Wedding Critique of the Week 8/1/11

 

<p>This week's image was taken by Maira Sharron.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><strong> </strong></p>

 

<p><strong>Maira's Notes:</strong> This was from a trash the wedding dress session from Saturday night. Canon 7D, 24-70L @ 34mm, F 5.0, 2.5 seconds, ISO 2500.</p><div></div>

<p>It is very nice work, has the mood. Only thing I notice is the over exposure on her left arm which caused her arm looking very thin like an alien. If you can tone down the yellow on her arm and hopefully bringing back some details.</p>

<p>Wayne Lam</p>

<p>It's not sharp.....and this shot needs to be. The light is overdone....and this has given us a bride with a pipestem lower arm, no hair detail, and, again, it is not nearly sharp enough where it needs to be sharp. The rock needs to be sharp to provide an edgy contrast with the smooth flowing water. Why isn't it?<br>

The slow shutter works fine for the water, but the bride needs better lighting to even be recognisable to other than her friends...not so easy to do, but thats why clients hire pros in the first place.<br>

Lastly....and <strong>NOT</strong> a criticism.....I personally loathe the whole <em><strong>"trash the dress"</strong></em> concept.<br>

Regards, Robert</p>

<p>This is a beautiful shot. It makes very effective use of composition, color and light to create a dynamic image. I think the lack of sharpness is a minor issue an only important to camera technicians, because that's all they can see.</p>

<p>Maira gets wedding photography in 2011 and will make more consistently solid, interesting images as she develops. It's a shame that this forum has turned into the Zuga Board reincarnate with a bunch of patronizing middle aged guys (I'm 57.) who book as many as Gary Fong.</p>

<p>Very well composed, interesting shot.</p>

<p>For me it conveys the mood of the bride, dressed, and going over the roller coaster ride of her wedding day before destroying the dress that was meant for that one and only day.</p>

<p>The lack of sharpness, for me, does not take away from the image, (and is easily explained by the 2.5 sec exposure, ISO 2500, and either Canon's in-camera NR or some other NR software.)</p>

<p>The fact that the bride was the only one there, and that this photo will be displayed, (hopefully), in her own house should be enough to let everyone know who it is sitting on the rocks. Again, I dont think it takes away from the image.</p>

<p>My final thought for Maira is to look at some of Marcus Bell's work, especially his "wedding-scapes" when attempting a shot like this. You can't tell who the bride is in most of those shots and he's rated as one of the top 10 wedding photographer's in the world. Forget the nay-sayers and listen to the people that matter the most...your clients.</p>

<p>Great work, and keep shooting~<br>

RS</p>

<p>Nice shot. wish it was mine. <br>

Good luck, take care.<br>

Al</p>

<p>It is an interesting shot, <em>but (!),</em> the blurred bride doesn't do it for me. Marcus Bell knows how to use the wide angle for sure, however I don't think I have seen a shot where the bride is blurred! And yes, the 2.5 second shutter is the technical problem with the shot. While there would be many approaches to this shot, for some reason I keep hearing Joe McNally in my head saying this is a job for small flashes. So, what if the bride is on the lower rock, the one closer to us, and we keep the lantern on the higher rock where it is. Throw a gelled speedlight behind the lantern (of course you would need a radio trigger) and now we can "freeze" the bride. </p>

<p>I like the shot. Sure it's a little blurry and the noise distracts but it has potential. With a little post work on the raw file it would've looked very nice I think.</p>

<p>Flash would have killed the mood but a couple of shots from a tripod with different exposures and then some blending in post would have probably worked great.</p>

<p><em>PS. The original image has no embedded color profile so I assumed sRGB in my version. I wasn't there so who knows what the sunset looked like :-)</em></p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for your collective wisdom. This was one of those shots that I am on the fence about. That's why I posted it. I wanted to see what the reaction to it would be. The high ISO combined with the longish exposure, I knew, would be difficult to pull off. I others at lower and higher ISO and this was probably the best combo that I could work with. In hindsite I would have pulled the lantern a little further away from her so that the light may have been softer, and separation of her from the lantern more significant. </p>

<p>Since this was a trash the dress session, I wasn't up against the expectation of a typical portrait session. This couple allowed me the flexibility to try a couple things I've been wanting to try - mainly to create some ethereal photos.</p>

<p>Since the harshest critique came from Robert Cossar, I'll address it directly:</p>

<p>Robert Cossar said: </p>

 

