Wedding Critique of the Week 3/22/10

<p>This week's image was taken by Brenna L.</p>

<p>This is Part 2 of Wedding Photo of the Week. You can see all submissions in the thread with that title.In your critiques - include what you would do to improve the shot or why the shot is perfect as it is.</p>

<p>Remember that this is not a contest. Sometimes an image will be a winning image and sometimes an image that needs some help. Try not to just say "great shot" but explain why it works. Or - "Doesn't do it for me" without explaining why.</p>

<p>The photographer up for critique for this week should remember that the comments expressed each week are simply "opinions" and the effort and focus of these threads are to learn and to take images to another level. There will be times where the critique is simply members pointing out why the shot works which is also a way for others to learn about what aspects contribute to a good wedding photo. In reading all critiques -- you may agree or disagree with some points of view - but remember that there are varying approaches and often no right or wrong answer.</p><div></div>

<p>I like it, and the only thing I don't like can't be changed. (her expression) I am curious why there isn't a smile or a pose, because everything else looks cool =)</p>

<p>I like the idea and I applaud the concept of using the Available Light and shooting back/side light – it gives the image character. (Noted that Flash Fill would have worked to maintain the sky, but I am assuming that Available light was a choice and I am commenting on that choice)</p>

<p>Was the lens the 50 Prime, or a consumer zoom?</p>

<p>There is noticeable CA on the pillars, seen on my monitor, even without enlarging.</p>

<p>I would have moved back a step or two and moved to camera right, just reframing and giving her a little more “space” into which to look. That would have lost a bit of the impact of the right arm, which, IMO is slightly overpowering and shown more of the Gown and Bouquet, but still keeping the train in shot and still allowed for Red (beautiful) to be pronounced from the backlighting of her Hair.</p>

<p>The left hand is slightly troublesome – if it were assisting the right hand it would also relax the right elbow, which seems slightly strained.</p>

<p>I commend the almost full profile face, combined with the half profile bust – that is an excellent combination pose (not often seen now) and I think that basic theme would be enhanced by the adaptations I mentioned above.</p>

<p>Hopefully you shot RAW – and if so you might be able to recover more of the sky, if not then maybe clone out the bits of the trees which appear as specs and perhaps consider cloning in some light blue sky.</p>

<p>I am not sure 1/100s was the correct choice – that right elbow is under strain and the subject is likely to move as a result.</p>

<p>Also I would like to know about the lens . . . as I do think you would have a made cleaner image at F/8 – certainly I would expect less CA.</p>

<p>Shooting at ISO 400 would have given you more (better) choices. I am assuming your camera can manage ISO400 to a good 16 x 20 print – but I have not used that model camera.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>This is another case where I'd like to see some fill light to bring out the whites of the gown. An exposure that avoids blowing out the sky and the back area of the dress would have been nice. I suspect that the sun might have been low enough to move the bride two steps away from the camera (into the direct sunlight) facing into the light and fill flash wouldn't have been needed at all. Below I did some usual tweaks and added some digital fill to bring out the face and dress. Thanks for sharing.</p><div></div>

<p>I really don’t find the composition exiting, rather boring. Her blown out back bothers me. To me there’s must be something more to do with those pillars. The color of her skin looks touched up. All and all she’s not on the spot, I would take a picture of her.<br>

It’s all IMO of course.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2223148">William W</a> - from the EXIF data it appears that the 50/1.8 was used.</p>

<p>I ran across this thread by chance and I am not a wedding photographer. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be happy with this shot. It starts with the blown out highlights on the dress and arm (not to mention the sky), and the unruly background to the camera left. Though she is not positioned dead center - it feels like she is - but still with too little space in front. I might have tried to move her forward and to the camera right and only get the row of columns on the right as a background - not knowing the location, I don't know if that would have been possible.<br>

Also, I wish she was smiling and had not clenched her left hand into a fist. I do like the pose with face in profile and body turned towards the camera.</p>

<p>Hey guys! Thank you so much for taking the time to critique this picture :) I will include what I used so ya'll will know. I used a Nikon d80 with a 50 prime. Shot this picture at 100 ISO and 2.8. I exposed for her skin...I did intend to use natural light since I only had the camera body itself. I didn't have a reflector at the time or a flash. Though the next picture I post within the next couple of weeks...hopefully I'll have made an improvement since i've bought a reflector (love it!! ) and have the use of a flash.<br>

