Weddings

Anouilh · 09-03-2009 12:22pm #1

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3297221948/sizes/l/

CabanSail · 09-03-2009 12:29pm

Is this for C&C?

oshead · 09-03-2009 12:30pm

Anouilh, are you looking for C&C on this or...?

Morrisseeee · 09-03-2009 12:31pm

If you are lookin for C&C, my 1st impression is that the dress is over exposed, but that could just be my monitor !

CabanSail · 09-03-2009 12:37pm

+1 to Dress being overexposed with the loss of detail.

I also think that the light is way too harsh & is not flattering. Highlights on the face have lost tone.

The pose also is not to my taste. The positioning of the couple looking out of the frame adds tension to the shot, which is not what I would be trying to acheive in a formal shot. I like the tree as an intesting background.

Borderfox · 09-03-2009 12:39pm

Bride and Groom are too close in colour to the background, the Groom looks like hes looking down on the Bride (he is but also in a metaphorical way) Dress is overexposed too.

mikeanywhere · 09-03-2009 1:18pm

Same as above and when you go to the large size within Flickr, it looks soft, either out of focus or you moved slightly!!

Your ISO is too high also

paulkellypix · 09-03-2009 1:36pm

I clicked into the larger version on Flickr and it is very blurred.

Photo Properties are:

Camera: Canon EOS 400D Digital
Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/350)
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 214 mm
ISO Speed: 800
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Off

Agree that the ISO 800 is too much

Paul

Simplicius · 09-03-2009 1:41pm

I am no expert on anything photographic but as well as all the other comments, the champagne glass is a mistake in my opinion, it should have been removed or else both should use them in unison, currently it reads like he has a drink problem.

Paulw · 09-03-2009 1:44pm

Simplicius wrote: »

I am no expert on anything photographic but as well as all the other comments, the champagne glass is a mistake in my opinion, it should have been removed or else both should use them in unison, currently it reads like he has a drink problem.

I think she has a glass in her hands too, but it's not visible at all.

Eirebear · 09-03-2009 2:01pm

Simplicius wrote: »

I am no expert on anything photographic but as well as all the other comments, the champagne glass is a mistake in my opinion, it should have been removed or else both should use them in unison, currently it reads like he has a drink problem.

She has a glass, unfortunately the combination of harsh light and overexposure make it hard to see.

TBH, i think we may be being a bit harsh on the OP here. Judging by the pose i dont think they set the shot up, which as we all know makes a huge difference.

mikeanywhere · 09-03-2009 5:40pm

Eirebear wrote: »

TBH, i think we may be being a bit harsh on the OP here. Judging by the pose i dont think they set the shot up, which as we all know makes a huge difference.

Until the OP comes back to say what reason he/she posted the image then we can only assume it is for critique as nothing was said in the original post.

Eirebear · 09-03-2009 5:55pm

mikeanywhere wrote: »

Until the OP comes back to say what reason he/she posted the image then we can only assume it is for critique as nothing was said in the original post.

I know, i know. I wasnt having a go, just suggesting that it didnt look like the bride and groom where set up that way by the OP

mikeanywhere · 09-03-2009 5:59pm

Eirebear wrote: »

I know, i know. I wasnt having a go

Me neither, you want a hug!! :eek:

AnimalRights · 09-03-2009 6:14pm

Picture looks very washed out to me.
I like the tree but as Borderfox said it is too similar to outfits wore by the couple, I would also like to see..just for the craic the Bridegroom with a can in his hand...

Morrisseeee · 09-03-2009 6:22pm

A thought just occured to me.......''i hope that isn't 'Anouilh' on her wedding day !'' (pic taken by some one else obviously), if it is, I am mightly sorry for all of the comments above ! :eek:

you look fabulous

/it isn't though...............is it !

mikeanywhere · 09-03-2009 6:28pm

...........

NullZer0 · 09-03-2009 6:31pm

Morrisseeee wrote: »

If you are lookin for C&C, my 1st impression is that the dress is over exposed, but that could just be my monitor !

I agree... keep in mind I know little or nothing!

Eirebear · 09-03-2009 7:33pm

mikeanywhere wrote: »

...........

Sorry didnt mean to keep you waiting...c'mere big guy!

:P

Anouilh · 09-03-2009 11:55pm

Thanks for all the helpful C&C.

