot I can fault in those too. THIS shot which is similar to one you posted is too heavy on the contrast and lacking detail IMO. I think alot of the post processing stuff is subjective - what appeals to some people others won't like while others who know little about photography are often impressed by 'cheap' effects. This is a big reason I wanted all my pictures on disc, so I can do my own PP before printing shots. Jay
--- Nikon D70 | 18-70mm F3.5-4.5 | 50mm F1.8 | Tamron 70-300mm F4-5.6
I will be shooting a friend's wedding later this year, and it's good to see shots from someone who doesn't have years of experience like Padey, Shutterbug et al. I reckon you've done an excellent job both with these and the earlier set you posted
#1 - I agree with Gary on the cropping, but exposure looks fine to my tastes (shadow and highlight detail are for wusses  ). Lovely shot.
#2 - I don't like normally like Sepia, but this works perfectly. Perhaps you might open up the shadows a tad for printing, but on my monitor it looks great. #3 - Nice idea, but my eye is drawn to the OOF hand. Needed more DOF to work. #4 - As you said, the last shot is taken about a second too late. If the bridesmaid hadn't been in the frame, we would have a winner. So join in the chorus, and sing it one and all!
no.1 is cool, I like it....
no. 2, 3 and 4 could be taken at another angle........ ps. Nice looking couple
Previous topic • Next topic
10 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|
- Mods Database • The team • Delete all board cookies • Reset blocks • All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]