<p><em>It's not sharp.....and this shot needs to be. </em><br>

<em> </em>That was the plan. </p>

<p><em>The light is overdone....and this has given us a bride with a pipestem lower arm, no hair detail, and, again, it is not nearly sharp enough where it needs to be sharp. The rock needs to be sharp to provide an edgy contrast with the smooth flowing water. Why isn't it?</em> </p>

<p> Probably because of my shutter speed and high ISO and also, since the tripod was in sand, I'm sure that wasn't helpful. </p>

<p><br /><em>The slow shutter works fine for the water, but the bride needs better lighting to even be recognisable to other than her friends...not so easy to do, but thats why clients hire pros in the first place.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Really? My goal with this portrait was to create a mood and maybe to make someone pause and wonder about it. It wasn't to provide her with the standard portrait. She has plenty of those. Are you opposed also to silhouettes? Re your comment about why clients hire pros -- this kind of photo is the very reason why my clients hire me. Really. That said -- I am not claiming this is an excellent photo. However, I do at least try to create something that has an artistic bend to it. I don't always succeed. This doesn't mean I'm going to crawl back to safe. I keep on trying.</p>

<p><br /><em>Lastly....and <strong>NOT</strong> a criticism.....I personally loathe the whole <strong>"trash the dress"</strong> concept.</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<em> </em>

<em> </em>

<p>This was my first and most likely will be my last, since I only have six more weddings this year and my career as a wedding photographer is done. That said, it was far and above my favorite photo session to date. Great couple -- and I actually had the time to try new things without them worrying about getting specks of dirt on their clothes.</p>

<p>I love a good harsh critique - and you didn't disappoint.</p>

<p>I could have used my off camera flash -- I brought it with me. As I was about to reach for it, I had this sudden thought to just leave it in the car. I decided instead to look for the light that was available, aside from the 580EXii that I had on my camera. I already knew I was going to use the lantern for a couple shots. I knew that it was approaching sunset and that I could get some good natural light for the other shots. </p>

<p>All that said -- I decided to rework the post on that photo. Originally I edited it using Topaz Adjust to bring out the color and some detail lost in the shadows. I recently bought an editing program called DxO Optics which did an outstanding job in sharpening and reducing noise of the reception photos at my last wedding. I decided to give this photo another go using that program-- and then added 25% Topaz Spicify. Here it is:</p>

<div></div>

<p>Maira....I respect your reply....and your unique vision. Yet my reply was MY response to the image...my opinion, if you like. I pointed out some things, and I don't change any of my remarks, because they make sense coming from ME.</p>

<p>It does no good to say that... "<strong><em> since the tripod was in sand, I'm sure that wasn't helpful. "</em></strong> is a poor reason for unsharpness....you are the pro.....you don't put tripods in sand!</p>

<p>I like to creat artsey images too.......but, for them to work, there is usually a LOT to do setting up the technical parametrs so the whole thing can work<em><strong> as visualised...... </strong></em>The rocks really need to sharp.....but because of your technique, they are not sharp. A predictable result of not using the tripod carefully.</p>

<p>The lighting on the bride should have been done with small flash units and maybe a couple of reflectors....hard to be precise without having been there.....If that had to be done separately, then dropped in later, then that's how it should have been done....professionally. In that way you would get your image as it <strong>could look</strong>, not as it does look....thrown together in a hurry.</p>

<p>This <em><strong>might</strong></em> have been the image for a Magazine cover.....but it isn't because although the concept is lovely.....the execution falls far short of pro standards...... Regards, Robert..</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Robert, yes, putting the tripod in sand isn't the best, but sometimes you do the best you can with what you got. If I knew I was going to have to do that same type of shoot in loose sand, I would have brought a hard flat surface to put my tripod on to keep it from sinking. I think this is one of those rare occasions when a modified HDR could really have done some good. Have her hold the pose, get the shot with the wireless flash, to capture some details, and drag the shutter for the ambient. Then take the shot again with the flash off. Take these two images and layer them in photoshop. Drop the opacity of the flash layer. Create a mask for the flash layer and brush in the detail on her as needed. I do agree that I'd like to see the rocks a bit crisper. I'm a huge fan though of accurately capturing the colors of the light cast from things like candles or that lantern. So you have to really be careful when setting up the flash that it isn't over powering. Just enough to get those details and freeze any slight motion she made.</p>

<p>Robert, I respectfully disagree with you regarding lighting. Though this image may not adequately demonstrate that, I believe it is wholly possible to get the image that I visualize without setting up extra flash units and reflectors. The lighting on this photo is exactly how I imagined prior to taking the shot. Had I to do it over again, I would have placed the lantern a little farther away from the subject. The ISO/shutter speed/tripod is another matter. Meh. This image was more for me than it was for them. Therefore, I'm not despondent about it. I'll try it again -- not with a bride -- but I'll try it again.</p>

