Jump to content

I Did My First Wedding....A Few Pics


steve_elms

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi all! I just did my first wedding this past weekend and wow, did I ever learn a lot! The event was spread over about 12 hours, so it was a long day.....A few things I learned:<br /> <br /> 1. More memory cards!!! I had 8 gig and it was not enough (thankfully I brought my laptop to offload the images)<br /> 2. Check for permits! We got kicked out of one of the photo spots because we apparently needed a permit to shoot there<br /> 3. Get more comfy shoes<br /> 4. Take more pictures of group shots (ie 3 or 4 in a row) as it seemed there was always one person with their eyes shut<br /> 5. I need to take more time positioning people and props (ie bouquet) to minimize harsh lighting and improper placement.<br /> <br /> Anyways, here's a few of the pics...Any critisisms are welcome (I know I have lots to learn):</p>

<p><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si1zA5spRBI/AAAAAAAADPE/BFbEVl7T4fU/s800/Davis2009-069.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /><br>

<img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si1zAwmeZ1I/AAAAAAAADPA/t5pjZDYUDrQ/s800/Davis2009-066.jpg" alt="" width="319" height="480" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si12t6TujAI/AAAAAAAADPo/SNpaKAtKJmM/s800/Davis2009-086.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si1zH3G-mrI/AAAAAAAADPg/wD0JRQtFfVw/s800/Davis2009-151.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si1zH8dy7EI/AAAAAAAADPY/Gyvj9qPhi_A/s800/Davis2009-131.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si1zAyvxNBI/AAAAAAAADPM/n6q9HRwK9Go/s800/Davis2009-082.jpg" alt="" width="319" height="480" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si1zA9Lag3I/AAAAAAAADPI/5DMjz51o1TA/s800/Davis2009-073.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si1zH2lOy9I/AAAAAAAADPU/ZCGxSZudlXY/s800/Davis2009-115.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si1zHzbAgkI/AAAAAAAADPc/sFx5UHrbKqc/s800/Davis2009-144.jpg" alt="" width="439" height="480" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/SjBLGgmVjqI/AAAAAAAADQQ/odRL3ZFDFaQ/s800/Davis2009-088.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si12t2bVIMI/AAAAAAAADPs/-KdkJMTYnZM/s800/Davis2009-104.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="492" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si12t7XGByI/AAAAAAAADPw/ZPR_fCzdG48/s800/Davis2009-081.jpg" alt="" width="319" height="480" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_0-VqpBQbn4U/Si1zA62bikI/AAAAAAAADO8/af0g-qrz_pA/s800/Davis2009-023.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="497" /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Nice captures on the expressions of the bride & groom.<br>

The cake is very nice, but looks a bit post-processed in its vibrancy. Maybe it's my monitor?<br>

For next time, fill flash or a reflector would have been a good idea on a lot of the outdoor portratis. The faces are kind of dark, and you really see the mixed natural lighting (harsh) in that shot where she's grabbing his tie. Did you have anyone assisting you (e.g. a person who could hold a reflector or slave flash)? <br>

Did you want to add "bring sunscreen" to your list?<br>

Congratulations on the gig, and keep going!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nice job! looks like you may need some work on lighting but hey, don't we all? lol.<br>

I've gotten booted out of more shooting areas than I can count. I tend to walk a bit on the wild side when I see a place that looks perfect for a shoot!<br>

Keep it up!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Jennifer,<br>

One other thing I really need to do is calibrate my monitor. The pics look ok saturation wise on mine at home, but when I viewed them from my work computer they did appear too heavy on the saturation and vibrance.<br>

<br /> I did use fill flash for the outdoor shots but I didnt seem to get it right...I used a diffusion dome and dialed down to about -2 (I guess I need more flash....would not using the diffusion dome be best?)<br>

I did not have an assistant (although I can now see the benefits of having one!)</p>

<p>Thanks again for the comments!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve--I believe this kind of thread is not allowed. Read the info under "About This Forum" on the page where the list of threads is shown, on the lower right of the screen. You need to post only one image and then provide a link to the rest.</p>

