WEDDING CRITIQUE OF THE WEEK 5/14/09 - AKA WEDDING PHOTO OF THE WEEK

<p>Marc Williams is up for critique this week. Thought we'd get into photos that are documentary style. </p>

<p>This week - we're taking on a capturing real moments and in addition to technical and aesthetic qualities - a little discussion on candid aka documentary aka photojournalism and what it takes to capture defining moments is encouraged. (What is a defining moment? Does this image capture a moment effectively? Important or not important to include photo journalistic style wedding photography in your repertoire? And why....)</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=453741">Marc Williams - Franklin/Mich.</a><br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=2393807"></a> <br /> <br /> Remember that we are giving positive and negative feedback and it is important to point to why it works or does not work for you. Include what you would do to improve the shot or why the shot is perfect as it is and why.<br /> Remember that this is not a contest. Sometimes an image will be a winning image and sometimes an image that needs some help.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I like the image, and the explanation helps carry it as a candid the bride and groom will probably look back at fondly, but I can't help but feeling the assistant is looking up her dress (I know she isn't, but...). I think this crop would make it into the album as a candid, where I think the original crop wouldn't. </p>

<p>Oh, and I bet the city-scapes were absolutely worth every "climb over."</p><div></div>

<p>Yeah, not something that's going to go on their mantle place, but a good moment for a 4x6 to put in the album. The first thing I notice is the photographer looking up her dress, but the original crop breathes better than if you cut her out imo.<br>

She looks like a lovely bride. I bet you got some good formals for your portfolio.</p>

<p>Love the moment and the saturated colors. Personally, I'd like a tad more fill, a little looser crop and framed a smidge to the right to get more of the assistant in frame.....also, a little PS to clean-up the rooftop in the lower left.</p><div></div>

<p>I would like to hear from Marc about this photo - and if what he posted is straight out of the camera - or if it's been tweaked...</p>

<p>This image captures a defining moment because it shows honest expressions from all concerned and the 'peak' of the action at the same time (the bride teetering on the ledge). Other issues become secondary and don't bother me--issues such as the rust stains on the roof, etc. Even if the image was processed less masterfully than it is, it would still be fine. Even if the lighting is direct flash, it is still fine. I can't think of anything I would do to 'improve' the shot, but as explained above, as a PJ or candid capture, you don't have control over much except when to press the shutter button, and post processing control, both of which has been done extremely well.</p>

<p>Knowing Marc, he probably cropped this image 'just so', to create tension between the leading line of the train and the claustrophobic cropping of the assistant. The assistant is an integral part of the image, IMHO. It is obvious to me that she isn't looking up the dress, but at the shoes. Without her, the image loses a bit of 'story' and emphasizes the awkwardness of the bride's position. With the assistant in, you know why the position is awkward. This isnt' so obvious with the assistant totally cropped out.</p>

<p>I include any kind of PJ or candid 'happening' I can get, but I don't exclude the basic, traditional shots in my coverage. I don't see why you can't shoot both well.</p>

<p>Stunning shot, I like it a loT!</p>

<p>this is great. fun. don't crop out the person on the right - otherwise the shot makes no sense...</p>

<p>good execution, great ambient/flash mix.</p>

<p>Don't know why, but the web upload went a touch flat ... there's a bit more sparkle to her dress in the real file.</p>

<p>What's extra fun about this situation is that Noel (who's helping the Bride) is 9 months prego and this is her last wedding with me for a little while. The Venue manager didn't want her to make the last BIG climb up, and we had to leave her behind ... but she couldn't stand missing the opportunity to add cityscapes to her portfolio and found a way to safely get there ... LOL!</p>

<p>I agree Nadine ... the purpose of climbing up there was to do traditional posed shots with the city as the backdrop. Candid and posed work. </p>

<p>I think Marc captured the moment perfectly. Wouldn't change a thing!</p>

<p>Funny, true well composed and well lit... what's more to say. Nice shot, would love to see some of the cityscape shots.</p>