<p>I'll throw in my own follow-up... I don't see how flash would have ruined the mood? CTO the flash, put it behind the lantern and that pretty much solves all of the problems <em>and</em> retains the mood. Moving the bride down to the other rock also positions the lantern more on her face. I'm not sure why you can't use a tripod in the sand? Obviously, you want to make sure you are stable, but I have "planted" a tripod in the sand before. If in doubt, use some sort of remote trigger/timer. As far as the lighting goes, lets face it: there isn't much. I mean ISO 2500 (!) and a 2.5s shutter @ f/5 pretty much tells us that. And even using fast glass might not have done the trick. f/1.8 glass would have gotten a shutter speed of 1/20th- still dangerously slow, but better. And then you could always do a burst of shots and one is bound to be sharper. The only thing a reflector might do is maybe lift some shadow. It isn't going to be able to provide the key light this shots needs. An HDR blend <em>might</em> be possible with faster glass but again, the issue would still be getting the bride sharp. So for me, the fastest, easiest solution: move the bride down, CTO the flash, put the flash behind the lantern and all is good!</p>

<p>Re: Tripod in sand comments-It's not hard to do, and it's not "unprofessional" to do so. You set your rig, apply a little downward pressure until it's stable under it's own weight, and use a remote trigger, wireless or cable. Unless you're working in the rushing water's edge, or quicksand-this method will work just fine.</p>

<p>Randall.....<strong>obviously </strong>this method will <strong>not </strong>"work just fine". Professionals are expected to know how to use their tools<strong> competently. </strong>You use the tripod to avoid camera movement.....you don't just shove the thing in the sand then lean on it a bit, and hope for the best. You anticipate what might go wrong and then use your professional knowledge and gear and skill set to <strong>avoid </strong>things going wrong.</p>

<p>The concept of 'professionalism' seems commonly misunderstood on many forums, but none more that the Wedding Forum. Perhaps we might benefit from a forum just about "Professionalism", what is IS, and what it sure as shootin' is NOT. </p>

<p>Robert, the method works. period. The remote release is the second part to that equation, or did you miss that point? You're right though-It's not about hoping, it's about knowing, and I'll leave it at that. Lighten up. It's about using techniques properly to bring home the image, no more, no less. </p>

<p>Randall.....we are invited here to give a critique. We are not invited here so we can "lighten up".</p>

<p>So, maybe we need a second weekly wedding critique forum for people who want to not feel bad when valid critical matters are pointed out.</p>

<p>Your remote release is totally irrelevant to the picture being discussed......the unsharp rocks are due to slow tripod failure during an extended exposure time.....nothing whatever to do with remote releasing. Concentrate on the things which DID and DID NOT happen to cause the issues identified. Remote release had no part in this scenario at all...</p>

<p>I have not read the other responses - here is my thought - I love this idea... it is composed beautifully... however, compostion is just one part of an image - clarity - angle of view - subject - all make a good image great - the challenge I have here is the lighting of the subject. It is lighting her arm and dress - not all of her - the exposure for the background is perfect but the subject needs more light - I would have given her some rim light to make her pop and hidden a flash behind the lantern to illumiate her face - you could gell these with yellow to make it look like she is being sun kissed. The subject would then POP and she would have been clearly in focus with more light as you could have adjust your shutter. So while I love this idea - I think some additional lighting would have made this an amazing image -</p>

<p>Robert. You stated that using a tripod in sand is unprofessional, a comment with which I disagree, completely. What I did was offer a method to ensure that using a tripod in the sand for this type of image would succeed in as far as the sharpness issue with the rocks is concerned. to that end using a remote release is completely relevant, because-along with MLU, it reduces the risk of camera movement caused by the shutter being manually depressed and vibration introduced by mirror slap. My guess would be that these techniques were not employed, as is evidenced by the result. The resulting image does not justify the statement that using a tripod in sand is unprofessional. </p>

<p>I agree we are here to offer critiques on images presented. I believe that being direct and to the point is a good approach as we have no emotional attachment or vested interest in any of the work presented. This does not however give us the right to question, criticize or belittle someones level of professionalism as part of that critique. To me, good sir, that truly ranks at the top of the list of being unprofessional. </p>

