My first wedding!

<p>Hello,<br /> This is my first post but I've been constantly perusing these forums for weeks now. I have been a photographer for several years but recently (and at first reluctantly) decided to be open to shooting weddings. I have done two now, both for very close friends. This was my first, and it was unpaid. I'm still working on a website so this is just the Facebook version of the photos, but I would appreciate if you would tell me what you think I should work on next time. I'm very excited about this foray into new photographic territory and I am absorbing a LOT of information through forums, blogs, and books (including a few suggested on these forums).<br>

<br /> And like I said, this was a very close friend and it is a Facebook album for her and our friends to see, thus a few of the "silly" photos that I of course wouldn't include in a gallery or portfolio. I took about 1,800 photos during the 10-hour day and burned her a DVD with about 1,200 on it. (I know this is a lot.)<br>

<br /> I am looking for honest critique of my technique (using almost exclusively available light as I don't yet have a pro flash), posing, processing, composition...really anything you think I can work on. Anything you think I've done well, is okay to hear too. :)<br>

<br /> Thank you in advance!<br /> -Nikki<br>

<br /> www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=181911&id=504891536&l=0654feb14e</p>

<p>I thought I'd give the address of my photo blog too, in case anyone wanted to see more photos from other shoots...<br>

hownikkiseesit.blogspot.com/</p>

For a first attempt it seems very good. I suspect you may have a few hot highlights but I can't be

entirely sure as I'm not on my normal computer, and I doubt this one is correctly colour balanced. Lots of nice moments,

seems to capture the spirit of the day (which I'd say was the most important thing) and I'm sure your friends loved it.

 

No real advice for you except that (as you obviously know what you're doing as a photographer) you might want to break

out of the clichéd shot list and experiment more on how you see things. There are a few shots where you've done

something different and I like them more than the standard shots (the dip, the hanging dress etc.) which I find boring as

they're overdone as concepts. Although you did execute them well at least :)

 

The other thing is you need to figure out your visual style. It looks a little like a post processing buffet (as if you've tried

everything) and I don't get a solid sense of your creative look. It also loses consistency which would make it difficult to put

in a coherent album.

 

Great job in my opinion. I bet your next one will be really good.

<p>Nikki, some I think are very very good and creative, and others not so much. Some the focus seems a little soft (and not intentionally soft), it may be facebook's compression, I'm not sure. Some of your color treatments seem a bit gimicky. #2 with hair spray is interesting, but might be better to get her looking more natural with her face, like a reaction to it, or more genuine smile. The next one with the mirror seems more legit, but the focus leaves you wondering where to look. In this situation her eyes should be the point of focus as much as possible. I know it's hard when a person had glasses and the reflection off of them is being captured. Like the concept behind the multimirror one, but again, the focus should be on her, and not on the bottles. The dress lace up shot seems a to need a bit more contrast IMO. I get the desire for the dream like quality, but maybe doing it in a golden hugh rather than a cold tone B&W would serve you better.</p>

<p>ADORE your dress with the light behind it shot. BEAUTIFUL.<br>

The low contrast on the BW of her in the mirror, I can't tell if she's holding a lipstick bottle, a perfume bottle, but because she's not really engaging here, I wouldn't have included this.<br>

I like the concept behind #10. </p>

<p>11 of the couple laughing is GREAT. That's a real moment.<br>

12, the idea of shooting through the grass, is generally a good one, but I find it a little bit too muddy with grass, but it is supposed to be a secret kiss, so maybe that's good.</p>

<p>13 would have been good if his tie wasn't hanging down awkwardly. Always before you take shots, try to get the clothes looking the way they should. When catching genuine moments that's harder. But if you are just having them sit down, fix the tie, fix the train, etc. Photoshop out the dude with the blue bag looking on. Try to get at least one person in the shot with 2 eyes showing (even if it's the tiniest smidgen of the other eye). Makes the shot more engaging.<br>

Like the concept of the bouquet fishing rod hurrah, but the coloring is odd, and the highlights seem blown on her dress.<br>

Love 15, but again, would have tried to get his tie fixed.<br>

Love 16! very artsy. Not all brides will love it, but I like it a lot.<br>

17 I wouldn't keep at all though. Seems to have a weird hazy cast. It just feels dirty not dreamy to me.<br>

18 is a nice moment, again, a little bit of eye contact would be nice, but it works. Trying to avoid people smushing noses into faces is generally a good rule. I tend to mention it at the beginning of the shoot to try not to smash noses into faces, and to make kisses longer.<br>

