1st wedding.. take your shots :)

<p>Hello.. I see a lot of critiquing posts lately so I figured I'd throw myself in the ring. A friend asked me to take photos for her wedding. Her package included a photographer for an hour, basically the ceremony and the formals/posing. I took photos during that time as well, but made sure to stay out of the photographer's way. I took some prewedding photos at her house and the reception was at her brother's house. We did sneak off to the local college where they first met and took some photos there before sunset.<br /><br />Where I already know I screwed up. I was taking photos at an indoor event the week before and left the Nikon D50 on ISO 800. I don't really have an excuse as to why I didn't check it or change it for the wedding. Just nerves I guess. I noticed it as soon as I opened up the first photo and saw how grainy they were. Luckily she still had the paid photographer for the important events. Live and learn. I mostly do travel photography, so this was completely new to me. I'll take any goods or bads that you might have.<br /><br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/david.imboden/DeniseWeddingforWeb?authkey=Gv1sRgCO3e97yC3MzKkAE">http://picasaweb.google.com/david.imboden/DeniseWeddingforWeb?authkey=Gv1sRgCO3e97yC3MzKkAE</a>#</p>

<p>I like what you did though I suspect you need to calibrate your monitor as all of these images appear too warm/yellow.</p>

<p>The shots are nicely done for the most part. I don't care for the tilted shot though what is has for content is good. The rings are rear focused a bit. You did a reasonably decent job of flash work/fill, I bet you could learn off cam pretty easily for some of the posed shots, just to add dimension and drama.</p>

<p>I have a second shooter who achieved this level of work after about two years of shooting, so from that perspective, you're well ahead. :-)</p>

<p>Best, D.</p>

<p>I really like #'s 3, 5, 7, 17 and 21!!!</p>

<p>Pretty good for a first wedding!</p>

<p>23 though is bugging me. Dramatic flare is one thing, but it just doesn't work there. I'd pull that one out from the set, I think.</p>

<p>31 is a good concept, I think, but the lighting hurt it for me. The location, intensity, and color of the light you used is harsh to me. Maybe some Photoshop can fix it a bit.</p>

<p>Also, I'd like to add that I can see your sensor. It has that low-end video-still look that crop CCDs tend to have. I don't want to be a gear snob, but you have exceeded the limitations of your camera, and I might think of upgrading.</p>

<p>Unlike David W. above, I don't really see any evidence of fill flash. Shooting on the beach in full sun is probably the most difficult lighting situations you can face. Yes, there's really no excuse for not knowing exactly what your ISO settings were.</p>

<p>I really like images, #3, 5, 14, & 15. Image 5 needs some post-ps work to enhance and fix the lighting.</p>

<p>In general you could improve by getting closer (images #1, 2, 6, 25, & 26) and avoiding clutterred backgrounds (images 1, 2, 6, 10, 25, & 26). Sun flair rarely works and image #23 is a throw-away. Image #26 was a cute idea but look at the ugly background. Image #31 is an example of poor fill-flash....way too much power. Image #32 suffers from a poor angle and is under-lit. Image #33 is nice but I want to see the image that would have followed it where there's some actual cake-feeding and or cake-smashing.</p>

<p>Thanks for the Critiques so far, I appreciate it. <br /><br />David W - My monitor probably isn't calibrated, Its just a little HP laptop that I put them on. The bride is actually a graphic artist and will be doing all her own PP and then sending them back to me to have for my portfolio. Thanks for the good word on the shots, I tried some fill flash, but didn't like any of them, so they aren't posted. What is off cam?<br /><br />Missy - Thanks!<br /><br />Ed - The funny thing about the flair shot is another photographer friend of mine really liked it. I didn't like it all that much, guess I should have gone with my own instints. On 31, I agree with you, the bride loves it and is going to PP to bring down the intensity. What do you mean by you can see my sensor. "..exceeded the limitations of your camera" I don't know if that is a compliment or not, but I'm going to consider it one. :)<br /><br />David S. - On the getting closer. I actually have closer shots on most of those, but sometimes this board tends to complain about cutting stuff out, so I posted some of the zoomed out shots to mix in with the closer shots. On some of the ugly backgrounds, I was usually trying to stay away from the paid photographer and just utilized the space/position that I had.. As for #26, that is the classroom that they met in, so the background was intentional. For #32 and #33, I'll post a couple of others and see if they are liked better..<br /><br />Again, thanks for the feedback, I'm up for more!</p>

