I'm new to wedding photography - Critique needed.

[adrienne_kimmel]

<p>I've been stalking the community for a while, but I've never had anything to post...until now. I recently started wedding photography and was hoping to get some pointers and critique. I've been doing wedding video for years, but I finally made the switch to photography and have my website up. <br>

Any comments or suggestions are appreciated. Also, I would love any pointers or critique on any of the photos you see on the site.<br>

<a href="http://www.adriennefoxphotography.com/">http://www.adriennefoxphotography.com/</a><br>

Thank you!!!<br>

 

 

</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>You need to get a tripod ALL of whose legs won't collapse leaving you with all the squint horizons!</p>

<p>That said.......it really looks like many other similar sites and approaches.......tired images.....tired solutions, tired everything.</p>

<p>Show us <em><strong>Adrienne !</strong> </em> Show us how you are different..........how you see that others don't......show us a style that will make you a name to be respected. As it is now, it's just one more sheep in the flock. Compassionately, Bob</p>

[adrienne_kimmel]

<p>Wow, I never really noticed the horizon thing. I guess my photos do really tilt.<br>

Thank you so much for the insight. I really am still trying to find myfelf, but your words give me a good kick the butt to get it together. Thank you!</p>

[betty_lowrey]

<p>Adrienne, I highly suggest picking up The Fast Track Photographer book. It's REALLY inspired me to find my "style"</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I see some nice images with good expressions but there are several images where you've blown-out the highlights and the shadows (tuxedos) lack detail. Worry about style later, work on your basic craftsmanship and the style will evolve.</p>

[adrienne_kimmel]

<p>When I started I was so worried about the dress. I always read the white dress was so hard (which it is) but it's those black tuxedos that seem to give me the hardest time. They do have some detail in my original photos, but when I edit the contrast to make the photo pop - I lose a lot of detail. Here is one of the originals as an example. I know it is blown out a bit, but the black has much more detail than in my final version. Am I just over processing things, or was the original photos just a "bad canvas" to paint on?" </p><div></div>

[martindomok]

<p>On contrary, I like ur work, I like tilted horizon. <br>

I think that straight pictures are more standard, but when everything is straight it looks too plain and sometimes boring. <br>

That is why I like tilted images and I can see many of those in ur portfolio. <br>

keep it up!</p>

 

[victoria_h]

<p>I think a lot of your work is lovely - yes, it's a fashionable style at the moment but what's wrong with following the trends if that's what the bride and groom want? I particularly like the image of the bride with the tear on her cheek.<br>

As for losing detail when you want to make the image 'pop', I use duplicate layers and then partly or completely erase away the parts of the top layer where I don't want the effects. So in your example, I would have erased away just his suit. I hope that makes sense</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Adrienne, rather than worry about blowing-out the dress, you need to understand lighting. In this case the dress and the tux are under-lit and you're having trouble balancing the bright sun with the light in the shade. Consequently you have blown-out parts of the street, fence, and some of the background area. I've done a before and after with your image to show how it could be improved with PS. Working around a bright sun is always a very difficult proposition. Good outdoor lighting almost always requires some form of supplemental lighting. Here's a comprehensive training DVD for you: <a href="http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/shop.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Product_Code=LLT028&Category_Code=DVD">http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/shop.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Product_Code=LLT028&Category_Code=DVD</a> Good luck.</p><div></div>

[mark_loader]

<p>Hi, Adrienne. First print out Bob's reply and stick it on your Fridge! I might even do that myself and put my name on it! Second, check out the work of these guys: Jerry Ghionis, Yervant Zanazanian, Rocco Ancora and Marcus Bell. These are some of the best wedding photographers here in Australia and all enjoy international acclaim. See and be inspired and notice how they often think outside the box. Ever thought of shooting the bride and groom in a graffiti filled alley? ( good graffiti that is). I've seen it and it works! Your business has a great name -Adrienne Fox Photography- ( cue smokey saxophone ) so let's see the images to match. All the best from Downunder</p>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>First, you don't need a tripod. You can easily fix that in post in quicker than it takes to set up a tripod and move it around for the best shot. I've always found tripods to be more of a hinderance than anything.<br>