<p>I agree about the saturation--the people are way too orange. About fill flash--outside your on camera flash will struggle against bright sun as it is, but then if you add a diffusion dome, you are cutting its power even more. In effect, it is as if you weren't getting any fill on images where subject distance is greater than maybe 6-8 feet, but it varies with the focal length of lens used. A diffusion dome does nothing outside besides cut power and take a tiny bit of specular highlights down--hardly worth the cost in power cut. It's best to just use the flash with the head direct. For some of the shots, a better, shadier place would have meant you didn't have to use flash so blatantly.</p>

<p>Softening on the one soft focus shot is overdone, IMHO, and is that post work on the ocean horizon on the one where they are sitting on the log? Also seems heavy handed if so.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 5 points you make are indicative of "a first" and I think as such and from the images you posted you should be pleased. I am very glad you had a laptop - but I suggest you do not that again, it is treading very dangerously IMO.</p>

<p>Consider addressing these points also:<br>

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

<strong><em>Lighting</em></strong>: Agree lack of / control of fill light (if that's one's choice) especially "on the log" and "under the tree".<br>

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

<strong><em>Composition:</em></strong> Centre centric.<br>

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

<strong><em>Camera Mode:</em></strong> Av Mode, mostly?<br>

Set at Av = F/2.8 all the time?<br>

Is shallow DoF capture necessary in all cases?<br>

Is the Plane of Focus correct in all cases?<br>

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

<strong><em>Cropping / Framing:</em></strong> Hands and Feet - either in or out . . . but not chopped at the fingers and toes.<br>

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

<strong><em>Framing: </em></strong>Beyond the Subjects - background - should horizons etc be straight or not?<br>

And should they decapitate?</p>

<p>On the other hand in, [Davis2009-082.jpg], the lead of the architectural structure (camera top left) to the face of the Groom is good framing IMO.<br>

But the F2.8 renders the faces OoF which is kinda a waste – or at least a contradiction in the composition; as the shallow DoF choice implies the hands are target of focus the compositional focus?<br>

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

<strong><em>Camera Mode:</em></strong> choice of Av mode = F/2.8 - is vignette always suitable or not?<strong><em> </em></strong></p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Also I would like to comment more on your point 5. . . Posing / control of Posing<br>

I do not agree (in the first instance) that you <strong><em>"need to take more time</em></strong> positioning people and props (i.e. bouquet) to minimize harsh lighting and improper placement."<strong><em> . . . </em></strong></p>

<p>Rather I think you <strong><em>need to have a strategy about the procedure.</em></strong></p>

<p>There is a difference.</p>

<p>Just as one starting thought: look at all the images where there is an internal connectivity displayed by the Subject's hands <strong><em>doing something </em></strong>and then look at the images where the hands are not doing anything . . . just drooping . . .</p>

<p>Other views on this will be gained by looking at, or getting books on Traditional Portrait Posing Techniques . . . and (if we can get over the B&W Stiff Starch Glossy images and Birdsnest’s Hairstyles) . . . <strong><em>adapting the Principles of Dual and Group Portrait Posing to suit each Bridal couple and situation in 2009.</em></strong></p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>OK that's taken up my coffee break, now I gotta get back to work, what I mean is I really hope this is useful to you . . .</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Oh, also note what David did in postproduction where her makeup had run and coagulated. </p>

<p>The Bride's eyes, near / below her tear-ducts . . . Details . . . details . . . very important especially for the CU of the Bride. </p>

<p>Gotta fly . . the whips are cracking to get me back to work.</p>

<p>WW</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Overall some nice stuff. A few gentle critiques. Shot 6 and second from last, the angle of elbow is too extreme in both, let the arms drop and extend down more. Shot 8 with bride on right and guys on left, needs more story telling. Maybe have the guys look toward bride and have her rotated more toward them some, also her feet are not comfortable, I can tell from her shoulder angle. In general, for starters, have bride keep weight on rear foot and push front foot foward so that it wants to just protrude from dress line. All this, of course, can be modified many ways in due time. Also don't cut off the elbows like in that shot. Hands and arms take lots of practice, look at all the really big fashion mags and study the hands and arms carefully, look at the angle of feet and hips, especially the women. Again, overall nice. I also agree you need more fill flash, not quite enough, maybe just do some practicing alone with a friend.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Excellent feedback from everyone, thank you so much. All your points are valid and I will make my best efforts to make my second shoot better than the first!<br>

Just as an aside, the bride had little diamond-like stones glued in each corner of her eye. I wanted to capture those (perhaps a Japanese tradition???)....but they weren't coagulated tear ducts ;)<br>