Theresa- I completely understand where you're coming from. She isn't smiling and her form is kind of tight because of 2 reasons. She wanted a serious face picture and it was FREEEEEZING. I had to touch up the skin because she had goosebumps so bad. She wanted the pictures taken in this area and outside. So maximum time I had from her was about 15-20 minutes. That's how cold it was. haha.though i love smiling brides...after all it's a happy day right?<br>

WIlliam- Can you explain to me how fill flash would have maintained the blue sky? I'm still in the learning processes of photography though I've been doing it quite a while.Yes the lens is a 50 mm prime and what is the "CA" you said you saw? I don't know what that means (I'm kind of embarrassed I don't know the basic terms though I understand from experience you know?) and I will DEFINTELY remember the tips about the posing. I can see how that would have made the pose better and look more comfortable.<br>

David- How would I have exposed for the sky AND her skin? I haven't got the hang of that yet. If you could send me some info on that. It would be extremely kind of you.<br>

Eddo- This isn't the only picture I took there. I have others with her doing different things by the pillars. I just chose this specific one to (hopefully) be critiqued I'm sorry you didn't like it. of course you are entitled to your opinion and that's why there are photographers out there who do different types of work. The back isn't completely blown out for you can still see details. Anyhoo...thanks for the input!</p>

<p>dieter- we must've posted at the same time. You are are right about the 1.8. My bad...whoops. As for moving her forward and to the right, wouldn't have worked because there was a parking lot with a road going through it right on the other side of the columns. Thank you for your input. I really appreciate it :)</p>

<p >Brenna --</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I like this shot, but as others stated, a soft smile would have been nice. I believe *CA* that William W. is referencing is *<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration">Chromatic Aberration</a>*, I didn't see any but it just may be my untrained eye?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I offer my take on your great shot, I think if you were to crop it as I did, you wont have much issues with the sky (which I added some blue) and the pillars still make a great impression. I also toned down the brown and adjusted the black. You can adjust the color saturation in your camera to help with this area.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Best Regards,</p>

<p >Jack</p>

<p > </p><div></div>

<p>Brenna, the photo file data reports that you took this at f/4.5 and not f/2.8. If you watch your histogram closely you can adjust the exposure to preserve your highlights by increasing your shutter speed or choosing a higher aperture. To really nail this shot you would have needed a reflector placed fairly close to the bride in front of her to bounce some light back towards the dress. Direct flash from the camera could have added the needed fill and an advance technique would involve off camera lighting placed near where a reflector would have been positioned.</p>

<p>Brenna,<br>

I like this shot... I always put myself in the brides shoes and if I were this bride, I would like this picture. The blown highlights do not bother me at all. I like how you used the sun to light the back of her hair. Sure the face could have been better, but it's not bad. The clenched fist is the only thing that really needs to be cloned. I would also add a warming filter.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4462378532_60f9dcf3c4_o.jpg" alt="" width="469" height="700" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>This isn't the only picture I took there. I have others with her doing different things by the pillars</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be a good photographer has a lot to do with selecting the right image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that's why there are photographers out there who do different types of work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As you said so yourself "still learning" you haven't developed a "style" yet, You're confusing different styles with good and bad images. This image has no vision IMO. Of course every wedding photographer has average images that simply tell the story of the day. But you selected this specific image (your main task as a photographer) to be to top of the crop.</p>

 

<p>The main improvement would have been to face the bride into the sun. This would have had a nice slenderizing effect while emphacizing her face. Then front fill at -1.7 stops.</p>

<p>Jack- I like your version of the picture.The final print ended up looking like that crop since I had left room for it. Thanks for the tips<br>

David- next time I will change the shutter speed or aperture to see how that works for me. As I had stated earlier, I didn't have a reflector, though at the time I was wishing very hard that I did have one :) Thank you for your help.<br>

Missy Kay- the bride loooooved this picture which is the main reason why I chose this picture. I was curious to see what anyone would have to say about it. She noticed the lighting in her hair and loved how the blown out parts of the dress made her look a little thinner.I agree about the clenched fist and it didn't occur to me to use a warming filter. I like that. Thank you Missy :)<br>

