Would like a critique on our first wedding

[haynes photography]

Hi,

This is for those who don't mind skimming a bunch of wedding pics! My husband

and I shot our first wedding this past weekend. We have shadowed weddings quite

a few times before this, but this was our first one on our own. We'd like some

feedback...

I will let you all know this: This couple danced the first dance, then the

groom went outside and did not come back in unitil we told him to cut the cake

and such. So, we did not get as many pics of them together...

 

Okay, the link below is to our website: It has music! So if you don't like

music I must warn you to turn your volume off :)<br><br>

 

Go to client proofing<br>

Click on Christopher and Kristin<br>

Password: Vince<br>

 

<a href="http://www.scottandtiffanyhaynes.com">Link to Our Website</a><br><br>

 

Thanks Ya'll

We appreciate it!

~Tiffany

[greg jansen]

Way too posed and "stoped action" like. To set yourself apart from the snapshot style shooters you need to learn how to move with the people and not direct them so much.

 

I think getting in tighter would have helped in many instances, especially the getting ready shots.

 

Work on getting candids with a long lens, and when people don't know you are taking it, as opposed to people smiling looking at the camera.

 

For each section of the day start with a wide establishing shot (like the whole getting ready room and all the people in it), then do some medium length shots (like most of your shots), then also some tight more detail oriented shots (like a close-up of the hand fixing the veil).

 

So in summary I would say: 1. Vary your focal length, 2. Catch the action instead of directing it.

 

Every wedding you will learn something new. Don't be afraid to try new stuff.

[edsel_adams]

People will move on to another web site, rather than sit through a long download or intro. Your site is pretty much un-viewable wih dial up too.

[mariah_smith]

I don't have a ton of experience with weddings and I know this is your first one but....the overall quality was a bit lacking. There were some nice artistic shots (hands w/ rings and champ. flute) but a lot seemed either out of focus, not white balanced and a little snapshotish. Sorry, but you did want critiques.

 

I would try shooting from different angles. You have a lot of straight on shots and that gets a little boring. It looks like it was low lighting so that probably accounts for the super soft focus but you really need a lens that can perform.

 

Did you shoot in jpeg or raw? If raw, I would recommend going in and playing with the white balance and exposure in some (they're pretty dark...I know the room was but it doesn't look ambient, just underexposed). Even in jpeg you can adjust the color.

 

Anyway, you're off to a good start. And I hope I wasn't too harsh, these were just the things that jumped out at me. Hopefully, they help!

[mariah_smith]

Your site was super fast for me...not even close to unviewable :)

[elaine marie]

Your site ran fine for me and was quick to load. My main critique would be way to much flash.I realize that it was late evening but with a faster lens you could have got by with less flash or no flash for the earlier ones outside. Good start though ...keep reading and learning from the pros on here.

 

Elaine

[sandra_schaffer]

Your Black and white tones need work.. highlights are blown and they look as if they were made Black and White due to noise? you have over flashed as well.

 

Please learn to pose people if you are going to use posed shots. The bride looking down at her flowers over her shoulder would be ever so much more pleasing if her pose were feminine and her shoulder was dropped (not pushed up as it is). The one where she is sitting on the lawn in the center of her dress is awkward.. try shooting so she is not flat front facing the camera (45 degree angle and again, feminine pose with her neck and shoulders, head).

 

When shooting 1-3 people, shoot vertical. The reason vertical adds interest is it improves framing and is different than how we see things (we see things in landscape).

 

The website loaded fine, but if there is a problem loading quickly for dial up customers that may be a problem. Some photographers say that if a bride can't afford cable modem service, she can't afford them (I have heard this).

 

However, some people are on dial up because there is no fast modem service where they live (rural).

[norrispictures]

You're quite brave to welcome critiques.

I agree that the bright flash and low light is the biggest issue with most of these pictures.

And these are the issues that I see:

The colors look too cool and unflattering -- every face has a bluish hue. This could possibly be helped with some level adjusting - maybe adding a bit of red. I agree with the other comments about RAW vs. JPG - you could do alot more adjusting if you have RAW images.

There are hot spots on almost every forehead due to the bright flash, which makes the pictures unpleasnt to view - and I think that gives it the amatuerish, snapshotish look that the other members are referring to? Do you have a diffusion filter on your flash? On your lens? Both of those would help with that problem, although probably not eliminate it completely. Are you flashing straight on, or tilting the flash head slightly up? That would help also, even if you don't have white surface to bounce off of, a dome diffuser would probably spread out the light enough.

Of course, getting a faster lens is the best option, but if the budget doesn't allow for that right now, these are other suggestions.

Maybe you've already thought of/done all of these things, and if you have then you can ignore my comment. :)

Hope it's helpful and good luck with your photography.

[holly dysarz]

Scott & Tiffany,

 

Your page loads quickly for me, so no issues there. The only thing I can suggest and noticed on a few pictures such as the chocolate cake and the flowers that had the rings in some peddals are out of focus....there can be many reasons for this but it is important to be concious of this mistake. You don`t want to present clients with images that are out of focus, something that is easily detected.

[www.ericdrichards.com]

Wow-

 

Soooo much potential-

 

The images are just too flat. Use some DOF and angles and get them moving a bit. And, yes, your Photoshop skills need some real work.

 

You have such good potential - with a little more attention to detail and more work post-production, I can see you doing quite well.

 

I hope that's not too abrasive.

 

Keep it up! Post some more!

 

ERIC

[haynes photography]

Truthfully, I really dislike using a flash much. I think I froze up a little when I previewed the pics as I was shooting and they were not exactly what I was looking for (because of the flashiness/ brightness). Although when I got home and saw them on the computer I was a little relieved (not much). Can someone tell me about their experience useing a flash dome and if you recommend using one? And I shoot with a Nikon d200 with a 28-70 f1:2.8D lens. Is that a good lens for weddings other than a telephoto lens? One more thing, what would be the best telephoto lens to use at an outdoor evening wedding?