<p>This is a fun shot, of course, but my take is that the fill is a little too strong (as opposed to David Schilling's assessment). I feel David overproduced it somewhat; the idea of a shot like this is to capture a natural moment, not have it look perfect like a beauty shot. Admittedly, all he had to work with was this little 700 pixel wide version.</p>

<p>I don't feel this is a portfolio shot I'd "hit the roof" over (sorry, couldn't resist)(Marc certainly has enough of those as it is), but do feel he executed it well given the time/conditions. Shutter drag: check. Good color: check. Unstaged and natural: check. Composition: check. Handsome couple: check. Fun: check. I, too would like to see his cityscape shots which followed, at least one.</p>

<p>This is a gorgeous PJ shot as Marc's always are, and I love it just as it is. I would love to see the others you shot up on that roof too Marc! On a tech note - you mentioned the photo didn't pop as much when you uploaded it as the original file - did you upload an AdobeRGB file? I find when I upload my usual files (which are always AdobeRGB) they look flat, and look much better when I upload StupidRGB even though I would never print off an sRGB file. My understanding is that the net can't cope with AdobeRGB files because windows isn't colour managed. You would know much more about colour management than I would though Marc! Again great shot as always. Would love to see more of your recent work - will have to go check out your website and PNet page and see if there is some more of your recent work.</p>

<p>great shot :)</p>

<p>I agree with Steve, this isn't an image I'd put on the splash page of my web site ... it's just an example of "decisive moment" type work consistent with reportage style work ... where you get the split second shot or you don't. Perhaps if there's a lesson to gain here, it's to keep alert "in-between" the expected times and places ... because you never know.</p>

<p>Let's skip the posed shots, we already had an excellent discussion on that subject recently. Maybe more about candid stuff which I think was the intent of this thread.</p>

<p>For example, this was a spur of the moment opportunity ... but did involve some anticipation to get in the right palce at the right time. Not only that, but you have to decide pretty quickly how to dial in your camera and flash settings, because there aren't any second chances.</p>

<p>Here's another "fun" favorite taken as we left ... roof warts and all:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I think the original capture is excellent. I don't photoshop photos of candid moments, that takes the candid part out. Candid's are of the moment and in the moment. Rust on the roof is what happened, it's what was there. Photoshop away on formals and posed shots, but anything candid should be left as is. Those moments are meant to be captured in that manner. </p>

<p>Great work!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...you have to decide pretty quickly how to dial in your camera and flash settings, because there aren't any second chances."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To reiterate, well executed given the time/conditions. Moments and situations like this are fleeting indeed.</p>

<p>I think Marc's original picture is very interesting and I won't comment on the technical elements - I'm sure there's nothing I can say that he doesn't know already. But I will make an observation on working and photographing candidly.</p>

<p>There's one single reason why the first image doesn't work for me and that's the fact that it references the process of taking it. For me a candid image has to have a couple of qualities. The first is that it is made with zero intervention. The second that it captures no contextual element that indicates the presence of the photographer. It comes down to the basic problem of participant observation - that by being there to record something, you're implicitly altering what happens. Obviously both qualities are absent in in this image.</p>

<p>I recognise that in this case it's more subtle because there's a nice internal irony: that the struggle of getting in place for the posed shots was a situation that provoked the candid moment that was captured. I guess ultimately it depends on the photographer's creative style - whether this image fits will be down to their aesthetic and the personality of the clients. But, on that basis, it's not really one that does it for me.</p>

<p>The second picture is much more my thing because it doesn't reference the process - it's getting much closer to my idea of candid. But on a technical level I'd prefer to have seen different framing - either so the groom's lower body was in shot, or shot from lower looking up into their faces. Although, I'm all too aware, that there are times when grabbing fleeting moments that you have to take what you can get.</p>

<p>"There's one single reason why the first image doesn't work for me and that's the fact that it references the process of taking it. For me a candid image has to have a couple of qualities. The first is that it is made with zero intervention. The second that it captures no contextual element that indicates the presence of the photographer. It comes down to the basic problem of participant observation - that by being there to record something, you're implicitly altering what happens."<br>

