WEDDING CRITIQUE OF THE WEEK 7/22/09- AKA WEDDING PHOTO OF THE WEEK

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4155356">Betty Lowrey </a><br>

Betty's shot of the little girl at a wedding is chosen for this week's discussion.</p>

<p>In your critiques - 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. Try not to just say "great shot" but explain why it works. Or - "Doesn't do it for me" without explaining why.<br /> <br /> The photographer up for critique for this week should remember that the comments expressed each week are simply "opinions" and the effort and focus of these threads are to learn and to take images to another level. There will be times where the critique is simply members pointing out why the shot works which is also a way for others to learn about what aspects contribute to a good wedding photo. In reading all critiques -- You may agree or disagree with some points of view - but remember that there are varying approaches and often no right or wrong answer.<br /> Thanks to all that have contributed to these threads. There are some awesome photos being uploaded.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm going to critique my own shot: It's a little on the "soft" side for me. Now that I have it up here...it's kinda bugging me!<br>

: )<br>

Thanks for choosing my shot, I look forward to the critiques/suggestions!</p>

<p>I think this is the strongest shot that you've posted for the Wedding POW. I like the camera angle, general exposure, the composition/crop, and the flower girl's expression. The image is indeed too soft and with an aperture of f/5.6, you'd expect better focus and wider DOF. Although you used flash, I suspect that the flash power was too low (or you were too far away) to give the image good fill which leaves the dress and the girl under-lit. I've added some digital fill and sharpening to the image below. I've also noticed that your eye for images and your critiques have gotten better over the past few weeks....keep workin' it, good luck.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks David,<br>

I think my length away from the girl was definitely an issue. This was a completely "off the cuff" shot, I noticed the flower girl twirling around in the area next to the church, zoomed in and shot.<br>

I like your tweak.</p>

<p>Love the expression and the hair, and event the little hand nervously clutching the dress. But the first thing anybody is going to notice besides that is the way she's leaning out of the frame. I like tilt, but it might have been better used if the camera was panned further to the right. This would have eliminated the negative space on the left and the tangent line between her head and the frame. It would have also allowed for a little bit of loss at the edge when printing or framing.<br />There are of course no rules, but it is usually wise to avoid such tangent lines. It's usually either good to leave some space above the head (maybe 10-20% of the frame) or get close in and crop a little closer. Just an opine from another newbie.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>We can have over 50 comments about RAW -vs.- JPG, over 30 comments about eating dinner at a wedding......surely, we can get more participation in the Wedding POW. Where is everyone? .......and don't call me Shirley ;-)</p>

<p>As I've seen in the past, David's tweak is pretty much what I was thinking...I think we came from the same photographic mold, David!</p>

<p>Perhaps there was little you could do about it on site, but the blown background is still too much...I've taken David's tweak, masked the girl and tweaked the background to my personal liking (it's a quickie job since I'm at work, apologies for any signs of sloppiness).</p>

<p>Overall though, a touching capture!</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>EDIT: The caption should say "Betty's image, David's tweak, Ryan's background idea." As I said, I'm at work on a quick break, my mind is in many places. Just making sure I give credit where due :-).</p><div></div>

<p>I love the expression in this photo! I agree with others though, that perhaps a bit more space to the right of her head would have helped the composition though. I also think it is a bit soft (as mentioned), but we all get shots like that at times don't we? ; ) Overall, nice moment!</p>

<p>Very cute pose and tilting angle on the girl, but I have never been a fan of those washed out slightly overexposed backgrounds. It's distracting from your subject, which otherwise, is an excellent photo (despite her overexposed R. arm).</p>

<p>As stated before, I think the tilt and the cut-off side of the head is the most distracting part about the image. However, for a zoom and grab shot, you really can't complain too much.</p>

<p>Hmmm, am I the only one that thinks the girl's expression is bland, even a bit sad? My first reaction to the image was that it was tilted too far and the composition was off. I would have liked to see her moved away from the right side a bit, eliminating the cropped head and provide some negative space to the right.</p>

