Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by think27, May 14, 2009.

  1. Marc Williams is up for critique this week. Thought we'd get into photos that are documentary style.
    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....)
    Marc Williams - Franklin/Mich.

    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.
    Remember that this is not a contest. Sometimes an image will be a winning image and sometimes an image that needs some help.
  2. 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.
    Oh, and I bet the city-scapes were absolutely worth every "climb over."
  3. 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.
    She looks like a lovely bride. I bet you got some good formals for your portfolio.
  4. 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.
  5. 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...
  6. 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.
    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.
    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.
  7. Stunning shot, I like it a loT!
  8. this is great. fun. don't crop out the person on the right - otherwise the shot makes no sense...
    good execution, great ambient/flash mix.
  9. 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.
    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!
    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.
  10. I think Marc captured the moment perfectly. Wouldn't change a thing!
  11. Funny, true well composed and well lit... what's more to say. Nice shot, would love to see some of the cityscape shots.
  12. 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.
    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.
  13. 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.
  14. great shot :)
  15. 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.
    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.
    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.
    Here's another "fun" favorite taken as we left ... roof warts and all:
  16. 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.
    Great work!
  17. " have to decide pretty quickly how to dial in your camera and flash settings, because there aren't any second chances."​
    To reiterate, well executed given the time/conditions. Moments and situations like this are fleeting indeed.
  18. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
  19. "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."
    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.
  20. 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...
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
    I think the cropped version fits that bill much more than including the assistant in the frame.
  23. 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?
    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.
  24. 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.
    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? ;-)
    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.
  25. 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.
    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.
    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.
    To quote Jen a little earlier: "I know I want pictures of us- not pictures of us making pictures".
  26. Interesting points-of-view.
    Nadine, ... I tend to agree ... we have our views and the clients react in a different way ... sometimes we get lucky and capture something we feel is true to our photographic intent AND it's something that also really connects with the client in a memorable way. This shot isn't necessarily a prime example of my ideal, yet will be part of the client's memories of their wedding trip to the roof.
    IMO, the suggested crops end up static and lifeless with no story line connecting them to the minor event of reaching the roof. The dress flying up adds some dynamic sense of action leveraged against the precarious teetering on 4" spike heels.
    I agree that the presence of my assistant makes it less than it could be and a Bridesmaid would have been better ... however, only the 4 of us were allowed up on the roof which had no safety barriers, and the intention wasn't to shoot candids. Sometimes the real world is less than ideal.
    While I DO agree there are some underlying "rules of engagement" concerning candid work, one can become a slave to it to the point that applying those principles after the fact is tantamount to undoing the original moment as it actually happened ... and no longer is a candid as many of us define it.
    For example, I am relatively skilled at Photoshop and rather than crop the story to death or just clone out Noel's flash, why not eliminate her altogether? (see attachment). While we know Noel was there and would feel the dress was "up in the air" for no reason ... others that I showed the altered version to took no note of it at all, and when specifically asked assumed it was the wind or action ... their primary response was "OMG, that looks dangerous!"
    So, the question is how far do you go!
    IMO, you take the shots as they come. Some are okay, good, better, and a very few are great .... but the clients like most all of them ... because it's a story about them.
  27. BTW, all the comments were not lost on me ... I saved the altered one @ full size, will do a little more work on it, and let the client choose : -)
  28. Neil, in all actuality I'm far closer to your POV than this image would indicate. I'm not a fan of images that "break the wall" as they say in Hollywood.
  29. I think I understand what you're saying, Neil. If I gather correctly, you would not even have taken this image at all, and would not have been on the way to photographing the couple in more traditional poses in front of the skyline. So the whole thing would have been moot, actually. So be it.
    I would like to know whether Marc's latest alteration changes anyone's opinion about the image's qualifications for 'PJhood', considering it is somewhat ironic in that the image was manipulated probably more than would be considered OK for a PJ shot. I still think it was the incidental photographic reference which muddied the waters--I still like the original image, as the latest seems somewhat contrived to me--like a faked PJ shot.
  30. I donno, perhaps it's my I the only one that doesn't see any details in the black tux?
    As for the roof ick, I have zero problems taking the extra 20 seconds it takes to remove it from the photo with PS. BTW, I'll also remove goose or dog pooh off the grass if it should appear in an image which was shot at the park or the country club lawn. I guess I'm just kinda' traditional and not that "PJ".
