Wedding Critique of the Week 11/7/11

<p>This week's image was taken by Allan Armstrong.</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.<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.</p>

<p><strong>Allan's Notes:</strong> a bridal portrait from a few weeks ago, minimal processing in LR, cropped to 24x30 from 24x36, adjustments to exposure, clarity, vibrance, and post-crop vignette</p><div></div>

<p>Very pretty bride! I just had an issue with the shine, which is easily remedied. I took about 2/3 of the color out, added sepia, and softened her skin. Great shot :)</p><div></div>

<p>very nice shot indeed.....maybe a little shiny here and there, but I wouldn't change it much. Don't much care for the makeover Theresa has done.......much prefer the warmth in the original...regards, Robert</p>

<p>It is a lovely shot that I am sure the bride loves. That said, from a professional photography standpoint, the on camera flash is simply killing me. All that potential blasted away with an on camera flash. For a wedding I am pretty forgiving depending on the nature of the shoot. The package might call for a solo shooter and you may not have the time to set up every shot we would like. For a bridal portrait however... why or why the on camera flash (and don't get me started with using a GFLS)? @ 190mm, I would have been more comfortable @ ISO 400 and a shutter of 1/250th... even with VR. Below is 5-minute PS take. I added a lighting effect to try and give some directionality to the light.</p><div></div>

<p>Love the shot but I think the vignette did the image a disservice. Straight on flash is unfortunate but maybe there was no alternative.</p><div></div>

<p>I agree, the vignette was killing the shot. I like Pete S's rework :)</p>

<p>Every time I see a tightly cropped portrait with the head tilted that much, it looks like the person is ducking to fit in the photo ... like it was a box.<br>

That said, Pete's take looks pretty good/</p>

 

<p>She is a lovely bride, you have captured a good moment, her smile seems real to me. Why o why the head is tilted at such a degree is beyond me. I would tilt the whole picture just to get a horizon back. <br>

So, good moment, but I would have her straighten her neck.</p>

<p>It's a very nice concept, there are no hard/fast rules, but in general if you want a shot similar to this you need to put the eyes on a strong plane or the whole shot loses power. In this case the only way to do that is to crop. I also thought it a bit cool, so I added a bit of warmth maybe equal to an 81A. Hopefully it will upload.</p>

<p>One more thing is in my crop, the pointed index finger and her left cheek line are also now on strong planes. So hence you now have three elements running diagonally on strong planes. Yes it was a bit shiny and the flash make a weird little shadow down the nose, but this isn't that big of an issue if the composition is not at it's strongest for a head shot. Also, the angle of the head runs across the diagonal of the frame, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Or, someone please explain further.</p>

<p>Dave, I like the crop you did on my retouch. It's more to the point. Stronger.</p>

<p>Thanks Pete, I used it because I only have PSE6 on my laptop and it looked the most "user-friendly". There are a few other things to consider also, for example, the right shoulder crosses a hard angle with the hand, if you find this undesireable you can put the veil over both shoulders. Also, if you want to get more feminine with the hand you can pull it around some more toward the right shoulder and that will expose more of the fingers and have the whole hand just break back very lightly that will eliminate the cutoff stubs for fingers and give a slight feminine curve to the wrist. If you do that you want to try and keep the weight off the finger tips, they should have <em>very</em> light contact with the surface. The thumb would be up closer to the hand you don't want it to keep going behind the tree.</p>

I'm always bothered by heads being cut off and flat hands face the camera it can make the bride look a bit fat and she spent a ton of money on the veil. Why hide the veil. The hand should be gently placed so that her hand doesn't look really fat.

 

I'm being picky as usual, but these are issues that I feel can be more controlled as a portrait. The post I'm showing isn't the best but it show how the hand isn't flat looking.<div></div>

second example<div></div>