Critique please! My first wedding...

[single]

Please visit the blog to see the rest...

www.geemac.blogspot.com


This was my first wedding. Almost all, if not all, of these shots were taken with a 5d and a 35L. I was a second photographer so the bride and groom could get another look at their wedding. I followed the groom while he was getting ready, and because I was not the main photographer I didnt compose any of the formals/bride-groom shots.

It will be interesting to see the shots from the other photog because I think she has a very different style...

I would love to get feedback.

[smmokan]

There are some great pictures in there. A couple of the shots into the sun look like you f-ed up on accident, but I'm pretty sure you were going for that look. If the main photog has a different style than you, personally I think it would be nice to have a different look at the wedding.

Other than that, I can't really offer up any critique... if those were my pics, I'd be very happy.

Where was the wedding?

[JoeStrummer]

I really liked most of those, particularly the shots of the kids. Most wedding photography fails when it looks like it's trying too hard but your shots were solid.

Who is the Kenny Rogers looking guy, the bride's father? Trying to figure out what his expression is all about.

[single]

smmokan, the other photog set up all the formal shots directly into the sun. She was just using a single direct flash, and I decided to go with the no flash/overexposed sky look. ( AKA I suck at using a flash, the dance photos are like my third time every using one) So, yeah, it was intentional. The wedding was about 1 mile north of bridger bowl ski resort in bozeman. Bohart ranch to be more specific.

Joe, you are right, that is the brides father. I think that is kind of his neutral expression.

[pappag]

Not much to add except the photos seem very genuine, and you can feel the festiveness of the event. How you captured the kids' expressions was great, but these two stand out for me:








(as for critique, I'm not getting anything from the last two on the blog link ... don't really do anything for me)

[dipstik]

Strong work G.

Here are some random and disorganized thoughts:

You're sense of moment is good, definitely getting better. The image of the B&G you posted here is solid. It's evident in your images that your subjects are comfortable with your presence, especially considering you're shooting with a 35.

On the flip side, a few too many "camera aware" images in the set for my taste. i.e. with the subject looking directly at you. Those are a big turn off for me. It can be tough to get around that, but it's totally within your ability.

I love the images where you are getting in close, especially that 2nd image of the groom's ring. That's not an easy picture to make, so really nice job there. I also like the detail shots, they add a lot flavor to the set.

A little bit kid-heavy overall. I would have liked to see more of the adults, but that's fine. Sometimes receptions are boring and kids are the only interesting thing to shoot.

The picture of the bride's father is my least favorite of the bunch. Bad light, and too snap-shot-ish. I see what you were going for there with the bride peeking out of the tent, but I don't think it quite works here. Also, the picture of the kids with the stick doesn't do anything for me. It's a bit of an off moment, and you have much stronger images there.

Overall, great job for your first wedding. I like the organization of the images on the blog too; it feels like a story with opening and closing images, and it's cool that you are approaching that way. Keep up the good work - are you second shooting more weddings this summer?

[Tippster]

The right side of the shots are getting cropped in Firefox on that site, at least here on my work comp. I was gonna complain about the funky framing until I realized that you would never cut the bride in half...

Did you use a Sto-Fen flash diffuser?

[truth]

Some of the images are pretty soft, as if you got your focus lock and then re-composed. When shooting a close up with a very shallow DOF it's critical to get the focal plane right. Pics 1 2 3 9 10 11 16 17 18 22 23 are all soft or the focal plane is on the wrong part of the image. The images at night of the couple dancing have a WB issue going on.

[Wes Mantooth]

the 6th from the end looks so much like I did when I was really little

Otherwise nice shots, I liked the kid ones the best

[single]

The right side of the shots are getting cropped in Firefox on that site, at least here on my work comp. I was gonna complain about the funky framing until I realized that you would never cut the bride in half...

Did you use a Sto-Fen flash diffuser?

Tippster- The flash was not diffused. It was kind of a weird bouncing situation. The dance was in a shelter with 2 open walls and a roof with a 45 degree slope. The roof was metal with wooden beams running down it, so I was just bouncing off of that.

Truth- Thanks for the input. I definitely agree with you on the softness/focal plane issues with maybe three or four of those shots, but a lot of the ones you mentioned are tack sharp on my monitor, especially in full resolution.

The images were uploaded to flickr, then uploaded to blogspot via picassa, and I think they lost some quality. Plus, the flickr uploads were not high quality files to begin with.

With the white balance issues, the dance was entirely lit by christmas lights, and the shelter was mostly wood. I think the white balance was pretty accurate to the situation, but there might be a little discrepency between the dance photos due to editing. I explained the flash situation a little in my response to tippster, do you have any ideas for what I could have done differently to get a better WB?

[truth]

With the white balance issues, the dance was entirely lit by christmas lights, and the shelter was mostly wood. I think the white balance was pretty accurate to the situation, but there might be a little discrepency between the dance photos due to editing. I explained the flash situation a little in my response to tippster, do you have any ideas for what I could have done differently to get a better WB?