<p>All that said, for an "on the fly" shot, it's not bad. ;)</p>

<p><em>"Hmmm, am I the only one that thinks the girl's expression is bland, even a bit sad? " -Valenda</em><br /><em></em><br />I agree, don't know if she's pensive, or sad, or exactly what but it strikes me as an "engaging" expression and adds an element of intrigue.</p>

<p>I think it's a look of "why is that lady taking my picture?"</p>

<p>I always love that look on kids faces. It's innocent to me. One of the few times I'm okay with subjects being 'camera aware' at weddings is kids because they still look photojournalistic. :)</p>

<p>Anyways, gave it our normal touch up. Make sure.. and this is the key with that hair, that you don't brighten it so much that her hair looks glossy but not too dark that you lose the details.</p><div></div>

<p>It's a very nice photo and I really have nothing to add except that this particular photo wouldn't be too hard to rotate...</p><div></div>

<p>I don't like the bright patch of grass. I find it pulls my eyes away from the girl's face and to the background.</p>

<p>I used shadow/highlight in PS to bring some details back to her hair, applied a curve to give more contrast to her face, and then warmed up the image slightly so her dress isn't as blue. If I were spending time on this image, I'd probably do some kind of fade from left to right to even out the white balance. Next time, take the picture either more in sunlight or more in shade, but not so much split between the two. Either that, or make it black and white. I'm leaning more toward that because it's easier to fix both the bright grass and the color balance issue.</p>

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

<p>B&W</p><div></div>

<p>I was toying with putting it in B&W....wasn't sure if it worked...I kinda like it.</p>

<p>I am a beginner so take it with a grain of salt I guess :) - I agree with bumping up sharpness a bit, agree especially with Eric's comments as it relates to all in shade or sun perhaps (although you took this on the cuff)....I like how Eric saved the detail in the shadows of her hair....I use capture NX (I do not have PS or LR do date) - I would use a use a color control point and tone down grass brightness selectively a bit and see how it looks (I am at work or I would give it a shot now :) ] - not sure why I say this, but I tend to like your original better than the subsequent edits :) - just a touch of sharpness to your original only and I think it would ber perhaps perfect??</p>

<p>I am wondering what color is her dress? Because it looks a light greenish yellow to me in the orginal and with cathy and david's edit it went white. I agree the grass in the background is a bit on the "bright side" - I like the composition of it - I like it tilted and I am not a big fan of tilting but in this case it works. She looks really pensive to me and sad... and I think it adds interest to see this pretty dressed up girl with such a serious look on her face. Since she was twirling I wish you could have caught a bit of a smile. Her eyes are amazing once sharpened a bit. You might want to check the date on your camera because it is dated 2007 - I not liking the B/W version as much - maybe you can play with the green/yellow in PS and tone that down... I learned how to do that one time and now I've lost it ...</p>

<p>Shooting weddings outdoors with bright sunlight is likely the most difficult lighting scenario to deal with. The major challenge here is trying to balance the bright sunlight in the background with the light found in the shade. Stronger flash (or a reflector) to light the subject could have knocked down the exposure to the background and given a better color temperature for the girl, her skin tones, and dress. IMO, this is a good example to illustrate the importance of supplemental lighting.</p>

<p>The dress was a greenish-yellow color (like celery green).<br>

Never even knew about the date! LOL. I'll have to check that out. I've never changed the date setting on my camera.</p>

 

<p>I judge an image by saying to myself, "I wish I would have taken that shot". I can't say that about this photo, too many things that are off. Too soft, angle that does not work, color balance is not pleasing, not well lit and the compo is quite unsettling. I would have hit the delete button and moved on to another image. We learn by out mistakes if we smart enough to do so.</p>

<p>I'd like to thank everyone for their hints, suggestions, critiques and ideas. This was great! It's so helpful to have other eyes look at your stuff.</p>

<p>I found this link in a nearby thread that addresses using supplemental light and balancing the light for your background and your subject: <a href="http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/2009/06/14/nyc-photo-shootout-redux/">http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/2009/06/14/nyc-photo-shootout-redux/</a></p>