19 his body is kinda eaten by the wedding dress. <br>

21 would have been a bit better if you changed your angle, and got under them, rather than getting it from the side.<br>

I like your composition for 23<br>

24 wouldn't be for everyone, but I like it a lot.<br>

25, on the other hand I am not a fan of the straight on composition.<br>

26, I like the idea of the guys holding the bouquets and like that you used levels. But don't like that the groom has a leaf in front of his face and the hole to the right of the bride. The guys should get in closer together, and slightly angle their shoulders to the camera, rather than being straight on.<br>

29 is nice composition, again not loving the muted tones, but here it bothers me less.</p>

<p>30, LOVE IT!</p>

<p>32, like a lot, would like better if that one branch didn't cover them so much and if the tones weren't so muted.<br>

34 is a really fun pose, and I give you kudos for being aware that you should seek shade so they aren't totally just white spots on the page where the sun hits them, but be mindful of your background, by putting him dead center with that tree he kinda has a ginormous green afro<br>

Love 35, would maybe try to clean up the hair outta the one girl's face in PS, but it gives it some motion.<br>

Like 36, but again, it's posed so take the time for their ties to be right.<br>

39 is GREAT. Keep doing things like this.<br>

41, I would crop down further. Maybe a horizontal crop. all that green at the top isn't adding to the composition. <br>

42. highlights are blown and soft focus on the bride and groom<br>

44. See the girl wiping her nose, at this moment you should have zoomed in, I'm assuming she's got some tears going on, showing emotion. You also are getting the groomsmens sides and not their faces. If you had gone to the left hand side and focused on the groomsmen with the bride and groom in the foreground out of focus, that would have compositionally been better.<br>

45. For vows, try to wait for that moment where you see them look up from the paper and look at each other. Wait for that reaction of eyes locking.<br>

46. Crop so the microphone isn't floating in the left side.<br>

47. I appreciate that you aren't doing the bulls eye center here with the girls, but all that space on the left doesn't add anything compositionally for me.<br>

48. I get what you are aiming here for, but with so many whispy white hairs, if I was her, I wouldn't find this photo flattering.<br>

49. Is a nice real moment, it would have been better to wait for that moment where mom is a bit more over the shoulder and you can see her whole face (or at least more of it) but still good emotion capture. I'd crop it in so that her right arm isn't chopped off as close to the elbow, I'd bring it in closer to her shoulder.<br>

53. Would be nice if she was a bit more in focus.<br>

Overall, for a first timer for a wedding, you did a pretty good job in my opinion. I'd suggest cutting out as many of the filters you seem to be doing in post, because only a few years from now they will look gimmicky. Think of how silly many of our parents feel because in the 70s they went with the frilly crevat tux even though they had the option of the classic black tie tux. Same is true with photos. Don't be ashamed of the fun shots though, those are the ones they will love for years to come.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nikki, Although you state you've been a photographer for several years....I don't see any evidence of any professional training. Most of the shots look like the typical first wedding posts and there's a number of issues from blown highlights to poor lighting and problems with post-processing. I pulled up one of your images to show the lack of optimization in post work and have a before and after posted below. 1800 images is way too many, you need to slow down and think about what you are shooting. At this point I wouldn't suggest that you worry about a "style" but rather look for an apprenticeship and search out some pro training....start at the beginning...........good luck.</p><div></div>

<p>For me it seems like alot of the images lack clarity. There seems to be some kind of strange colorcast to some of the image also. I don't know if facebook is killing the details in the images or if it is a post processing problem.</p><div></div>

David. I would love to know the steps you took for that. I think it's fabulous!

Aura, not wanting to put words in David's mouth, but what makes his version better than the uncorrected version is that it

has a full tonal range with black point and white point set correctly.

 

That's pretty much all that needs to be done for any black and white image. People who learned photography tend to

understand the zone system and know where black, white and mid-grey needs to fall. People whose experience of b+w is

based on jpgs from camera can often produce images that are too grey, with a dramatically shortened tonal range.

 

Levels and curves adjustments get you most of the way. An image with limited density may also need some selective

contrast adjustments.

 

David may also have his own special sauce.

