post - "first wedding" frustration

[laurenm]

Well, as many of you know, my first time post processing was very trying. I

finally finished and was looking forward to posting my results for critique.

Well, in following with all else post processing, something has not gone well in

uploading the pictures to my pn folder. I could re-do them all but....

 

So, first question is why do these look all patchy in people's skin? I converted

and uploaded them as giffs. Is that the problem? Maybe the size was too big?

Anyway, if anyone cares to look and can possibly see the real image beyond the

patchy stuff...here is my critique request post:

 

 

It seems this is somewhat of an initiation here (and an accepted time to post an

entire wedding) and since I donﾒt post my pics from assist jobs, most of you

havenﾒt seen my updated work.

 

Iﾒd like to thank Kari, Ted and another member who knows who he is for all your

HUGE amounts of help. I couldnﾒt have gotten through post processing without

you! Thanks!

Of course, a huge thank you to everyone else here on PN; there are too many of

you to name, but you all know who you are and you have helped me learn so much

over the past year!

 

Iﾒve temporarily satisfied the urge to ﾓtry it by myselfﾔ though it has pushed

me to further my learning which sometimes takes a back seat to the day job and

daily life. I learned a lot, had fun, made a budget couple happy and was lucky

to not experience any HUGE disasters. (just things like poking myself in eye

with camera strap and my lightsphere falling off during cake cutting). I have a

notebook full of what to do or not do next time. I think I did an ﾓokﾔ job of

covering the day, but am not real thrilled and can find plenty to critique

myself on. Underexposed shots, missed focusing, things growing out of heads,

better posing ideas, more originality in composition, making my first priority

getting important shots instead of worrying about being in other peopleﾒs wayﾅ

Others have mentioned, more available light, straighter shots, and some of the

above.

 

I ended up showing the couple 336 pictures. More than some would suggest and I

will next time , ﾓedit inﾔ instead of ﾓediting outﾔ. In the hopes that some of

you will actually look at them, I have edited down for my critique request.

However, in order to get accurate critiques, I have included some of the worst

to truthfully represent the job done. All images shot with D70, Tamron 28-75,

2.8, sb-600 with lightsphereII.

So, without further ado, Iﾒm asking my fellow pn membersﾅ..What else?

Thank you!

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=603224

[david_s5]

The GIF file format stores 8 bits per pixel, and a palette map to map those 8 bits into a fairly large color space. This isn't enough to produce print-quality photographs.

 

Try shooting in raw mode, converting to photoshop's native file format, and manipulating everything in that format. As your final step, either print or convert to a JPG for web display.

[jmichaelc]

Looks like you might of had some kind of funky profile embeded. When uploaded (correct me if i'm wrong here everyone) they auto default to SRGB.

 

Looks similir to when i accidently double profile a photo with my labs printer profiles.

[michaelhills]

Congratulations, Lauren :) You must feel physically and mentally drained after post processing your first wedding ;) Good fun too, I hope! No time now - just wanted to say I had a quick peek and there were many that caught my eye (the one at bottom with them peeking through the window is particularly memorable). Will return when I have the time to devote to your folder as it deserves. In the meantime, I would say that your patchy image issue is indeed due to gif format. Try using jpeg and size to (I think) not more then 680 pixels wide to fit into the PN template without PN having to create a 'larger' tab. Till later. M ;)

[mikestryinagain]

You have some nice images Lauren, not unlike my first wedding. I wish I could help you with the upload, but no guru here! Some of the images almost have a posterization (darkroom term from the old days) look to them in these spotches you are talking about, so I have got to believe its something to do with how they were output for the web. One day I will post mine, there are 700 film scans on disks just waiting for me to sort through them and come out of my shell, side shadows and all.

[darice michelle]

congrats! Just a few tips:

 

1) do more close ups for your detail shots (food, rocks in vase and etc...)

2) try using more natural light instead of flash (colors look better) - I saw the bride and

groom shots after the ceremony and thought you might have better results with natural

light.