Thanks for the feedback.... would like some suggestions with some of the observations.

[nancy s.]

Zeltsmand Free Portait lessons. Clothing and styles are dated. Posing info and lighting is spot on.

 

http://groups.msn.com/Asktheoleproaboutphotography/joezeltsman.msnw?pgmarket=en-us

[jenseay]

On the subject of flash, the first thing that I noticed (because it's something I used to do) is that you bounced the flash off the ceiling directly above your subjects, leading to dark eye sockets. I have solved this problem by (1) using a diffuser (I prefer to use the flip-it (http://www.dembflashproducts.com/diffuser/) and the lightsphere interchangeably) and (2) turning your flash to the side and bouncing it off the wall (if there is one nearby) for some nice side (portrait) lighting. Hope this helps!

[William Michael]

> This was our first one on our own. We'd like some feedback... <

 

 

Pre ceremony:

 

 

Be more cautious of wide angler focal length lenses; camera angle; square on and profile posing; and group arrangements, when capturing robustly built subjects, especially where the shoulders and arms are bare.

 

 

The logic and artistic value of low camera angles must have a specific relevance; what does it add to be looking up someone`s nose?

 

 

Some nice captures with connection between subjects, but many of these are in the distance, perhaps intimacy could be accentuated by getting in a bit tighter. What benefit or artistic merit is there with a big white table in front of the nice, (but slightly stilted) shot of man and woman in blue dress?

 

 

Ceremony:

 

 

Too many long shots for my liking. Perhaps the inverse more correct; no tight half and three quarter shots to capture more intimacy.

 

 

Some of the full length shots look as though they have been shot from a kneeling position, if this is so, please justify why this technique has been employed and what merit there is in it.

 

 

After Ceremony:

 

 

The photographers seem more in control in this environment: you should note well the superior artistic quality gained from the formal arrangements where the Bride has been positioned slightly profile and with the head turned toward the camera, and shot from a slightly more elevated position.

 

 

When using the ottoman as a prop, you must really decide whether to go in tight or make the shot full length, with the seated subjects, the knees, as can be seen, will become problematic.

 

 

The stairwell shots seem, again to be shot from a kneeling viewpoint: see comment above.

 

 

The tight intimate captures are nice.

 

 

Reception:

 

 

Generally credible, however some low camera angles for adult subjects are questionable, and as a contrast, such high camera angels to the point of excessive foreshortening, with child subjects.

 

 

General comment:

 

 

Overall a reasonable job, and for the first one, there is a good base on which to improve.

 

 

If you have had formal training in photography theory, composition or art, then please review the lectures concerning the in focus BACKGROUND; there are many images where there are `decapitations` and `items growing out of and through the subjects`.

 

 

Often even if theory has been studied, it is forgotten with the adrenaline rush of capturing the moment.

 

 

If you have not had formal theoretical training, then I suggest you do so, because there are some capture which show an eye for this art.

 

 

Overall, there has generally been a staged approach which to the viewer might make the whole look slightly stilted or formal, but that in some measure is redressed by the PP work done in the `Album` folder.

 

 

 

The `staging` might be your way of gaining control, and be stemming from your nervous tension; you will be more relaxed with time and experience and also perhaps with a firmer grounding in art and composition theory and its translation when to applied candid capture.

 

 

On the subject of the website I make little comment except: it was a bit slow, but you wanted feedback on your photography; our company does not use the web a conduit to show any images to clients; I did not view the parcel on a `calibrated` (to what standard?) monitor, thus I disregarded any (perceived) colour balance issues.

 

 

Also I assumed that images were in focus etc and correct in other basic technical function: my critique was done from the thumbnails only. I would expect that you would NOT expect anyone to take the time to actually wait for enlargements to load?

 

 

And perhaps your clients too? The last comment is merely: food for thought.

 

 

WW

[james_giordano]

Quote: Edsel Adams, Mar 29, 2007; 11:09 a.m.

 

People will move on to another web site, rather than sit through a long download or intro. Your site is pretty much un-viewable wih dial up too.

 

Sorry could not resist... but dial-up is as obsolete as the Edsel

[haynes photography]

what type deffuision filter would I get for my lens? more name brand suggestions on diffusion filter for flash? If I use a telephoto lens would I be able to shoot without stablizing the camera? I hear the v.r. works well in the lens? Thanks for everything. ya'll are great!!

[William Michael]

> If I use a telephoto lens would I be able to shoot without stablizing the camera? <

 

Yes, provided you chose a shutter speed appropriate to inhibit camera shake.

 

WW

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Sorry could not resist... but dial-up is as obsolete as the Edsel</i></p><p>In addition, no photo site will load quickly on dialup. Photos take up space. Consequently, they take a while to download on dialup. On a separate line of thinking, if the potential customer cannot afford broadband, what is the likelihood that they can afford to hire a photographer?</p>

[William Michael]

> On a separate line of thinking, if the potential customer cannot afford broadband, what is the likelihood that they can afford to hire a photographer? <

 

And another point of view - who is actually doing the shopping?

 

My Aunt and Uncle have dial up only, they use it; `just for our emails to our overseas friends`.

 

They just spent a truckload of money on their Grandson`s Baptism Photographs: Chose them at all at the Studio Interview, as did the other Grandparents.

 

However their children (ie the parents of the recently Baptized Boy), have a superfast internet connection, and looked at the photos on line, but still went to the studio to make the final decision to purchase them and to also look at and touch some of the finished products, and choose some frames.

 

(BTW I had no connection with these transactions, they went to an highly regarded studio, not our competition, because of geographic location.)

 

WW