I'm a newbie, how am I doing?

[kevin_swan1]

I've been second-shooting with a local pro this summer, and I hope to branch out

on my own next year. I was hoping to get some feedback from the readers here,

to help me learn what I should be focusing on to improve my photos. Here's a

link to some of my photos from a wedding I shot last weekend:

 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1243319&id=901905564

 

Please take a look and let me know if I'm on the right track, and how I can

improve. If you think my shots are terrible and I have no hope of making it as

a pro, please feel free to tell me that, too! :)<div></div>

[love schoolcraft]

IT says you must log in to see this book. Do you have a password and log in name?

[kevin_swan1]

Sorry, I thought that was the public link. This should work:

 

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=52964&l=83943&id=901905564

[brooke_moore]

Hey Kevin

 

The quality looks questionable on my display, hard to know if it is how you posted them on facebook or if they are all sort of out of focus.

 

Ok for second shooting approaches but not no much snap to the images. I like the one of the groomsman and the boy, sweet candid.

 

One suggestion I would have is that you need to sort out a point of view of what you are trying to capture. Are you looking only for casual moments or more of the central story line? Also the realtionship between you and the subject seems all the same to me.

 

Not bad for a start but keep looking!

Brooke

[kevin_swan1]

Brooke, the "focus" thing could be my fault. Part of my PP is to "soften" the photos a bit. I duplicate the layer, apply a gaussian blur of 20 or 30 pixels, then drop the blur layer's opacity to 30% or so. I erase holes in this layer with a soft brush so key features (eyes, hands, bouquets) remain sharp. But maybe I'm overdoing this effect?

[vivid_earth_photographics]

I think the PP "softening" is distracting as applied in these pix and makes me feel like I need to check my eyeglass prescription. I'm not sure it's accomplishing what you intended. To my eye there is also a green-ish color cast over many of the photos. I'm just someone who loves photography and I've never attempted something as difficult as a wedding, so the above is offered humbly FWIW.

[markonestudios]

Ok Kevin (deep breath).. here goes. I was unable to go to the facebook site, so I've checked out your website (kombat.org)

<p>First, I'd say you're photos are generally ok but they haven't transcended the snapshot level yet. Concentrate on your framing (get in close for tighter shots, use the rule of thirds, experiement with tilting the camera a little - for dynamism, etc)

<p>I would also spend lots of time on planetneil and other such sites to learn about creative use of flash (dragging the shutter, use of diffusers like the Demb Flash Diffuser Pro) and so on. So far your flashwork is too point-and-shoot which leads to flat, mundane lighting. If you want to get paid handsomely for shooting someone's big day, you need to produce work that a client will WANT to pay for. I'd say you still have some way to go still, but you'll get there! Check out the work of Todd Laffler here on PN for some inspiration...;)

<p>Best regards from Kenya,

<br>Mark

[William Michael]

Looking at the 15 images, and understanding that, as a `second shooter`, one might be more likely to capture candid, some areas to consider for improvement are:

 

 

1. FL Choice: Frame 13, Consider the foreshortening of the subjects in this capture, a better choice might have been a longer focal length.

 

 

2. Camera viewpoint / background / framing: Frames 5 and 6:

 

 

In frame 5 a more elevated camera viewpoint would render the negative space camera left, green and not the distracting OoF chairs which annoy the viewer`s eye. At that higher viewpoint one could then recompose the image to give 1/3 to 2/3 image ratio, either negative space bias or not, either way the image would have more impact: the white OoF chairs denude it, at the moment.

 

 

In Frame 6: a camera viewpoint taking into account the burnt background: a move to camera left will give a foliage background and perhaps a shallower DoF for emphasis: alternatively a move camera right will exploit the silhouette or a backlit flash fill shot. Either would render a better image. At the moment the burnt space is just a waste.

 

 

3. Connection / control of subjects: Frame12, (it is understood that a `second shooter` might not be asked to cover `posed` shots) but in this image there is a very confused dynamic and one where the photographer should take control of the internal communication, or at least stimulate it to get a better shot. In a nutshell the Bride is off Camera left and focussed on (a guess) someone in the crowd, behind the camera; the Groom`s attention is across the Bride to someone else, and the only internal communication is the Officiant to the Groom. A little stage management would be required to improve this capture.

 

 

Or alternatively, to critique the image as a totally `candid capture`: the timing of the shutter release is completely wrong, i.e. the photographer captured the wrong moment.

 

 

4. Composition, general: Frame 12, when the internal communication is established in this frame then a tighter 1/2 shot would eliminate the half person camera right and remove the more minor error of not capturing the whole of the Bride`s Dress.

 

 

On another issue of backgrounds and their importance: a slight viewpoint change camera left ,will also remove the tree growing from the Bride`s head and render her hair and diadem in better contrast, with the tighter shot.

 

 

5. What is the meaning / where is the planning? : Frame 2, this image looks as if the singer is serenading the grey post.

 

 

This is a shot whereby, as second shooter, there should have been total control in the planning and execution: seemingly there was plenty of time, so surely there was there capacity to get something of the Wedding in the background? Some linkage to the event, please.

 

 

6a. The finer detail when all else is pretty good. The capture of the (best man?) Frame 15: has good timing, reasonable composition, feel and communication, and is perhaps one of two images, which are the best.

 

 

But, either this was shot on an hillside where the camera was lower than the subject; or the photographer purposely dropped to a lower viewpoint; or did not purposely elevate the camera viewpoint as much as possible. More camera elevation would allow a tighter crop in post production and rid the blown sky, and also would improve the portrait rendition of the cheekbones and nose.

 

 

6b. The capture of the gentleman and the little boy is cute and has a really good feel, but the chaos in the background and compositional imbalance is off putting. This last comment comes close to crossing over to some artistic critique, whereas the former has been totally technical.

 

 

But perhaps it is worthwhile considering which image you think is more powerful:

 

 

WW<div></div>

[kevin_swan]

personally, i find the original crop much more appealing. The off-center composition, tge

flow from the building to the man to the boy, the sense of location, and the amount of

room in the original make it more unique and compelling.

 

But what do i know? I'm just another kevin swan...

http://www.kevinswan.com