3) Make your images "pop" (add more shadows and contrast in photoshop).

 

Keep it up...

[colleendonovan]

I think you did a great job for a first time wedding! Just be happy that it's over. Thank heaven the first one only happens once! Look at all the stuff you have learned! You're next wedding will be that much easier and better. It takes practice and you are off to a wonderful start.

[conraderb]

<waiting for marc williams to chime in>

 

<waiting>

 

<waiting>

 

...ping timeout failure.

 

lauren - I'm not 100% sure about this, but gifs are generally a bad way to do complicated graphics. gifs are good for simple lines (ie. logos), jpgs are good for photographs with colors and textures, etc.

 

in this case, I think that your gif may have restricted the # of color tones that you can use to display your skin - maybe it's only 1024. that might sound like a lot, but we are used to seeing a huge variety of tones in skin color - 1024 is nothing.

 

but I'm not photograph expect.

 

sizing should have absolutely nothign to do with it.

 

by the way - if your lightsphere falls during the cake cutting - NO PROBLEM, right? just grab a napkin and hold it above and slightly behind your flash - which you point up. result? nice soft bounced emergency flash.

[laurenm]

Thanks everyone. i may feel up to redoing the images in jpeg or at least some, but I'm almost exhausted by looking at them.

Thanks for the encouraging words so far. Its a bit scary to ask!

 

darice, by the flash shots are you referring to the shots of just bride and groom after (semi-formals) or the indoor shots? As for outdoor, I had fill flash on my mind which prob wasn't needed given it was a brief break in a very rainy cloudy day, which I know should have been ideal lighting. As for indoor, I should have tried, but had this notion in my head with my d70 not to go above 400iso as it would show grain. Well, seems I should have done it anyway, as a distant shot where the falsh can't reach and the image is underexposed shows much more grain.

 

Not sure what you mean about the close ups? The rocks, I thought were pretty close. Closer? As for food, I was only hired to be there until dinner was served, so not much time for food shots and hors devoures were served while I was outside with bride and groom.

[conraderb]

as for critique of the images - a fine job for your first wedding. good to know that you aren't afraid to bounce the flash for the indoor portraits.

 

one note - try to avoid shooting your bride straight on whenever possible. more flattering nearly all the time to shoot them at some angle - even as little as 20 degrees.

 

some image specific comments - take them with salt.

 

image #304 - too close. stand back and zoom in.

 

image 679 - I don't know that lens well, but I bet it can give you better OOF blur. open it up to 4 or 2.8, try to go nearly ambient, and touch the flash ever so slightly.

 

image 493 - nice silhouette work. not using flash can be just as effective as using flash. I would have loved to see a groom standing by her side, whispering something into her ear while she is looking down.

 

314 - back up and zoom in again.

 

image 410 - good use of line and balance. one of the best still lifes you have here.

 

771 - back up, zoom in, open up aperture. crouch down for more interest.

 

695 - whoa! was there an earthquake or something? great moment - but I'm not a fan of the tilt. but that's subjective, I realize...

 

cheers - conrad

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Overall not a bad effort for the first time out, sounds like you've got a better appreciation for the whole shebang. Alot of the croppimg looked a little tight to me......as you get better with PS you'll learn how you can improve these even more,....good luck

[rtrace]

Lauren,

 

You may want to take a look at this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CY8u

 

My main thing is more wide angle! More intimacy! Get closer! It WILL have an impact. See above thread for my comments, expamples, etc.

 

I see a lot of "flat" looking pictures here. Not enough wide angle, or if wide angle, then wide angle from far away. Of course this is just my preference/opinion, but the best stuff I've seen incorporates that.

 

Bogdan

[laurenm]

Conrad, thanks for taking the time for individual critiques, but how did you arrive at those image numbers so I can see which you are talking about?Yeah, you know, all those earthquakes in MA? I imagine it is one near the top, getting ready, I agree, I went overboard on the tilt. Told you this was an honest representation. I did bounce (without the napkin) during the cake shots). Was glad I didn't panic and go for the lightsphere and miss shots.