Thanks Neil! I think that helps to get me started on a different thought pattern with my images. Never explored that area.

<p>My amateur feedback.<br>

<br />Overall, nice shots, great poses. I am just a little curious as to why a majority of the pics seem to have been run through some kind of "smokey" filter? The colors look faded and off, but it's clearly intended that way - maybe the bride wanted that?</p>

<p>i dont know if this is the case here, but when i upload any images to facebook (wedding images or even my personal photos) it does something funky with the colors. facebook adds some sort of crazy saturation or something to photos. it also gets rid of detail and compresses the files down a lot. it annoyed me so much that i stopped uploading wedding previews to my facebook page :) they looked awful so i just started linking my blog posts!</p>

<p>Thanks Aura. Images always need some adjustments in post. I use Photoshop and have some pre-set actions that I use for color runs and another for B&W runs. In the image I adjusted above, you can get very good initial results by simply using "auto levels" or "auto contrast". PS is extremely powerful software and most photographers use less than 10% of it's potential. In recent years most pros have shifted to Lightroom but I remain very comfortable with PS. It's also important to optimize images for the web by using the "save for web" command and always sharpen as needed.........for some extra presentation points, make an extra layer, enlarge the canvas by a smidge, add a small stroke and drop shadow and you're good to go (I have a pre-set action that completes the last step in less than 2 seconds). Consider joining NAPP and take a look at the instructional DVDs that they offer by Scott Kelby and others.</p>

<p>Maile, Be sure to optimize for the web & use the "save for web" command and Facebook shouldn't be a problem..............</p>

<p>Thank you, everyone, for your input. This is the first time I've ever had a real critique from professionals.</p>

<p>Neil - I think your advice about having consistency was something I really needed to hear. I am used to just working with each photo as though it were its own thing (I sell lots of art prints and such). A constancy throughout a book, for example, is something I would need to do intentionally and I had not thought of this. Thank you very much. </p>

<p>Vail - I want to especially thank you for your specific ideas on particular photos. You have given me a lot to consider! You are right, as others have stated, that I am too heavy on the processing. I definitely needed to hear that. :) I tried to keep the clothes in check throughout the shot, but it was a VERY windy day - even the chairs and altar thing wouldn't stay in place during the ceremony. Made it pretty hard. But you are 100% right! Do you have any suggestions with people with glasses? I did another wedding a week after this and had the groom remove them for most of the 'formals.' Seems to be the easiest route, however, this bride wanted them on the whole time. There's only so much you can do in PS (and I didn't try much anyways) to remove reflections and such.</p>

<p>David - thank you for your suggestion about that black and white image. Would you believe I'd intentionally wanted it to be low contrast like that? It looks foolish now, and if you believe me I'd been intending to change it to something like you suggested. :) For the record I do sell quite a bit of photographic work, not of people, but just artsy stuff, have been in shows and galleries and made thousands of dollars doing so. So I do know how to read a histogram and such, and haven't been to photo school but have still learned a lot. I am aware of blown highlights in some places, and sometimes I just choose to be okay with that. I do see lots of them in professional work and I think that it doesn't necessarily <strong>have</strong> to be the mark of an amateur, which I of course am, but just sayin'. Thank you for your criticism.</p>

<p>Stuart and Nish - about the faded/smokyness, you are correct that it is intentional, albeit perhaps misguided. Again, I am realizing that I'm a little too happy on processing, but sometimes I do like faded, lower-contrast images. So that was intentional on the ones you have noted. However, I see that your (stuart's) version looks more 'alive' than mine for sure. I do need to re-think my processes here to make it more appealing to others. I appreciate the work you did to show me that!</p>

<p>I used to use PS for all my processing and have recently switched to Aperture for a lot of it, partly because it has a good organizational element to it. Many of my photos get run through PS as well, though, as PS will always be able to do far more than Aperture. I don't like how aperture changes exposure...tends to get hot highlights much too quickly. PS's curves are far more effective and powerful. <br>

Anyways, thank you all again for your input, harsh though some of it may have been. I have a lot of food for thought here. Just makes me want to do much better next time (and use a lighter hand in post!). <br>

-nikki</p>

Nikki, in respect of glasses:

 

Most people who wear glasses tend to consider them part of their face and can take a dim view of someone who suggests

they remove them. Not sure how bad the issue of reflections is in real terms. Anyone who has bought glasses in the last

decade probably has anti-reflection coatings anyway, as they're pretty standard. It's not like the 80's anymore.

