WEDDING CRITIQUE OF THE WEEK 714/09 - AKA WEDDING PHOTO OF THE WEEK

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5232185">Michael Brown</a></p>

<p>The recipient of this week's critique.<br /> 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>

<br /> Thanks to all that have contributed to these threads. There are some awsome photos being uploaded.</p><div></div>

<p>I really like this shot. The warm natural light really works. The look between the couple and the placing of the subject really works as well.<br>

The only change I may make is to bring the couple out a bit more, maybe with a combination of levels or a yin/yang tool. But, even if you did nothing it would still be a great shot.</p>

<p>The severe orange is just killing the image for me (remember though, this is subjective). I've balanced the light some in this version, but it may be too extreme for your taste. Maybe somewhere in between would work better? Again, this is subjective, but it almost seems like carnival lights in a sweet, romantic portrait, which isn't sitting well with me. Either way, the couple does need to be lightened to agree with the light in the rest of the image. Other wise, beautiful shot. Great use of DOF to isolate the couple yet give a sense a place and time.<br>

I also added a slight vignette because once the orange was balanced out, it needed just a touch to keep your attention from falling out of the corners of the frame.</p><div></div>

<p>Good choice not using flash here. The natural light is much more appealing, gives nice shape to the subjects. And nice chemistry.<br />What distracts me somewhat is the guests in the background who seem uninterested in the romance on the dance floor. It's good though that they are out of focus. Perhaps the crop should be tighter on the subjects, where the real interest is in this image.</p>

<p>A sample edit. Works as 8x10, not so much as 4x6. Color still off.</p><div></div>

<p>I actually like it better with the people in the background. It kind of says "no matter what else is happening in the room, we're engrossed in eachother". It tells a story.</p>

I'm with Jens adjustment on this one. I'm not crazy about the orange and dark skin tones. But we all have our own personal tastes. I also prefer more depth of field; since you include people in the background. Since the people in the background look so out of focus and clueless by not watching the bride and groom dance I'd probably rather shoot this vertical, mainly due to the beautiful romantic expressions they both share.

<p>I'm really not a fan of this image. The B/G appear too soft to my eye and I'd like at least a touch of fill light. Agree that the orange is a bit much and prefer what Jen's done above. The background looks cluttered. Since the eyes are always drawn to the lightest parts of the image, the eyes are drawn to disinterested guests in the back left or an unattractive doorway to the back right (so both directions compete with the subjects). I also wish one or both had their eyes open since the head angle and their expression would suggest that they were looking at each other, perhaps a nanosecond just before or just after capture might have helped. I applaud you for submitting an image and being open to critique.</p>

<p>I like it.</p>

<p>It has a storybook look to it rather than a clinically correct one. Nice rim lighting. Like the crop as is.</p>

<p>Makes a nice B&W also.</p>

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

<p>Thanks for the comments, all. I'm on business in Florida and just spent 12 hours on a motorcycle, so I'll keep this short.</p>

<p>The color temp and density of this image were purposeful, though the crop I was on the fence with in terms of which way to go with it. I 100% agree with Betty's comment about showing other people in the room "blissfully unaware" as they were, as were the B&G; this was a very romantic wedding.</p>

<p>I shot this (on purpose) with a daylight color balance to recreate the warmth in the room. Reception was held in a lodge kind of setting with lots of wood and stone, lots of candles...and I wanted that warm, low-key feel to this image. I think I wrote this in another thread, but it's worth repeating; a bride once said to me of a similar shot, "It looks like how it felt in there that night." And, without getting philosophical, I will say it stuck with me as a large part of my duty to recreate not just visual documentation, but emotion and atmosphere and feeling and mood. The aperture of 1.4 was also on purpose as I wanted them as isolated as possible to add to the mood.</p>

<p>This was one of many first dance shots of this couple. Some were shot with flash and, in comparison, they don't stand-up to this image. I've learned being more daring with your technique often has good results. I agree that it's very warm, but I'm very good with the result. I've cooled it off and lightened it up and it just loses that certain something.</p>

<p>Finally, I agree it makes a wonderful B&W, and that might serve as a "happy place" for those not happy with the orange-ness. :-)</p>

<p>Thanks for participating!</p>

I prefer the original, with just a tad toning down on the reds. I think, like Marc says, it's a story-book moment, and it captures the mood (warm and intimate) beautifully. Jen's image is a tad 'cold' IMHO. Superb rim lighting and the presence of the crowd only adds to the intrigue. The 1/3rds positioning works very well too.

<p>I also like Marc's B&W version. I think what the original has that the B&W doesn't is the warmth, although the intimacy is ever-present...

<p>In short, with just a touch of dialling down on the reds, this image is marvellous. Great job, Michael :)

<p>I like this image - it's a sweet moment between them. I love the way they're looking at each other, and how he's holding her. I liked the composition, and that fact that you've placed the subject (the visual interaction between their eyes) according to the rule of thirds, which gives it a nice composition. </p>

<p>I approached this image as I would edit it had I taken it. I desaturated the orange so that the colours were more natural. I wanted to remove anything that detracted from the subject, their interaction, so that the viewer's eye would naturally be directed there, and that didn't take much because your composition is so good. So I removed the glare from his hand, and I simply cloned hair over the backlit highlights in her hair. I'm a fan of backlighting, but sometimes it can be overdone, and in the case here, in my opinion the interaction between them is enhanced when the backlighting functions more as a rimlighting. I also lightened their faces as they were the subject and I wanted to see them more readily. </p>