Fix it in post processing. Takes a few seconds.

[truth]

I put it up on my server for comparison. Say the word and I'll delete it.

WB corrected


Original

[single]

Sweet, looks way better. Did you just cool it down?

And looking back on some of the shots that I made, I think I definitely could have brought the f-stop up a bit. I was pretty set on shooting as much as I could as wide as I could, but that definitely can carry some consequences if you slip up.

[truth]

Sweet, looks way better. Did you just cool it down?

It is cooled down, but I did it in Lightroom. It took longer to save and import the image than it did to fix the WB. If you're not shooting RAW, shoot RAW. If you don't own Lightroom, buy Lightroom.

Only a couple focus issues are really bad. However, you should be trying make every image, especially for a wedding, the best image ever taken. OOF issues are really not acceptable. If you had been the primary shooter this would be a BIG problem.

[Tippster]

If you use Lightroom you could have looked at the Color Temp (in degrees kelvin) as shot, then use the eyedropper tool and click on her dress, see the color temp value number, and either go with that or pick any number between them if that value is too "cool." Your pic is also a bit green so you'd have to adjust (or auto-adjust with the eyedropper again) the tint. Basically you're using that tool to do a manual white balance for you.

To get the scene to "cool down" you would actually go with a Lower temperature number. My guess is Truth ended up with something in the 2000-2200K range and you shot on tungsten (2800-3200) preset. If you put in a higher number (Flourescent = ~4200K, Daylight = ~5600k) you would get progressively more reddish results.

[single]

Thanks for the advice. I am shooting raw, so I can go back and change it pretty easy. Not using lightroom, but it sounds like the eye dropper in the levels adjustment of photoshop is pretty similar.

[amyzilla]

Beautiful shots. I shoot a lot of weddings, so here are a couple of things I've picked up that might help you:

Shoot from different angles. We're used to seeing kids from above. To make kid photos more interesting, get down to their eye level. The one with the kid making the funny face would have been great as a high-angle shot. Same goes for the detail shots - the food, wine, bottlecaps, etc. are all better when viewed from more unique angles.

My other comment is to make sure what you're focusing on should really be the focus of the photo. Sounds obvious, but when you're shooting detail shots with a large aperture opening, you need to be really careful about your focus. A couple of examples: in the photo of the groom buttoning his coat, I think the focus should have been on his fingertips, not on the ring. The ring is important, but it's not where the "action" is, and you don't need to focus on it for it to be noticed. In the photo of the hand on the bride's back, the focus should have been on the hand, not the sleeve.

Anyway, those are kind of nit-picky things. Overall, nice job.

[warthog]

It is cooled down, but I did it in Lightroom. It took longer to save and import the image than it did to fix the WB. If you're not shooting RAW, shoot RAW. If you don't own Lightroom, buy Lightroom.

Only a couple focus issues are really bad. However, you should be trying make every image, especially for a wedding, the best image ever taken. OOF issues are really not acceptable. If you had been the primary shooter this would be a BIG problem.

How do you get the DOF photos right? I have this same issue- what I think to be a great shot, I later find to be focussed on the fore or background. Obviously manual focus would work, but what about active subjects? I have found myself shooting more and more in the 5.6 -9 region. This helps with the AF, but what if I really want that effect?

[single]

How do you get the DOF photos right? I have this same issue- what I think to be a great shot, I later find to be focussed on the fore or background. Obviously manual focus would work, but what about active subjects? I have found myself shooting more and more in the 5.6 -9 region. This helps with the AF, but what if I really want that effect?

I think practice, get super comfortable with your gear. Or bracket your focus and shoot like a madman. The second option is much ballsier and usually involves a bit of switch to the road.

[single]

Amy, thanks for the suggestions. I definitely understand on the kid shots. The focus stuff, especially the hand, is because I haven't practiced enough with my gear. I will definitely work on ironing all of these things out.

It looks like I am shooting at another wedding on friday, and I will do my best to work on what has been suggested so far. Seriously everyone, this is a huge help.

[truth]

How do you get the DOF photos right? I have this same issue- what I think to be a great shot, I later find to be focussed on the fore or background. Obviously manual focus would work, but what about active subjects? I have found myself shooting more and more in the 5.6 -9 region. This helps with the AF, but what if I really want that effect?

Depends on the camera's AF system how you need to approach it. Best bet would be to shoot in one of the active focus modes whatever it may be on your camera. AI servo or AI focus on Canon pro-sumer bodies. That's where the auto focus locks on a subject and stays with it even as it moves. Passing the focus from one point to another tracking the subject across the sensor so to speak. Some cameras are better than others. The biggest mistake usually made is to put the focus point on the subject where they want it (usually using the center AF point), get a lock and then recompose the image. The end result is that you've focused the image here and then composed it over there and voila! OOF For some real fun try shooting at f/1.2 and see how things work.