 

Dolly, thanks for asking, if you want to email me privately, I can try and help with any questions, but I would ask the PN community instead of me :) I used same camera and lens (and overused flash and lightsphere both indoors and out). I think the set up performed just fine, any failures were my own. Wish I had mastered having a second cam on my shoulder for diff lens use. I tried and got tangled and ditched the second cam. All I can say is watch histo closely in new lighting and adjust flash and settings as needed.

 

David, thanks, this was my very first time (as other members will attest to) at PS. I guess I look forward to learning more. All was in camera cropping. I always like close, tight pictures, but maybe should mix it up a bit.

 

Bogdan, thanks, I will read that thread. since I'm not quite sure what you mean? You mean use wide angle lens, but physically get closer? I was pretty close I thought

[laurenm]

I've reposted some of the getting ready pics as jpegs and they look better, though mess up my little "story flow"

[timberwulf]

Hey there. gif compression only gives you 256...yes count them....256 colors. This is usually woefully inadequate for a photograph.

 

So! How does this stuff work you might ask?

 

Gross oversimplification, but it should work:

 

GIF compression is by color runs. Imagine your photo as a single line across of every pixel in the image, left to right, top to bottom. GIF compressors count colors. So, if I had 80 pixels that were all the same color, the GIF compressor will happily say something like FFFFFF(80) rather then representing each pixel seperately. Images like logos, or other simple art that has a lot of color runs will compress nicely as a GIF. One thing to note - make sure your Photoshop is set to use a "selective" pallette (one drop down under the file type in the "save for web" interface. If it's using one of the other pallette selection methods, you'll get funky results. ;) PNG is a lot like GIF in how it compresses, it just has a few more fun features built in.

 

JPG on the other hand....well...I don't really know how JPG compresses. It just...umm...does. hehe. It is, however, very often far superior to use this format to save for web for photographs, as there is often a large amount of detail and non-linear color runs. I often save my images for PNet at around ~65-80% quality depending on the image. That often leaves me with a smaller file size, yet I still have very little moire to distract the eye.

 

Hope that helped a little bit. :)

[timberwulf]

grr...a quick clarification. GIF counts colors that are continuous runs. So those 80 pixels would have to be right next to each other down the line. If there is another color in there somewhere, the count will be less, and the file size will be larger.

 

When saving an image for web, I usually experiment briefly with both formats to see which produces a smaller image of enough detail. Sometims you might be surprsed. :)

 

Lauren, I was happy to help where I could. I just wish we could have gotten those dark ones a little better for you, but I'm happy we got them out as far as we did.

 

I agree, you're on your way! With some practice I think you could go from pretty good to great. :)

[steve_levine]

Everything looks great, I hope the couple is happy! You have an eye for what makes "good photos", and you are trying to capture them. This puts you a "head" above most beginners.

 

 

My only critiques would be minor things. There are many easily eliminated bright areas, that pull the viewer's eye out of frame. When there is a tiny sliver of white (blank) sky, in an otherwise dark shot of the B&G against a dark background, the sky serves no purpose other than to ruin the shot.

 

 

Also when you shoot formals. I would suggest a solid dark background. This places the emphasis on the subjects. Tent poles, protruding trees etc never add value to backgrounds either.

 

Others have mentioned using too much flash? I think they need more flash! I'm not seeing good facial illuminations, or eye catchlights.

 

 

You might want to study some of the horizontals you shot too. Many are verticals trapped in a horizontal frame.

 

 

All in all, I'm sure the couple will pleased. And in reality, no one else's opinions matter.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

All was in camera cropping. I always like close, tight pictures, but maybe should mix it up a bit. -Lauren

 

Camera cropping is fine as are tight shots, but remember the different prints sizes amd ratios that you get later. An 8x10 or 4x5 will cut into the image edges (top & bottom on a vertical shot or right & left side on a horizontal shot) significantly. It's better to crop a little loose in the camera and adjust the cropping more to taste when you print or when you place an image in the album page layout.

