Wedding Critique of the Week--Wedding Cakes!--12/6/10

<p>This week, submit your best wedding cake photo for possible critique and maybe we can all learn how to improve our cake photos. Make sure it is 700 pixels or less in width - AND - make sure to enter a caption in the caption box on that page where you've uploaded. Some details about the shot would be helpful.<br /><br />By posting - you agree to allow your image to be chosen for discussion and critique for the week. One will be chosen at random. This is not a contest - but simply an image that we'll discuss. Positive as well as constructive suggestions are what will occur. HOWEVER - IF you wish to post your image but DO NOT WANT to be considered for critique - please say so in your caption. Images that show as a link will be deleted and you'll be asked to re-post.<br /><br />Newcomers and Pros are both welcome to post in this thread. The thread will be closed late on Tuesday. Look for the choice on Wednesday. Please do not start the critique in this thread ;-)</p>

<p>This isn't my best shot, but one of my somewhat recent weddings, so it was convenient for me to post. :) Nikon D700, off-camera flash SB 800, 24-70mm 2.8 lens</p><div></div>

<p>This special cake was made by an aunt of the groom. I shot this with available light since the light had a nice quality to it. However I struggled how to present such a carefully made cake, on a fancy plate and on the other hand make an interesting photo. (The struggle was between details and artistic presentation.)<br>

Technical Details: Nikon D300, ISO 1600, Nikkor 16-85mm at 58mm, 35mm Focal length: 87mm, 1/40^th of a second, F5.3. BTW: this was a high resolution JPEG.</p><div></div>

<p>Non traditional cake for a non traditional wedding and family. Flash bounced off ceiling. 5D Mk2 Sigma 24-70 ISO 200 580ex ll f/9.0</p><div></div>

<p>I love this cake. :) Small wedding, low budget, but super fun and great details!</p><div></div>

<p>Three strobes camera right at a distance (set up on the perimeter of the college gym at sides and rear, where this cake was set up in the center, front). D700, ISO 640, f/2.8, 1/200, 70-200mm at 122mm.</p><div></div>

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> This time, since we only have 5 cake images, I am going to try again to include all in a general critique on photographing wedding cakes. I'd like to hear your thoughts on lighting and composition in wedding cake photos. To start things off, I will go first, below. Feel free to comment on all or some or one.</p>

<p>Melissa's cake image is a masterful study in composition and lighting. The use of the row of cupcakes as a linear border element is marvelous. The side lighting to pick up texture is well observed and used. The low angle to showcase the taller outline of the figurine is also well used, and the inclusion of the champagne flutes and bottle to mimic the vertical outline of the figurine is genius.</p>

<p>Rafi, I understand the problem of presentation when you have such a detailed cake and some interesting natural light. If it were me, I would have possibly had the cake moved to a place where I could control the lighting (not be battling such intense natural light) and used a much softer light, photographing from a direct side angle as well as from higher points of view. Still, if you had to leave the cake where it was, I would not have left the tilt in the image, and would have centered it.</p>

<p>Not much to criticize on your cake shot, John, except I would have cropped it square. Nice soft light to bring up dark details. All the writing is readable and the dragonflies are placed just so. I might have darkened the plate area under the writing, though, I feel it is a bit overexposed.</p>

<p>Also not much to criticize on Colleen's cake shot--love the inclusion of the environment, and sun. Don't care about the overexposed table surface, but feel the large limb just behind the cake is slightly overpowering, although it is placed in just the right relationship to the cake, if you could not do anything else, and wanted the branches as shown. The only other thing would be to possibly add dimension (to show roundness) to the cake with an off camera accent light.</p>

<p>Ian--I like what you did with this cake--it looks homemade--particularly with the background. I like OOF lights and OOF flower color swatches behind cakes. However, I am slightly bothered by the lumpiness of the surface, slight off symmetry and the table convergence. I might have gone for a more telephoto angle of view so the table corners don't show. I realize that would have cut out the OOF lights a bit. I also would have placed the cake server differently, and might have tried for a steep angle of view or flat out aerial viewpoint on this cake.</p>

<p>Nadine, when you say you would have "gone for a more telephoto angle of view so the table corners don't show," do you mean -- for that comment, anyway -- simply that you'd zoom to, say, 200mm, and step back until you got the cake in roughly the same size in the frame? Or do you mean you'd stand in about the same position and just crop using the zoom? </p>