 

(Speaking as someone who wears glasses :-)

<p>Thanks Neil. The groom did offer to take his off, but the bride did not, so I didn't suggest it. Hers must not have been coated...but that's a good point about the anti glare. thanks...</p>

<p><em>"For the record I do sell quite a bit of photographic work, not of people, but just artsy stuff, have been in shows and galleries and made thousands of dollars doing so. So I do know how to read a histogram and such, and haven't been to photo school but have still learned a lot."</em></p>

<p>If your goal is professional photography then there's lots more to learn. There really isn't any shortcut from professional training and apprenticeship with an established studio.</p>

<p>Nikki,</p>

<p>I looked through your photos yesterday but did not have time to respond... in the interim DS and SM have picked up upon the issue I wished to raise – DS has honed in on the B&W and Stuart mentioned the Colour Images.</p>

<p>But many of your Black and Whites, particularly, lack a full Tonal Range and a “BLACK BLACK” and a “WHITE WHITE” . . . (as Neil mentioned).</p>

<p>This drive me nuts, but you don’t have to satisfy me I am just saying it drives me nuts when I see B&W like you have done . . . and it is the very first thing that I noticed when I viewed your images.</p>

<p>Often these resultant image types, after B&W conversions from digital files, are because of UNDER-exposure at the source and overcompensation (or mismanagement) in Post Production .</p>

<p>I think you should check that your B&W conversions technique is adequate and that you do understand the technical meaning of terms: full tonal range; white point (WHITE WHITE); and Black Point BLACK BLACK) and appreciate raison d<strong>'</strong>être and application, of same in the final image.</p>

<p>I would not have bothered to comment further and develop this point but you answered: <strong><em>“</em></strong><strong><em>Would you believe I'd intentionally wanted it to be low contrast like that?” </em></strong></p>

<p>I might be wrong . . . but it seems to me that, (particularly in some of your Black and White work), you are striving for “HIGH KEY” - and that is different to LOW CONTRAST . . .</p>

<p>Both "Low Contrast" and "High Key" Black and White images . . . begin with the <strong><em>lighting</em></strong> and <strong><em>correct exposure.</em></strong></p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>You have an abundance of talent and style, and this work is MUCH better than most. Intimate, fun and brainy: pretty much every shot is affective or conceptual or both. Love the feeling of #10. Your use of the basketball hoop as a prop made for a fun series, didn't it?</p>

<p>The low-contrast/washed-out look is idiosyncratic to be sure, but somehow I feel it works--at least for this couple. Personally, I would back off of the vignetting and some of the other post-processing to the extent that they don't over-flavor the dish. It's like salt: you need just a bit to bring the dish to life, but don't overdo it or that's all you taste.</p>

<p>Of course, not everyone will want their wedding pictures to be done this way, but as you show them a portfolio and they like it, why not? Even if this isn't what the mainstream wants, those who will like it will like it a lot and understand that they are getting something special for their money. If you want to do more weddings, I would recommend developing a couple of styles/looks in addition to the one you used in this portfolio so that you can broaden your appeal without being bland.</p>

 

<p ><strong ><em >“Your use of the basketball hoop as a prop made for a fun series, didn't it?”</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p >Ken, I pondered a long time over that. Purposeful or not? . . . growing out of his head.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“Even if this isn't what the mainstream wants, those who will like it will like it a lot and understand that they are getting something special for their money.”</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >If purposeful for the for the above, then yes I agree - hence<em >: </em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em > “but you don’t have to satisfy me I am just saying it drives me nuts when I see B&W like you have done . . . and it is the very first thing that I noticed when I viewed your images.”</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p >I am keenly awaiting Nikki’s response.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW <em > </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p>Coming from a person who had glasses for eons before finally getting corrective eye surgery (for any of you fellow people with VERY bad prescriptions, checking out the visian ICL procedure is worth some time, it isn't Lasik), anti-reflective coating on glasses is NOT standard. It is sometimes fairly expensive for people who don't have much money to be spending on their glasses. Also, if a person's prescription is really bad, having them take off their glasses I can find is worse. For my own wedding I asked my mom to either wear contacts or her glasses, but not pull the I'm just gonna put them to the side thing. This is for 3 reasons. First and foremost, if the person has a very bad prescription they're more likely to do one of 2 things that are both bad for photos: squint or not be looking at the camera. This sounds silly to those who have good or decent version, but if you are a person who had vision as bad as I did (couldn't see the big E, legally blind without glasses) this DOES happen. Second the person may set them down and lose them or have someone step or sit on them. This is a VERY not good place to be in. Lastly, if they do hold on to their glasses, now they usually awkwardly have to find a place to hold them out of the shot. So instead, have them wear their glasses, but have them tilt the backs of the stems upward above their ears a bit. This will tilt the glass forward and will produce less glare.</p>