<p>The OP is obviously a paid, working professional and deserves to be treated as one. With something as complex as a wedding, nothing could ever go 100% as planned, no matter how well prepared we think we are or believe we should be. Sometimes DooDoo happens, we seek advice, learn from our mistakes and apply it to the next situation. That's part of what a professional does. Perhaps if we lightened up a bit on the direct attacks, there would be more than 4 images offered for critique. </p>

<p>Nice idea. Beautiful place and mood.</p>

<p>Personally, I wouldn't have introduced artificial lighting to this scene ... the light balance is obviously working as is.</p>

<p>What does happen in available light cases like this is that the warmer colors tend to go over the top in intensity compared to the moodier cools. That is a no-brainer fix if you are so inclined. Just use the selective color sliders to tame the warms a bit.</p>

<p>In this specific case I'd have gone in and brighten up her face a tad also. </p>

<p>These type of shots <em>usually</em> aren't quite the same as a wedding where you have little time and a lot to do. They tend to be more like a fashion shoot or an environmental portrait session. As such you can experiment a bit more ... which the OP seems to have done here. If you don't try new things to avoid failure, you'll never grow. Pushing your own personal envelope is what being a professional is all about.</p>

<p>If I were doing this session, in addition to this shot, I would have explored her holding the lantern up to better light her face or have had her move the lantern out away from her more. I also would have tried her standing up since this is a trash the dress session why not show the dress more? </p>

<p>Technical aspects do indeed have to be attended to. I don't get the remarks regarding use of a tripod ... stick it in the sand hard, mount the camera, and shoot (use a cable release if you want to avoid unintentional vibrations). If shooting hand-held, shoot a burst of three or more ... one of them is usually sharper than the others.</p>

<p>Here is a slight alteration. Probably so subtile nothing will even show up ... LOL! </p><div></div>

I am not bothered by Robert's harsh nature.

 

 

Here are my thoughts after reading the posts. It is possible to shoot while in sand... I did push the legs into it to

secure it... I did not use a remote trigger ... That would have improved my clarity I'm sure as would a lower iso. I

disagree about using additional lighting. Just a personal difference there. Lantern placement should have been

different to avoid alien arms - yes.

 

Im not the type of person who wants to be trudging through the sand with several pieces of equipment and boards

draping off my sweating body. I got lots of great photos with my 2 cameras. The lantern was the one extra piece of

equiPment thAt I slipped into my bag. I took it with the thought of experimenting with it. I did. Next time I go it will be

with your thoughts and suggestions in mind.

 

 

Thank you.

<p>...FWIW, another version ...</p>

<p>Sharpen, cooled down skin, noise reduction, way more sat, adjusted brightness (sky vs everything else, L-R, etc.) to try to make a path for the eye to follow from the bright sky in the upper LHC, diagonally downward to the subject, and then bounce off of the bright face of the rock in the lower RHC; a micro-Orton darken effect in the rocks to add more drama, light star to complete the over-the-top look ;-)</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

<p>Personally I've discontinued providing feedback on most of the shots in the forum because of the back & forth, tit for tat opinions, many of which lack any basis in knowledge and experience. However, I feel compelled to note that there is nothing wrong about using a tripod on a sandy beach....blaming the sand for a blurred image is ridiculous.</p>

David I appreciate you weighing in. I used to be part of a critique forum that was by far much much worse re harsh or

biting comments. It grew me a thick skin and also made me realize that if you take the words for what they are ...

Balance it with who says it... Throw in your own knowledge or experience or desires... It makes for a very informative

discourse. I hope that people don't fear asking for or giving critique no

Matter what. Experience they might have. Personally it makes me think a little harder.

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> OK everyone, I am commenting on the following.</p>

<p>1. We are not going to create another forum to discuss professionalism. If you want to start another thread about the concept as it applies to wedding photography, feel free. Otherwise, differing opinions can be expressed and left to stand on their own merits, and even argued, without implying the person expressing said differing opinion is unprofessional or lacks the 'right' experience or knowledge.</p>

<p>2. If you don't like the way these critiques (or the forum itself) work (or don't work), feel free to express your opinions to me (as Moderator) or, better yet, make <strong>reasonable</strong> and <strong>constructive</strong> suggestions as to how we can improve your experience with the forum. It is against photo.net guidelines to complain about photo.net in forums. This is not because we have a thin skin, but because complaining degrades others' experience of the forums and goes against the spirit in which photo.net was founded. Consideration for others <strong>will</strong> be upheld here.</p>

<p>3. I ask that you all read and re-read Maira's last comments. This is the way to learn from and grow from a critique experience.</p>