<p>I could have shot down on this cake, at an angle, from a balcony-level track that surrounded the gym. I should have tried that. But I rarely see a top-down view of a cake that I like -- I'm almost always bothered by that perspective for some reason, though I haven't yet put my finger on what bugs me about it.</p>

<p>This cake was made by an amateur, I believe -- certainly not a cake shop, anyway. I suspect the lighting draws emphasis to the lumpiness of the surface. Any suggestions on how best to de-emphasize that characteristic (aside from the healing brush in Photoshop)?</p>

<p>Ian--yes, exactly, on the telephoto viewpoint. Whatever it took to give the cake more presence and cut out the background behind, although it would be great if you still have those OOF lights and yellow flowers. Sometimes, I've gone round and round the cake to find the angle at which the cake had the most symmetry.</p>

<p>As for the lumpiness, I'd probably choose not to accentuate it and be torn between showing texture in the daisies and lighting it flat so the lumpiness doesn't show. Maybe shoot from the angle with the most symmetry and light it flat, for a graphic effect, rather than a textural one (with a telephoto, of course). The graphic effect is also the reason for an aerial view.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the fact that it is home made can be endearing, lumps and all. Maybe shoot it both ways, and have texture in the detail shot of the daisies.</p>

<p>Melissa's- nicely done. My only comment would be that I would like <em>more</em> shots with the cake off center and perhaps you did this. I think the cake centered is a great "stand alone" shot. For a 10x10 album which would have a 20x10 panoramic spread, this would make a wonderful background page, but in that case I would prefer it off centered. And for all I know you did this as well.</p>

<p>Rafi's- yes, the light is all over. No matter how nice the available light is, if you can't make it work it's time to pull out the flashes! For my eye though, the available light looks like a hard spot light?</p>

<p>John's- it's OK. I am not sure bounced "helped" this image. What if we did the flash camera left from a low position, direct, and threw some long shadows <em>behind</em> the cake? More of that Halloween feel. Ideally, a grid attachment to focus the light right where we want it.</p>

<p>Colleen's- Nice shot. In this case I can't help thinking there is another shot here. With the sun as a rim light, I think we could bring exposure down and shoot from a higher angle, possibly to the right a bit, so that all we have are trees in the background. This darker background will allow the sun to rim light the cake for a more dimensional effect.</p>

<p>Ian's- I think I might have moved camera right a bit. I am trying to "see" more of the flowers beside the cake and the lights behind the cake. I think this might also de-emphasize the flaws in the fondant as I imagine they put the best face forward on the cake. This would have also been a tad flatter lighting but certainly NOT on camera flash flat. And the lights behind would give it depth.</p>

<p>Here are two other views of the cake: one in which I pulled the bouquet around -- I can't remember why, but most likely I did it to hide some of the imperfections in the cake. The second shows the "front" (i.e., audience-facing) side of the cake, and in looking at it, I realize why I didn't emphasize that angle -- the cake looks like it's about to make a break for it. :)</p><div></div>

<p>"Front" view.</p><div></div>

<p>Ian's second image with the bouquet in front of the cake (first image above on this page) is my favorite here. Rafi's image could have been improved with some sort of a scrim to block the strong direct sunlight which blows-out the highlites in the whites of some of the cake & table cloth.</p>

<p>The alternate wedding cake makes a bold statement :-) I think some selective cropping and adding some digital fill to even-out the vignette would look better. I've tried a quick PS version below to illustrate:</p><div></div>

<p>First of all, I am grateful for all the comments.<br>

1) The lighting was not natural; it came from ceiling spot lights. I actually liked the effect. I think the spots had gel on them but I can’t remember now.<br>

2) I did not want to move the cake. The last thing I needed was for the photographer to drop the cake or some other catastrophe. When you are dripping camera equipment I think it is an invitation to some kind disaster. Take you camera off and some little kid will poke it and drop it. It is not so easy to always think on your feet but I think these things are a real possibility.<br>

3) Tilt: I see it now. It could have been fixed.<br>

4) Camera angle: I tried and did other shots. I also realized there was a limit to how many cake pictures would be interesting. As I went to a higher angle I lost side details. This was my best compromise.<br>

5) Changing the lighting. I had flashes. The cake was in the wedding hall only a bit to the side. I had to shoot it as guests were arriving. I had to work fast or miss reception photos and I knew that later I the cake would be surrounded by guests sitting at their tables. David’s comment has given me some ideas. I think if I shot in RAW I would have more post processing control on those highlights. The advantage of the strong light, I believe, was to make the cake details more dramatic.<br>