<p>Always ask if they would prefer to have glasses on or off. If they are the bride or groom and they choose to wear them on their wedding day, it's likely that is very normal for them, and so they want them in the shot, and would take it personally that you are even suggesting taking them off. If you are seeing HUGE issues with the glare, show them the results on the LCD screen. Ask them if that's something they mind or not. If they say that's fine, then shoot away. Otherwise, try the angle trick to the glasses, try to change the angle of your flash with a bounce flash or try to work the ambient light.</p>

<p>Hi William W,<br>

You're correct...some of my images, the ones in the park, were underexposed so as not to blow out the white dress in full sunlight. I am sure there are better B&W conversion techniques I could research and I am now motivated to do so. My comment about low contrast was regarding especially the 'hands' photo posted above...there are a few other low contrast images in the collection as well. I'm sorry my photos drove you nuts. :) I'll definitely be more purposeful about preserving full tonal range in the future. Now I don't know if that was the type of answer you were looking for... :)<br>

<br />The basketball hoop shots were the B&G's idea, as were reading, fishing, picnic blanket etc. I posed them of course, but it was them who wanted their photos to simply reflect what they loved. Only one of them has a hoop coming out of his head; that is probably the lesser of the set. </p>

<p>The bride and groom did love their photos. When she showed me some other photos she liked, many were vignetted and had a kind of oldish feel to them, almost a hipster/toy camera look. So that's what I went for in some of the processing. </p>

<p>Vail, thanks for the hint about tilting the glasses!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>"Now I don't know if that was the type of answer you were looking for..."</strong></em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The <strong><em>type</em></strong> of answer I was looking for was merely a response and some dialouge - it happens not so much here, from those who post "what do you think" type questions. The bit I liked the best was this bit: <em>"I am now motivated to do so" .</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>***</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"some of my images, the ones in the park, were underexposed so as not to blow out the white dress in full sunlight."</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>These images should NOT be underexposed. They should be shot correctly exposed. If the EV range of the scene is greater than the camera's sensor's capacity, then you need to ensure the skin tones are "good to go", this often means either filling with Flash or a refector, or both - or purposefully deciding to let the Highlights blow-out, or the shadows go to black, or both.</p>

<p>*** </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>"The basketball hoop shots were the B&G's idea"</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I assumed that. I would have had the BBall pole and hoop in a different plane - and not directly behind the arrangement - the "coming out of his head" was a metaphor and refering to the whole set, I generally would not have arranged them, as you did - but I would have taken the shots of the BBall scene. becasue I was asked to.</p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em> "My comment about low contrast was regarding especially the 'hands' photo posted above..."</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I understood that. I reiterate, I think you might be searching for HIGH KEY in that shot - not low contrast?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks William. About your last question - I didn't go for high key but simply lowered the contrast control in Aperture, also (if I recall correctly) changing the "color" of the black point so it would appear lighter. Hope that makes sense. </p>

<p>In case anyone would like to see the album (facebook again, sorry) from the second wedding I shot (one week after this first one), here is the link. I was processing this set as I listened to your feedback from the first one...so while there is still vignetting and a few other 'filters,' I tried to use a lighter hand. I do feel like I've gotten my money's worth already from this thread, so feel free to ignore this. :) I definitely would have done some things differently. (The way the groom is standing in #23 is really bothering me, I know I should've had him put his hands in his pockets or something, at least.) Thanks to anyone who wants to take a look.</p>

<p>http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=183110&id=504891536&l=3d1901d150</p>

<p>You have some nice shots that show feeling between the couple. Technical issues such as flare interfere with your visual communication. I am including a before and after of one of your shots. Make friends with more experienced fellow photographers who can help you learn color management and image correction. You are off to a good start.</p><div></div>