Ed- I selected this image because the bride chose this picture to be displayed at her reception. I don't consider this to be the absolute best one I ever took. I don't have any "style" . I shoot how I feel the person IS. Next week, I'd like to see you post a picture to see your "style" I'm real curious :) Thanks for your honesty<br>

Steve- I purposefully didn't put her in the sun for 2 reasons. I didn't want to completely blow out her dress and I didn't want shadows over her face and chest. I didn't know how to meter for the skin, dress and sky all at once. Thanks for your input. I'll apply this next time I go out for pix.</p>

<p>I kind of don't get the pose. The very first thing I notice the instant I look at the picture is the fact that she's looking straight off to her left. What is she looking at? It kind of looks less pensive than a shot where the photographer said "hey, look off to your left". I might have had her look a little more forward and a little bit down, perhaps at her bouquet or part of her dress. I like it otherwise, with the golden light on her hair. The sky doesn't bother me and I think a direct fill flash could have ruined the picture if used improperly.</p>

<p><strong><em>"WIlliam- Can you explain to me how fill flash would have maintained the blue sky? I'm still in the learning processes of photography though I've been doing it quite a while.Yes the lens is a 50 mm prime and what is the "CA" you said you saw? I don't know what that means"</em></strong><br /><strong><em>"I believe *CA* that William W. is referencing is *<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration" target="_blank">Chromatic Aberration</a>*, I didn't see any but it just may be my untrained eye?"</em></strong><br /><strong><em>"from the EXIF data it appears that the 50/1.8 was used."</em></strong><br /><strong><em>"needed a reflector placed fairly close to the bride in front of her to bounce some light back towards the dress. Direct flash from the camera could have added the needed fill and an advance technique would involve off camera lighting placed near where a reflector would have been positioned."</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

Sorry for the delay, I am a bit hectic here.</p>

<p>Thanks, Jack.<br>

Yes CA is Chromatic Aberration. I was using a large monitor and it is easily seen at the Pillars – the blue edge (See below x4 enlargement).</p>

<p>Dieter, thanks also. I only had a quick look at the shooting specs, not the full EXIF DATA.</p>

<p>David S – Yes. For clarity: My reference to Flash Fill in my initial comments was indeed referring <em>to ONE ONLY off camera Flash, banged into the Bride’s Face. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I reckon of we used a Reflector to do the Job a GOLD reflector would be Yummy.</p>

<p>Brenna, re the question about Flash Fill (or a reflector) allowing the sky to be maintained – I explain it this way.</p>

<p>Just pretend you are there and you meter for the Bride’s Face – which you did – you have F/4.5 @ 1/100s @ ISO100 . . . and the sky blew out, Why? Because it is overexposed and was BEYOND the DYNAMIC RANGE of your digital sensor.</p>

<p>So if you bang in some Flash on her face, (i.e. ILLUMINATE the FACE and then expose for that face . . . maybe +2 stops worth. . . then you get F/9 @ 1/100s @ ISO100 which is pretty darn close to the “F/11 rule for 2hrs before sunset” so I reckon that your sky would be safe and within the DYNAMIC RANGE of your camera and even you could restore the blown arm etc.</p>

<p>Also at F/9 I guess the CA would be better -also if you had a filter on that lens, I suggest you remove it I note the CA is worse with a UV filter on many of my less expensive lenses - and the more expensive also, but that is mainly the wide - the EF24L, esepcially. </p>

<p>Does that make sense?</p>

<p>WW</p><div></div>

<p>I agree that the CA was the result of a UV (or other filter). I finally stopped using UV filters and it's been one of the best decisions I ever made. </p>

<p>Personaly I like the shot alot. The CA does not bother as much as the highlighted edge eating the edge of the pilar away. I can also understand that it would be almost imposible to see notice the CA or the highlight eating the edge of the pilar until after the photo taken and as we are photographing a bride not the building I can live with both quite easily. I do feel that the bride is the wrong side of the centre line. It does not spoil the photo by any means but I feel the photo would look better if she was not over the centre line. The blown out sky does not bother me as it is not a large part of the scene but I would have personaly used some fill flash to lift the shadow side of the brides face. I like the design of the photo. I like the diaganonal shadow lines with the pilars and how they contrast. I personaly feel it would make a great monochrome image so I have uploaded a version that I feel builds on the strengths of the image.</p><div></div>