As I review all this, I realize why I like shooting weddings. They move fast. It’s a real challenge to make good photos and work fast. Lots of decisions have to be made on your feet and under pressure to get the shots before it’s too late. Never mind dealing with tricky camera equipment, the demands of the couple, their families and the guests. And all this time trying to be polite, un-obtrusive and get the shots. After the affair there are no excuses if you don’t cover all aspects of the event.</p>

 

<p>Rafi, I don't think anyone suggested that you move the cake, I too would rarely move one but will occasionally. The primary light source in your image is from a single source and if it is a spot light that is mounted to the ceiling it must be quite a ways away because it's throwing a shadow that would indicate that it is at about a 30-45 degree angle to the cake. My preference would have been a scrim to block the direct light and then either shoot with just the available ambient light or use flash by bouncing the light off the ceiling. It's true that weddings happen in real time but with experience it's not that difficult to make difficult lighting situations work. When shooting a white wedding cake, direct flash or any strong directional light of any type is likely to blow-out details of the cake texture. The image I've added below introduces a secondary lighting challenge via relatively strong backlighting coming through the window. Here one needs to bounce the flash off the ceiling to preserve some details in the cake and balance the shutter speed to preserve some details and color in the stain glass windows directly behind the cake. I shot this in jpg and metered via the camera histogram & LCD blinkies, shooting at a couple of different shutter speeds to provide a bracketing (of sorts) to the exposure. </p><div></div>

<p>David;<br>

I see what you mean about not moving the cake. That window is more interesting than the cake. I am looking into a folding scrim to put in the trunk of my car for next time. In this case, the ceiling was very high and black! So the bounce option was out.<br>

However I would like to say, from journalistic point of view… the whole hall was lit with these spots from above. So in fact this picture also captures the mood of the wedding. While I did blow out some of the white of the cake and the tablecloth, I did capture the colored flowers and cake decoration / details. Also the details of the brass plate are there as well as the lace table cloth.<br>

Regarding ‘blowing out the whites’ … I would like to throw out an idea here… frankly there is not always so much interesting going in a white table cloth or the white of the cake. I might throw out the idea that in a high contrast situation, loosing details in the white is not the end of the world. In your photo, you did have a real challenge with light pouring in from a window right behind the cake. You handled it well although I bet with the cake on the side you probably could tackle the cake during the entrée or dinner. </p>

 

<p>Rafi, I'll typically shoot the cake upon arrival at the reception hall if it's available. That way, if anything should happen to it, I've already got the shot. However you do have to be careful, sometimes the topper hasn't been put in place at that time so you may need to repeat the detail shot later with the top on. Looking at John's cake shot leads me to wonder.....the Burton-esque bride & groom figurines look like they may have been intended as cake toppers, at the last minute they may have decided the top of the cake was too small to place them there, or they may have placed them on the top later before the cake-cutting was done, or perhaps they knew the cake was on the smaller side and decided to place them on either side of the cake as pictured by design....I donno.</p>

<p>In the absence of an actual manufactured scrim, you can always grab a groomsman, have him take off his jacket and stand/hold the jacket in a position which will block the light...use whatever is handy.</p>

<p>David;<br>

Yes that is a problem with food like cakes. You think do it later… and you find the caterer has started cutting it up! Anyway I have these folding reflectors with a wire. So I will look for some scrims like that. It’s probably easier and faster to go to your truck than start improvising.<br>

Johns cake is certainly interesting and the tablecloth too. No problem blowing out whites! I think I would have shot it with telephoto, wide open aperture, to capture the ghastly figures head on. Again this is something you would spend an hour on in a studio. But in a wedding you shoot this in 5 minutes or less!</p>

 

<p>Rafi, I'll grab a groomsman, or usher, or bridesmaid, or FOB/FOG to serve as scrim helper and get the shot before you get to your truck..... In a wedding this shot take less than 90 seconds.</p>

<p>David, I love the color of the cake and stain glass window but the background seem a bit busy thats make the cake disappeare. but I love the lighting here.</p>

<p>I was mostly concerned about the framing and I wanted to have everything in focus because it was such an unusual cake, I framed it as tightlly as I could as I knew I would loose DOF as I moved closer. There were floor to ceiling wood cabinets on the left but a white wall on the right. I could have turned the flash head to the right and bounced off the wall which maybe would have created more drama and some shadows. Thanks for the critique everyone. It was a fun wedding.</p>

<p>John, I understand that you said the flash was bounced off the ceiling but to my eye, I'm confused about the quick light drop off to the rear area of the cake and the brightness in front of the cake......</p>