  31. Neil doesn't shoot any posed shots?
    David, this wasn't a genteel "Country Club Lawn" ... it was a gritty building roof top in Detroit. I like juxtaposing glamor and grit : -) BTW, there is detail in the tux ... maybe due to differences in monitors combined with web compression?
  32. I would leave the assistant in as originally. It creates, at least for me a more interesting part of the "taking the wedding photos" that has a bit of humour and yet still shows off the bride and groom well. I wouldn't cut out the assistant because than it's just another picture amongst already many pictures of just the bride and groom and doesn't really create a unique if humourous moment. I also like the crop as originally shown because while it includes the assistant, it puts the assistant in a well.... subordnate role in the photo, meaning that the bride and then the groom and their action/interaction and reaction to the awkward physical moment makes the picture. I think IMO that it's a finally balanced picture in that sense. I think Marc is using a documentary style, not neccessarily shooting a documentary under the strict dictates of photojournalism, in any event I believe in artistic license for these kinds scenes.
  33. I think Marc did a good job from a technical point of view as I can clearly see detail in the tux and in the dress of course. I think it took a bit of local tweaking in lightroom and photoshop to get this and it would have been interesting to see what was in the camera before any exposure, contrast, saturation and localized tweaks.
    What I would have preferred is a slightly lower vantage point, two steps back and maybe slightly to the right. This to include more of the ledge and the height of the climb as well as a looser crop. And shot a little earlier to show the actual climb. Right now given no textual information it is difficult to judge what is happening.
    So while the image shows emotion I think those changes would have made it a bit more documentary and stronger overall.
  34. I agree on being wider if possible Pete ... but I was back as far as I could get and at the 24mm end of a 24-70. But lower might have made it more dramatic. A 16-35 would have been better for this shot, but I only had a 24-70 and 85/1.4 with me to do the cityscapes ... this shot was strictly an unintended "crime of opportunity" : -)
    As shot, the original file was a tad underexposed and cooler because of the ambient night lighting. but just auto adjust in LR corrected most of it. The ambient/flash balance is pretty much what was shot.
    I also agree that out of context it needs some explaination. Yet, it isn't out of contxet to the client, and when part of the series of rooftop shots tells its small part of the story.
  35. Marc,
    First off, I like the image, and I enjoy the B&W wedding images in your portfolio.
    I took a more "PJ" approach. Call me simple, but when I think PJ, I think newspaper.
    Image desaturated, slight contrast/brightness increase, 3.0% gaussian monochrome noise added, slight highlight adjustment. Comical newspaper-type caption :)
  36. Well, I've been following this and after seeing all iterations of the photo, I think the original is best left as-is. My only thought after reading Marc's statement that he only had a 24-70 to shoot cityscapes is that next time, he really should take something a little wider as well; not for capturing THIS kind of shot, but for actually doing the cityscapes. I know he's shooting FF, but 24mm might not be wide enough. Going out to 16mm would be preferable, and would produce breathtaking scenic shots!
    Don't overanalyze it though, Marc. We can second-guess this to death (and I think we have).
  37. I personally have no problem with Marc's assistant being in the shot. I would venture a guess that Marc - and his assistant were actually a big part of the couple's day. I've had brides ask friends to take a photo of her - or the couple with me and/or with me and my assistant. We're coordinators, dress fixers, problem solvers and we all tend to be pretty close buds after a time. I've actually had two couples put a shot of them with me in the album. Surprised me - but when doing "real moments" type work - we are part of the day as much if not more than the priest. In some cases - not - but many cases especially with reportage type shooting - this would be an appropriate shot to include with the proofs.
  38. I think the image is perfect as is. Tells a great story, good post-production, excellent!
  39. My strong preference is for Danzel's C.'s suggestion to crop out the assistant (and dress). I find my eyes are drawn away from the couple, to the lifted dress trying to figure out what's going on... It's a little off-putting for a wedding shot. With the crop however, I am drawn to the radiant smiling faces and city lights. I immediately understand that he's helping her onto the roof.
    I would love to hear how the subjects respond to the shot (esp the bride).
  40. Wouldn't disagree that 16mm would produce cool sweeping city-scapes ... if that were the objective ... but it wasn't, it was to shoot the clients with the city as a back-drop.
    IMO 16mm distorts people to much ... at least for formal type shots ... the best images from that quick roof top session were with the 85/1.4 that compacted the scene and brought the background up behind the subjects. Once we were up on the top, I could move back enough to use the longer end of the 24-70 and the 85 @ f/2 to soften the background. Different strokes for different folks.