<p>I then found that there was a glare on the tabe behind her and cloned it out. My eye was also drawn by the brightness behind him outside and on the floor. So I darkened those. </p>

<p>I also went in and blurred the background, so as to separate them from the background and draw my eye to their sweet expression.</p>

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

<p>by the way, my edits were 'quick and dirty' in order to simply make a point, not make a saleable print, if you know what I mean!</p>

<p>I really like this image - I think the warmth is lovely, and I love their sweet expressions, I don't think it's a problem at all that their eyes are partly closed - they are clearly having a private moment. But I was playing around with the crop and I liked this one. I think that it really draws attention to their visual interchange, whilst keeping all the background elements that we like so much. </p>

<p>Hope you like what I've done to your art!</p>

<p>oops - here's that edit I mentioned</p><div></div>

<p>Props to those who recognize the rule of thirds! :-)</p>

<p>I agree, Anastasia, about the glare off the hand. I think it's an improvement to tone it down/out.</p>

<p>Gotta run! Thank again, all!</p>

<p>Sorry, I don't think a fake photoshop background blur works even if it was done more carefully than a quick example. ... and it rarely does because it isn't a natural optical blur. In fact I think it calls attention to itself more as being visually odd. .</p>

<p>I also do not agree that the eye is drawn to the brightest part of an image. People are drawn to people first IMHO ... and I've seen numerious research studies in my advertising days that supported that belief.</p>

<p>That, and the tighter crop has lessened the feeling of depth and has flatened the image IMO. Maybe a little more to the right would work and avoid the near edge tangent. The above crop is now 50-50 and not as pleaseing to the eye as the rule of thirds crop.</p>

<p>Just ... IMO.</p>

 

<p>I agree with Marc.<br>

I actually don't really care for any of the tweaks except for maybe the B&W. Why mess with a great, warm capture? It's great as is.</p>

<p>I concur with Betty, Marc and others who love Michael's original. Betty hits it dead-on, why mess with the tweaks in Photoshop when the original hits the moment perfectly. I think the decision to use 1.4 was perfect because the out-of-focus wedding party adds to the fact that the main focus is the couple. Ditto with the appreciation of the rule of thirds - this photo would be a good textbook photo with why that concept works so well, and why cropping this photo makes me twist my nose a little.<br>

The original is wonderful as-is. Love the colors. Very warm.<br>

Also, the B&W is nicely done. Marc - may I ask what tweaking you did for the B&W version?</p>

 

<p>haha... every time i see wedding pictures like that i think: 'how poor the customers are on the day of getin these'<br>

second though: 'one day i'll start my own wedding photography and i feel save because you never even touch style i'm going give away'<br>

all the best, but honestly... you don't need it. ha</p>

<p>I agree that a blur in photoshop is not the best answer, that a shallower depth of field in the original capture didn't happen, but for the purposes of example, we can learn from this what a difference it would have made to have captured it with just such a shallower depth of field.</p>

<p>I wans't proposing that my second crop was perfect or anywhere near it, I was simply putting forth an idea for consideration. I, too, prefer the first crop.</p>

<p>Some may not agree about the notion that the eye goes to the brightest part of an image first, but that's what I have heard over and over and over from Master Photographers during print critiques on the PPA level, and I've always assumed they knew what they were talking about. I personally believe that one should do everything they can to capture a shot perfectly in camera, and then use photoshop to do what the master printer would do, seeing as with digital capture that is what is required now. Burning and dodging have been time-honoured traditions in making prints from film capture, and that must now be done in photoshop. I'm not for doing any photoshop edits simply to do them, but always to make edits that are photographic in nature, and that honour traditional printing techniques - thus photoshop 'plug-ins' don't hold much appeal.</p>

<p>+1 for the original image. I like the tone and crop of the original. The neutralised version looks a little sickly IMO and the vertical crops makes a good image that tells a story into something quite average. <br />Well done.</p>

<p>I like it...Why....I envisioned the background staying the natural color, just a bit darker, and changing ONLY the couple's WB. and just a tighter crop...<br /> My Version to up it a notch 8x10<br /> <img src="http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/814357/00TwY7-154931684.jpg" alt="" width="582" height="466" /></p>

<p>Master Photographers can't tell you how to capture the story when they're not there. All they can give you is some direction. This is why sometimes you need to forget about the "masters" and the rules and be your own storyteller. This is what drives the best images in my opinion.</p>

 

<p><em>"Some may not agree about the notion that the eye goes to the brightest part of an image first, but that's what I have heard over and over and over from Master Photographers during print critiques on the PPA level, and I've always assumed they knew what they were talking about." Anastasia </em></p>

<p>Well that's what I've come to understand over the years as well. But why would we want that to interfere with anyone's opinion on how it should be. Michael, I would encourage you to enter this image in a print competition with PPA and/or WPPI. </p>

<p>It is generally thought that the eye IS drawn to the brightest parts of an image. It is also generally thought that the eye is drawn to human faces in an image. Which one takes precedence when both are present in the same image, is subject to opinion. Whether one should or shouldn't tone down hotspots is subject to opinion, and perhaps, whether one is entering the image in a PPofA competition, where such guidelines are used to judge the image.</p>

<p>I doubt that Michael was thinking about being 'his own storyteller' OR about being marked down in a competition because of a hotspot at the time he took this image. Personally, I think it looks better toned down, but either way, it does not interfere with my enjoyment of the image as it is.</p>

<p>There is no reason for everyone to have to agree on how this image is best handled. Different opinions are what makes image discussion interesting.</p>