And I really appreciate the feedback regarding the hands/feet etc. I will be more cognizant of that going forward!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"Just as an aside, the bride had little diamond-like stones glued in each corner of her eye. I wanted to capture those (perhaps a Japanese tradition???)....but they weren't coagulated tear ducts"<br /></em><br />Too funny....I lived in Japan for a couple of years (many years ago) and I don't think it's any sort of a tradition, maybe it's similar to the "glitter-thing" that was all the craze a few years back here in the States. Had you used a longer lens you could have come in tighter yet to prevent them from looking like icky tear ducts. Best wishes..........</p>

<p>BTW, thanks for taking the time to thank everyone for their feedback and contribution....I'm amazed at how often it goes unappreciated and/or ignored entirely.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong><em>"Oh, also note what David did in postproduction where her makeup had run and coagulated." </em></strong><br>

<em><strong>Withdrawn . . . oops my boo-boo!</strong></em><br>

<br>

Well colleagues, just chuck me in the jumbo wash then the cold rinse cycle and hang me out to dry: it is 9 degrees Cel. here today; that should fix my little red wagon and knock all the <strong ><em >assumptions</em></strong> out of me. . . <br>

<br>

In all honesty I was going to mention this in my post and I decided not to 'cause I thought it was picking nits, considering the points I had already contributed . . . and when I saw David's alternative image I had to make a comment. <br>

<br>

Thank you for making the point so graciously, Steve.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve: re: Hands...</p>

<p>Just tell yourself to "move hands higher" ... generally it's Very Helpful in most situations to move the hands higher which disallows them just hanging to the side where they have no "involvement" in the pose. "High Hands" can lead to artful and creative posing.</p>

<p>Hand(s)s can be to the cheeks (those on the face and those in the hip area), shoulder, waist, forearm and so on ... once you get the concept of watching the hand placement a lot of the other things will happen for you. Heck, get them up into the air in Celebration for a fun shot! Every shot does not have to be a winner but if your posing creates smiles and laughs then the next shot may very well be the winner.</p>

<p>You will then "see" the different body placements possible ... the first thing I instruct a couple on in the engagement session is "high hands" ... I'll actually say it a few times and you can see them "get it" and then you start working the body positions. If you look at your favorite photographers you'll <strong>generally</strong> see hands are high in the frame. No ridgid rules here but a general item that is a good starting place.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve,<br>

In my opinion, your images are way too soft in general. I see where you might want that look here and there, but this appears out of focus. I'm not sure if you're hand holding where you should have tripod, using too large an aperature or what.....-Aimee</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As we say in the south, dang good photos !!! be careful on closeups, do photo at a wide angle, will distort face. Also slightly turn the face to prevent the straight on photos. Watch exposures, Looks like you had plenty of time to shoot at various locations. I always run out of time to get those special shots.<br>

Good for a 1st wedding, seen work of veterans that is not this good,,,</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Again, thanks for the comments and feedback everyone. I think the "sharpness" is off on these pics as the ones Ive attached here have been resized to a very small size (30KB) for the purpose of posting on the net. The actual photo's are much clearer / crisper when viewed at actual size (although I do agree with the soft focussed shots and the fact that my aperture could have been upped a bit).<br>

The feedback about the hands and positioning is great and I plan on spending more time learning that part for sure.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I can believe it. It was an honest mistake. We humans make those, from time to time: even very experienced Professionals with a keen eye and lots of flying hours up behind a camera slip up on occasions. . . I think the error was acknowledged, and very quickly, no?<br>

<br>

What I don’t understand is unsolicited arrogance on a “Professional” Forum, it lowers the tone, IMO.<br>

<br>

"Let him without fault cast the first stone” . . . etc<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"I cannot believe the first thing you guys do is wade straight in and edit out clearly decorative objects." -Paul</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Actually, the first thing I did was comment on the exposure and suggest a longer lens. In PS, I added some sharpening, upped the mid-tones to help correct the skin, and eliminated a couple of actual minor blemishes, and then worked on what appeared to be problematic tear ducts. Had they been "clearly decorative objects" there wouldn't have been any need to work on them.</p>

<p>BTW, although I did suggest a longer lens perhaps I should have explained why. Steve, on your full frame camera, a lens in the 100mm plus area will help compress facial features, for most women and men it will give a more flattering rendering for head shots and extreme closeups.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...