Neil wrote exactly my opinion. I don't thing is very important for the Bride how your assistant pull up her dress. Somebody else was doing, for exemple one of the Maids , or some relative it make more close to the Bride. From my opinion , if this picture was mine I would clone the flash , so people would not see is your assistant there. You see , this picture is more significant for you because your assistant. Technicaly is perfect.</p>

<p>First of all great shot but I do struggle with the asistant being there. She doesn't look too happy. It would have had more meaning if it was one of the brides maids or the mother helping the bride. Considering that they probably were not there and the assistant was the only woman around to lift her dress, I would crop her out and erase the fact that bride was helped by two people. Just make it a bride/groom moment...</p><div></div>

<p>While I see your argument (no reference to photographer) in a purely journalistic sense, Neil, I think you're being a bit too strict. Having pictures taken (whether by a pro or not) is more than common at a wedding. Should we, for instance, say that a non-wedding image published in a newspaper of a politician being photographed at a political convention isn't a true candid? Reference to photography, in this particular image, is entirely accidental. The image itself shows no direct photographer intervention.</p>

<p>Neil summed up the problems I have with the image exactly (and much more accurately than I could have). I think cropping out the assistant makes it a candid of the bride and groom, not the bride, groom, assistant, and photographer (though out of the frame, I still feel the photographers presence there). I think as photographers we don't mind seeing us in context, but as a bride (planning out all of the details-photography included- for our June 6th wedding), I know I want pictures of us- not pictures of us making pictures. I think this image appeals more toward the photographer in us than the couple.</p>

<p>I think the cropped version fits that bill much more than including the assistant in the frame.</p>

<p>I kinda disagree, Jen. I think we're putting way too much responsibility on this image for being a 'perfect' PJ type image or candid image. As I said above, references to being photographed are accidental, or I should probably say, peripheral or incidental. If you didn't know where they were going or why they were climbing over the ledge, and if the assistant was indeed a bridesmaid or non-photo related person, would you then say this image fails as a PJ or candid image or that it doesn't qualify as an image of the bride and groom?</p>

<p>I am also willing to bet that the image appealed to the couple pretty much the same way it appeals to me--a humorous, candid image of themselves during their wedding day--photography references incidental.</p>

<p>Nadine- you do have a point, and I think I may be wanting this image to be more (or something different) than it is. If I were the couple this would most likely go in my keep-sake box, but not my album. </p>

<p>I do feel like my insistence (admitted near obsession) with my wedding may be pushing me to look at this in different light. I need to repeat my mantra- don't try to make an image into something it is not. Maybe like all brides I'm stressing a little before the wedding, thinking too much about my own wedding pictures? Trying to make everything fit into a neat little package when it shouldn't? ;-)</p>

<p>Back to the image- for what the image is it is excellent. I am just unsure if the image as a whole works for me or not. Again, I woudn't want the image tossed by any means, but I'm unsure of how much weight it can carry on its on. Maybe the story carries the image more than image carries itself, and that is where I find myself wanting more from it as an outsider. Maybe my tastes are just different. I don't think that weakens the image, but only my value of the image.</p>

<p>Nadine, as usual you offer interesting comments. But I'm not sure they influence me to look at the image differently. For a start, my 'strictness' is a personal aesthetic, not to be confused with journalistic integrity. I have no allusions to journalism whatsoever.</p>

<p>I guess my starting point is street photography, which influences my wedding photography a great deal. In both disciplines I avoid artifice as far as possible. I take very few wedding photographs where the subjects are aware of the camera, and I avoid subject contact entirely on the street. It's just how I like pictures, and is one of the tenets of candid photography as I interpret it.</p>

<p>I take your point about the situation being a possible representation of what was found - that it could have been any random photographer raising the bride's dress. But in this case we know it's not, and, of course, Marc knows it too. His presence is implied to others, and is a direct experience for himself. Hence my closing remark about whether he likes the image is down to his motivations as a photographer and his aesthetic direction. There is no right or wrong. But equally, by the same measure, that's the reason I don't like it.</p>

<p>To quote Jen a little earlier: "I know I want pictures of us- not pictures of us making pictures".</p>