[jon jacobson]

Very very impressive ... especially for a first time out. I've seen worse from some ol' pros.

 

A while back somebody posted some of their notes of what to do and not to do based on their first-time experience. Perhaps you can do the same from your notebook?

 

You still have one more test (if you haven't already done so). Prints. How do they look on paper? Send off a few to the lab for your own portfolio immediately. Couple 5x7s, couple 8x10s and an 11x14. A good way to varify your monitor calibration before you print an entire album for your customer.

[laurenm]

Gary, thanks again a BUNCH! I have always uploaded jpegs to PN, but long story short, I tried to create a batch processing thing and it was suggested I try gifs by someone who's had trouble with jpegs before. Anyway, now I know.

 

Thanks Steve! I will add that to my notebook about the bright spots and formals and the verticals / horizontals (I'll try to set them free next time).

 

David, thanks, being aware of cropping for prints, I have in the past I think left TOO much room especially above heads so now I think I've mistakingly gone the opposite way. I thought I left enough room in most of the formals at least?

 

Thanks Jon, ha ha, if you only knew my whole calibrated monitor story (mine isn't which made post processing even more of a nightmare). I spoke with and sent samples to the lab several times and they were a GREAT help to me. I think I stopped bothering them just in time for them to not label me as a PIA customer. Good idea though on the prints. Not sure why I haven't been dying to see some in print.

I will try and post my notes tonight when home from work. I thought maybe people would be bored by them, but true, I appreciated that post by someone else a while back.

 

I hope you are all not being too nice to me!

[conraderb]

lauren - it's the last three # of the address that photo.net assigns to the image. for example,

the very first top left image ends in 552.

[kiva]

Congrats Lauren ... Nicely Done!

 

If I were to mention one item as feedback it would be this: consider moving your lens level on occasion. What I see is that most images are captured from the standing up position.

 

For example: the capture of bride adjusting shoes: cround down or (dare I say?) get down on floor.

 

Or: the wonderful detail shots of the table setting: crouch down and get close and intimate with the plates and glasses for Some of the shots instead of capturing from standing up and framing "the whole" of one setting or table. Close details in combo with the ones you have offer a nice choice.

 

Super job, they look Great!

[jon jacobson]

<i>I will try and post my notes tonight when home from work. I thought maybe people would be bored by them</i>

<p>

Well, you know, not the WHOLE list.<br>Just the highlights.<br> :)

[kari douma]

Sorry Lauren! (I'll fess up... I was the one who told her to do the gifs) When I started loading my very first images to PN, I was on dialup. I would try to upload a file, and it would take like 5 minutes or something. Then I would get an error message that it didn't go through for some reason. (I can't remember the exact message any more.) Anyway, it was very frustrating that some would go through and other would not, especially because it took so long to upload one image. Other PN people were having the same problem, and it was suggested to do a save for web and upload a gif file. I tried it and I have not had any trouble since. So that is in my PN gallery action. Am I crazy, or does someone else remember when this was being discussed?

[aaron_lee___minneapolis__m]

Lauren,

 

I'm just a beginner as well, but I think you did a pretty good job! Some good suggestions here, as the old joke goes: How many photographers does it take to screw in a light bulb? 51. 1 to do it, and 50 to tell the 1 how to do it differently. My point? Make sure you take the suggestions and use the ones that you feel will improve, don't use the ones that you don't think will do your style justice.

 

One thing I noticed, and notice with many photographers is the tendancy to be standing upright and snap at eye level. I like to mix things up, and I really like images at the level of the subject. ie lie down on the floor when taking a photo of a child on the dance floor, kneel down, etc. I think it adds a nice dynamic. Just try not to shoot up people's noses or dresses!

 

Just my $0.02 :)

 

Congratulations on a great first wedding!

 

Aaron Lee