I set up the thread because everybody has boxes of wedding photos and they are discussed so often on photography sites. The photo is from my son's wedding in Melbourne and I have many more which I'll post on my photo blog in time.

The question of over-exposure of white dresses in contrast to dark suits is well documented, as a search for

"wedding photo white dress over exposed photography tips"

shows.

I have no memory of why I used iso 800 at that point, but other photos, taken earlier in the afternoon and in the shade bring out the fine detail in the dress, highlighting the embroidery.

Examples of successful wedding photos shared here could be a good guide for anybody planning to take informal shots of weddings.

It was interesting to read that film still handles the high contrast problem much more successfully than digital.

The reference to the champagne glasses certainly made me laugh.
The professional photographer was busily setting the celebratory shots up and champagne is traditionally associated with light heartedness and joy, though this is probably culturally variable.

(Hugs all round...)

melekalikimaka · 10-03-2009 12:01am

Anouilh wrote: »

It was interesting to read that film still handles the high contrast problem much more successfully than digital.

dynamic range on meduim format is still amazing, better than most digital counterparts

Anouilh · 10-03-2009 9:22am

Having shot in RAW means I could recover detail, as advised.

Also the contrast with the tree was worked on, as suggested and the result is on the shortsights blog
http://shortsights.blogspot.com/2009/03/celebration.html

This could turn into a thread for tips on dealing with wedding photography in general? I used a 70-300 zoom lens, which offered a comfortable distance and meant I did not have to intrude on subjects.

Also the extraordinary ability of hats and fascinators to appear out of nowhere and to block the view is very much on my mind.
I had to make some severe crops on several photos, to exclude blurring caused by be-feathered guests.

This was the first time I took a series of photos at a wedding and it was really an enjoyable experience.

I would be pleased if other posters could take time to share successful photos that have been particularly popular.
Fashions in this genre are liable to change quite often and it would be nice to know what is in.

paulkellypix · 10-03-2009 11:40am

Anouilh wrote: »

I used a 70-300 zoom lens, which offered a comfortable distance and meant I did not have to intrude on subjects.

Interesting.

I often use a shorter lens, and get mixed up with groups chatting outside the church - because the celebrations take over and everyone is laughing and chatting, getting up close is easy and they don't even notice you!

Paul

Borderfox · 10-03-2009 12:55pm

I would be of the larger lens shooter and rarely disturb people unless I need too. Formals would be a different story and I can control large groups very well. I like the more candid shots taken throughout the day and all of the Brides that I have worked with agree.

Valentia · 10-03-2009 1:09pm

I think the cardinal error was caused by the "pro" shooting in direct sunlight. This is the reason that the dress is so blown out. No amount of work in RAW will rescue it I'm afraid. The subjects are also obviously uncomfortable in the harsh light and are squinting.

One of the very basic rules broken here and it is not your fault.

EDIT: BTW the high ISO is irrelevant to the blow out in this case.

Eirebear · 10-03-2009 1:56pm

Borderfox wrote: »

I would be of the larger lens shooter and rarely disturb people unless I need too. Formals would be a different story and I can control large groups very well. I like the more candid shots taken throughout the day and all of the Brides that I have worked with agree.

I tend to agree, although i try and mix it up a little bit.

You know the people at the wedding your going to get a good reaction from if you walk towards them with the camera, rather than shooting them from afar.

paudie · 10-03-2009 5:42pm

It does seem to come up here a lot, just curious how many people here shoot weddings professionally?

Sorry if this is a hijack but OP did mention turning it into a bigger all encompassing thread.

Borderfox · 10-03-2009 5:46pm

I do

Eirebear · 10-03-2009 5:58pm

Currently on a "semi-professional" basis although looking to change that in the next few months, its just a matter of getting off my arse and doing it.

paulkellypix · 10-03-2009 7:55pm

I do - but it's been more of a recent thing.

I did a couple for friends and since then I've done quite a few - most from friends of friends who have seen my stuff.

Best form of advertising and promotion - word of mouth.

Paul

mikeanywhere · 10-03-2009 9:00pm

I do and have been for the last year and a half. I did a sh*t load last year and have no plans of doing the same number this year as my intention is to get back into doing a lot more of my 1st love, portraits.

Weddings

Comments