<p>Off cam is "off camera" and refers to taking your flash off your camera for different directional lighting effects.</p>

<p>I don't think Ed was being compliementary in his comment about the camera limitations....I also don't think the problems are with the camera sensor, it's all about the lighting. You've also offered an explanation for most of my critiques, suggest that you might want to study them for awhile rather than dismiss them with explanations. If you're serious about wedding photography you might want to network with some local pros, see if you can assit/2nd shoot for an established studio and consider joining PPA and/or WPPI. Good luck.</p>

<p>David S. - That's what I figured about Off Cam. Flash is definitely a weakness of mine. I didn't necessarily think Ed was being compliementary, but I didn't really understand it, so I just figured I'd take it as such. (hence the smiley face)<br /><br />Actually, I wasn't trying to dismiss your comments, they made me go back and look at them and see what you saw and I appreciate that. Exactly why I posted them here.<br /><br />I don't know if I'm serious about it. I know I was nervous as hell when I was asked and that's how I found this site and others. My neighbor is a wedding photographer and I went back and forth with her beforehand. I still don't know, so I think that tells me the answer, but I posted them here to see what this community thought because I did some things specifically because of the critques here. I feel like the group here gives constructive information (just like you have and the others).</p>

<p>No, actually it was meant as a compliment, but not a very big one. It doesn't take much skill to expose the limitations of a D50, but it does take skill. :)</p>

<p>I didn't thoroughly read your original post before I dove into your samples, but right away I saw entry level equipment. I checked the info provided by the site, and said "aha! I knew it." Then I read your post again and said "D'oh! The camera is mentioned there."</p>

<p>Personally, I don't like the look of the low end sensors, mostly on the Nikon side. It's true that lighting and photographer skill are most important, however in the case of many of your examples, the images would have been better with quality glass and a nice sensor. All I said was that even at those low resolutions, I can see the color and contrast "issues" that are not caused by you, but rather the equipment used.</p>

<p>You could say that a really skilled photographer could hide the imperfections well with just the right lighting and exposure, but I think you don't have to work so hard at it when creamy smooth images with excellent color and contrast come out of the camera naturally.</p>

<p>It's an old argument, so let me clarify: Photographer skill and lighting - Most important. Quality of the tools - Also important, but secondary.</p>

<p>An upgrade would improve your images.</p>

<p>David is right: Flare rarely works. I play with it on engagement sessions sometimes, but generally avoid it on the day.</p>

<p>If you really want to do it, keep it subtle, and watch the contrast:<br>

http://edrodgers.com/index2.html#id=album-30974&num=999239</p>

<p>The best option is to use lenses that can handle it, and remove your filters. This is right into the sun:<br>

http://edrodgers.com/index2.html#id=album-30974&num=999243</p>

<p>Had the flare hit hard in that one, it would have been ruined. The lost contrast would have been right over the couple.</p>

<p>Lighting and photography skills are one thing, but if I had a D50 and a kit lens, I couldn't get that shot.</p>

<p>Here's an example of what I would do in post with image #5........</p>

<p>Good luck and best wishes.</p><div></div>

<p>Ed - Thanks for the advice and flair examples.<br /><br />David - Thanks for the touch up, definitely looks better!</p>

Is that location called the Hotel del Coronado? In San Diego. If it's that hotel, I've shot there about 10 times and I may be able to email you a few images highlighting the hotel. You have some serious lighting issues, that you need to address.

By the way, if that is the del Coronado it's not an easy place to shoot a wedding, mainly because the Pacific Ocean sees little shade until the sun sets. You really need powerful strobes to help blend in the harsh sun. From past experiences having a keen understanding of lighting is essential to pull off a wedding there.

 

I think the rooms there start around $500 a night! The Honeymoon suites are probably around $3000 per night. Maybe more.