  41. Gotta be careful with those long lenses on rooftops...might back right up off the edge! Nah, I did want to say that I might take the opportunity to do all of the above - the wide angle sweeping cityscapes and the longer lenses for portraits as well, if time permitted. Anyway, well done!
  42. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    On the artistic and philosophical debate which ensued:
    Crikey! It is one image from a barrage of third eye candids Marc most likely captured on that evening.
    Sure it has an Assistant Photographer in shot - she was part of that particular moment - she is not the focus of the moment: the Bride is. And the secondary element of focus is the Groom. The image captures those two primary elements and: the sense of fun and the mild sense of trepidation, countered by the support (of the groom) and help (of the A Photographer who is in shot).
    It is an instant of THEIR Wedding that THEY will remember.
    For this style of Story Book capture it is a good image - it captures a moment - a key moment . . .
    20 years on . . .
    "John remember when he took us up on the roof, and that assistant was 9 months pregnant - We have a photo of me getting up on the ledge don't we? . . . Oh! . . . and remember when we . . .”
    There needs to be no more depth of analysis of the "why" or "should it be" than the above, IMO.
    On the technical:
    I would remove the head of the Assistants Photographer’s Flash – it is simply a distracting white and its removal would not compromise the capture of the moment for either philosophical standpoint.
    There is no detail in the Groom’s Tux my end either – mentioned for reference only, not a technical comment.

  43. WW, Either it's my monitor or my old eyes but outside of the wrinkles around the groom's elbow and a little flair on the jacket just below the dress, I'm not seeing a lapel or details in the trousers. At least I feel a little more validated......thanks.
  44. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    You are most welcome. No way are you old, just experienced, I bet my beard is closer to Photographic Grey, than yours.
    Crinkles at R elbow; sheen from Flash on both coat bottom & R leg: Ditto what I see this end.
    I notice more details when the image is downloaded, and then opened in PS @ 150%, including: Cut of R shoulder; R coat pocket; creases under R armpit and L inner leg.
    I do not debate that the Black Details are there in the original. I think these comments are useful however as they highlight (pun intended) the limitations of this method of display for (detailed) critique; and how we (those critiquing) should be mindful of those limits will apply / display in different lighting scenarios. . .
    and how such might impact upon web displays for sales, perhaps? . . . my mind wanders that way, naturally.
    Returning to the preceding: perhaps we can have another Philosophical –
    "Tweaking just for this Web Critiquing" :)
    To all my colleagues across the big pond - have a productive, profitable and happy week.
  45. I agree with William and was going to say earlier that I am sure Marc made a ton of other images of the couple and didn't just photograph them on the way to getting photographed. It was a fun moment, well captured, and as I said above, way too much responsiblity is being put on the image. The changes that are supposed to make the image more about the couple aren't needed since there are many other images 'about' the couple.
    As for Neil not making posed images, I see from his website that he shoots formals, but that the formals are 'designed' around the wedding schedule and places. Hopefully he will explain this himself, but I would gather that he probably would not be on his way to making traditional images of the couple against the skyline.
  46. Marc, I must say I really like the one with your assistant cloned out. I was about to try and do just that, but you beat me to it and did a super job at it. my main reason was that even though it is clear why your assistant was in this shot (to help the bride over that precarious ledge ;-)), her expression in this particular capture doesn't, IMHO, lend to the mirth and fun of the overall shot. I do understand though, that in documentary style photography such as this, one often takes what they get, and makes the most of it. I do the same when I'm shooting in this style, so I empathise with you fully.
    Sometimes as photographers we are torn between presenting an image with certain elements that are pleasing or informative in and of themselves to us while it may not be necessarily so for the client. I think you have approached it well, by offering the client the final choice... Great work as always. I think the exposure is great, on-the-fly circumstances notwithstanding :)
  47. As for Neil not making posed images, I see from his website that he shoots formals, but that the formals are 'designed' around the wedding schedule and places. Hopefully he will explain this himself, but I would gather that he probably would not be on his way to making traditional images of the couple against the skyline.​
    More than happy to explain.
    Actually, we don't often shoot any formals at all. We're very much about documentary photography and that's what people are hiring. The only instructions to the wedding party are to enjoy the day and ignore us. We don't pose people for pictures and we don't interfere. We get all of our shots from anticipating the moment. I don't think there's a single picture in our portfolio that was posed.