Second, I'd work on your white balance and your post processing. Right now (even in David's edit) your wedding dresses are blue. Unless it truly was a blue wedding dress I'd fix that. This can easily be fixed in Lightroom.<br>

I'd also work on your composition. Study and live by the rule of thirds. Also glad to see you haven't over processed your images or done any spot-color. Stick to that and you'll continue on towards getting the high-end clients.</p>

[gregory_c]

<p>Xanax,,,</p>

[rayt]

<p>I warmed up the image and applied some exposure compensation to the brides dress. It may be a little to warm for some; so be it. Image in next post because of problems with the web pages.</p>

[rayt]

<p>The back button on the screen gives an expired page and still posts the message. Pphhhhht.</p><div></div>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>Alright. Here's my adjustment. Proper white balance, fixed dress (it's no longer blue). It's not over-saturated or over-contrast-boosted. Took me about 3 seconds in Lightroom. Never touched photoshop once. If you know what you're doing in Lightroom it's faster if not more powerful than photoshop for working weddings. </p><div></div>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>And lovely... I misspelled processing. Boot to the head. >.<</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Nice white balance correction David...........</p>

[williamting]

<p>Ditto what Cathy and David said, I can afford to shoot raw 24/7 (and not worry about WB) because of Lightroom.</p>

[kirk d]

<p>Cathy/David, in a post above you wrote, "...Also glad to see you haven't over processed your images or done any spot-color."<br>

What is spot-color?<br>

Kirk</p>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>David--- Thanks. :) Though I have to disagree with you on your statement about supplemental lighting. I think if you know how to do it right you can do amazing things in natural light. I've never once used supplemental lighting outdoors. I just don't see a need for it when the light that already exists is so beautiful. What's important to me is working with the existing light and working with it rather than making it work with you. Just my thoughts..</p>

<p>Kirk--- Spot color is when someone has say the roses red and the rest in b&w, like those hallmark cards with the child giving another child the flower and the whole thing is b&w cept for the flower. Ugh. I think it looks completely tacky and was out-dated years ago yet people still do it. It's one of those... just because you can doesn't mean you should sorts of things. Don't get me wrong I've seen it well done, but I never think it looks nice, or classy. Just personal opinion though. :) As always, to each their own.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

David.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"Though I have to disagree with you on your statement about supplemental lighting. I think if you know how to do it right you can do amazing things in natural light."</em><br>

So reflectors, scrims, and speedlights are unnecessary if you just "know how to do it right". Well, I've got several books & training videos that state otherwise.........I'll be the first one to register for your seminar on location lighting techniques.</p>

<p>BTW, isn't it just horrible that there are several national commercial media campaigns that are still using selective coloring. Perhaps we should say something to them.<br>

<em></em></p>

[kirk d]

<p>Cathy/David,<br>

I suspected that is what you were referring to, I personally call it selective coloring but that's is how terms go - differing all the time.<br>

I haven't ever done a wedding but when I first learned I could do selective coloring, I did a few. I rarely do it any more and most of the times I see others do it, it is more random without adding interest or meaning.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Kirk</p>

[adrienne_kimmel]

<p>Wow...your lightroom photo kicks my photos butt. Thank you for showing me that.<br>

You said that "If you know what you're doing in Lightroom it's faster if not more powerful than photoshop for working weddings." What type or learning curve is there/ how long did it take you to be able to do that in just a few seconds?</p>

[tina___cliff_t]

<p>I don't know about anyone else, but I was using photoshop for all my editing for the longest time. Then my fiancee got my lightroom as a gift, and I was shocked. It is 10 times faster to edit basics like WB, exposure etc in lightroom, I love it, and would never go back to using just photoshop if I had a choice. I only use photoshop now if I have to edit out something (say a random person in the back of a portrait that should be just the bride & groom etc).</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>Adrienne. Thanks. :) It probably took a little bit of tweaking to get my presets the way I like them, but from then on, just the click of one button. Just play around and save different presets till you find one you like. :)</p>