<p>Is this better?<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3243/3811410932_409c7df5d2.jpg" alt="" width="332" height="500" /></p>

<p>Missy, adding digital fill is an improvement but the skin tones are still off. An "up the nose" shot of a bride or groom is rarely attractive even with a camera tilt.</p>

<p>Hi David. Good for you putting your work out there. Thats the only way to get better. By showing it too others. <br>

The thing i noticed most was the lack of direction in your images. They seem to be all of the same focal length and while there are a couple different perspectives most seem to be photographed from the standing position. Change it up.....get on a chair...lay down. <br>

Also your depth of field is almost always closed down....which lends to a really cluttered back ground and goes to my first point...lack of direction for the eye. What do you want us to look at? the really big tree or the couple? <br>

Light is everything. Your tight portrait of the bride is nice becasue of the quality of light....and your shallow DOF. When all else fails....search out nice light. <br>

As I have said in other posts.....i really don't like the dutch tilt. It tells me you lacked inspiration and simply tilted the camera for effect. Lay down....climb the tree....change it up. <br>

But most importantly have fun....find nice light...and it will all work out. Practice makes perfect...so shoot...shoot and shoot some more. And watch that DOF.<br>

For expamples check out my work...<br>

good luck<br>

Andre</p>

<p>Bob - Yes it is the Hotel del. It was a small wedding where the officiant just picked a location, quickly set up and then everyone stood around him while he gave the service. We had two mostly naked fat men walk up to the ceremony behind the couple and just stand and watch.<br /><br />Andre - Thanks for the advice. I will try more and I'll see if my neighbor is willing to let me tag along to a wedding or two at least connect me with any groups she is in.</p>

<p>yeah but you can fix the orange with color balance adjustment</p>

<p>Hi David,</p>

<p>good for you for giving it a try and for posting the results. Obviously, the others have covered the lighting issue. I wanted to add my voice to those pointing out that you should consider your backgrounds carefully. With a small aperture, they become even more important. In #14, the hotel tower is sort of sprouting out of the bride's head. I knew you were at the Hotel del Coronado when I saw it. The cute pose idea with the heads peeking out the open door becomes strange when all the other fixtures of that room are so clearly outlined - I don't know what I'm looking at in that shot. </p>

<p>Also consider where you're putting the focus on the shots that are larger-aperture. Shot 5 is a little confusing to me as I keep trying to find a part of it that's in focus. I think it's the pleating on the dress and not the flowers, but with the ISO noise and necessary internet jpg'ing, I can't tell. Since the flowers are bright red and the only real color in the shot, and there are no faces, those flowers are the main point of interest and therefore need to be in focus. If they are in focus on your monitor, great. The viewer's eye is going to go to the brightest, most contrasty part of any shot first, and then to faces and eyes, typically. Nice composition on her curves and the dress train.</p>

<p>My favorite is number 28. The lighting is decent and he looks very happy. He's a little red in the forehead and has some stripey highlights on his forehead, but that can be edited if desired. His expression and the lovely light on her shoulders, cheekbones, and the pink lily are what work for me. </p>

<p>Keep up the practice and thank you for sharing. It helps me get better, too, to read the critiques, even if it's someone else's work.</p>

<p>Thank Jennifer, I appreciate the detailed critique. I agree with you that it helps to get better. Even though I screwed up on settings, I'm glad I got a few extra photos that the bride will love above the paid photographer that she had. When I was asked and started freaking out, I found photo.net among others. I read every "1st, 2nd, 3rd wedding" critique I could find on here before I went and I would like to think that my photos are better than they would have been had I not found this site and read those critiques. I figure it was only fair for myself and others to post a few in return.</p>

"We had two mostly naked fat men walk up to the ceremony behind the couple and just stand and watch." That is just too funny! I like your humor. Only in California could 2 naked fat men walk on a beach and get away with it!

 

Now that you have confirmed the location my answer to you remains the same. If you do an outside wedding when the cloads aren't around and the light is so harsh, rent some powerful strobes that are around 200 to 400 watt seconds. This will help get rid of the dark shadows on the people and blend the sun with your flash units.

 

Even the top of the line Canon and Nikon strobes are only good for fill on full power to about 8 feet. Actually this is the reason I've selected using Quantum flash units. The X series allows you to use 400 watts of blistering raw power. hehe I get excited about raw power! It reminds me of the TV series Home Improvements!

<p>Heh. Good work on the digital fill then. Now I am looking for it, I don't see catchlights in the eyes. In which case, decent job on your PP work.</p>

<p>I looked at 23, which in general I would like, but I do agree, this one is neither strong enough to be significant, not placed at a meaningful enough point to make it included as a feature. However, I like that you tried it and would encourage you to do more of it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i love pic 20! well done.</p>