    There are maybe two exceptions where we deviate (mildly) from a true documentary approach:
    1. We do sometimes make suggestions to make the most of a situation if the light and background is particularly good and we think the clients would be enjoy it. A city skyline like Marc's would be something interesting to us and we might well suggest the b+g take a walk around the roof tops. We'd suggest it because in many cases it might not be something they otherwise think about, but it would be done casually so that we'd leave it to them if they went or not. For which reason we wouldn't be up there with them from the start. We'd stay out of the way long enough for them to get up there and forget all about us, and then we'd walk up quietly and start photographing when the situation became real.
    2. Occasionally we're asked to shoot formals for family or friends. Not often, but it happens now and again. In those cases we let people gather in the right groups but don't tell them what to do. We wait until they're relaxed (sometimes we fake inattention so they think nothing is going on) and then we take the shot when people are being themselves. There's a good example of that in our portfolio of a guy facing camera and smoking a cigar. He asked for a formal shot and posed rather rigidly. I told him to relax as I needed to change my film. He then lit his cigar and started joking with his friends. I got the shot as he glanced in my direction.
    Not suggesting that any of this is the only way to approach candid photography. Just that it's what works for us and we're good enough at it that we decided to make it our specialism. Other folks may work very differently.
  48. I like the shot but the photography assistant is a big distraction and the crop doesn't do it justice. I think if the camera had panned a little more to the left, removing the assistant things would look better. I agree, it's not a portrait piece but not every wedding photo is or should. I'm wondering....Is this taken in Atlantic City on the boardwalk?
  49. To my eye it has an awkward feel from capturing what appears to be an awkward moment; and she's all scrunched making her body seem dwarfish, the groom's neck being kinda squished up. As a "defining moment" capture I'd much much rather see what happened and the look in their eyes when she fell into his arms after climbing over the wall.
  50. Nice thought G.E., if it actually happened ... which it didn't.
    A few thoughts:
    The notion of going to the roof was the clients, not mine. I guess I could have refused and refunded their money to keep pure ... LOL.
    95%+ of my wedding work is true candids, and a lot of B&W candid at that ... but if a bride wants a more traditional posed and/or directed shot for her dear old Mom or Grandmother's mantel I don't really believe that spending a few minutes doing so "corrupts" my intent, or "infects" my main approach to wedding photography.
    Anyway, a good lively discussion with lots of interesting POVs that underline that a diversity of approaches is alive and well.
  51. And, apparently there were only two photographers on this entire thread that thought the image could benefit from more fill............
    Again, I love the moment, the saturated colors, and see the image as a valid candid. I find that most of the approach criticisms were akin to asking the shot to be something other than what it was. Thanks for posting the image Marc.
  52. Can you teach me how to photoshop like you! :-D
    I personally like it much better with your assistant photoshopped out. Almost looks like an action scene with her dress being up like that, like she jumped onto the ledge in heels (now thats super woman haha).
    And I agree with others that the assistant was distracting, but the option to just crop her out wasn't very good either.
    PS - I really do love everything I've ever seen you post on here.
  53. Marc, very nice candid's! A candid is just a moment captured forever. Most of my clients love the candids more than other shots because it reminds them of little moments that are easily forgotten or missed. Your assistant helping the bride over the wall adds interest to this photo. When I first looked at this shot I wondered what she was up to which caused me to look around and find where she was looking. The cityscape in the background has the same affect, causing me to explore those areas as well. Personally, I would leave it un-cropped then if they wanted a cropped version you could easily trim it for them.
    Very interesting shot!
  54. Very good photo, beautiful bride, love the lights from the buildings in the background. Shows guts to get on the roof of the building. I could not convince a bride to do that. The only distraction is the assistant. To crop her out you lose the buildings, I would like to see more shots from that location,,
  55. As has already been remarked: An awkward picture.
    I would not include this in an album.
    Technically fine, a good exposure.
    Artistically unsatisfying: Awkward expressions on all three people, ugly floor on the left.
    "Defining moment"? Huh? Defining what?
  56. Thanks for the comments, including ALL of the comments good and bad. The different reactions are interesting ... a few opinions seem poles apart.
    "Defining what" Susanne? Well, an "awkward moment" on an "ugly roof top" actually... LOL! There are hundreds of pretty pictures in their collection ... so, do all of them have to be that way? But don't worry, I doubt this image will even be considered for the album. There are so many other shots that have to be included that this one will be voted off the island anyway.

Share This Page