Please critique individual wedding

[mgk1966]

<p>It's been about a year since I asked for an individual wedding critique. Many improvements since then, but still wrestling with some stuff. This particular wedding went pretty well overall, although there were some challenges with the solstice sun.<br>

<br /><a href="http://kuehlphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/8731657_r4hgK#577405348_oyyhs">http://kuehlphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/8731657_r4hgK#577405348_oyyhs</a><br>

<br />That's a link to the full gallery, with some highlights grouped together on the first page. I would love to hear any suggestions as to how to improve these. Thanks a bunch.<br>

<br />Matt</p>

[betty_lowrey]

<p>I really liked them Matthew. Looks like you had some really beautiful light to work with in many of the shots. (I'm a fan of sunflare, so you had me at the magic hour light!)<br>

Only one suggestion, your black and whites are a little flat. Like they need an added depth to them. Not sure if you're using PS but I know Pioneer Woman offers some free actions and her black and white is phenomenal. I use it all the time. Deep and rich and really brings out the emotion in the picture. I highly recommend it.</p>

[savagesax]

How many weddings have you photographed? Wonderful eye for creative lighting.I enjoyed viewing your work. Very nice, glad you posted your beautiful work. What lens did you use for those ring shots? Your images also pop, sort of like in the film days when using Kodak Portra VC. (Vivid Color) Did you shoot in RAW? It looks as though you did, based on the details.

[rayt]

<p>One of my pet peeves is when highlights are blown. In most of your pictures the whites of the dress are blown with no detail being present. For example images x090629od_046 x090629od_087 show nothing but a blob of white for the dress. There is absolutely no detail. I know you were working in the sun but you have to learn to control that detail. The bride paid a lot of money for the dress so let the detail show.</p>

<p>This image x090629od_114 I really like with the natural light. I also like this image x090629od_175.</p>

<p>Most importantly, rather than pleasing me or others, is the bride happy with the images? If so you did well and anything I say is of little importance. You need to please yourself and your client, not scruffy opinionated coots like me.</p>

[savagesax]

The reason I asked if you shot in Raw, is due to Raymonds comments. Some of the shots were blown out, but you can fix them with ease in PS. I did see detail in a few of the shots, therefore I feel confident you can fix this in photoshop. Your images are copyrighted therefore I wasn't able to fix any. Raymonds comment should entice you to fine tune the exposure.

[francie_baltazar]

<p>You have some really nice shots - Where I see the major issues are in the wedding dress being blown out to the point of no recovery, black and whites are really flat, in a lot of your wide angle shots you have a lot of distortion, in your bouquet toss your bride is totally blown out but in the garter you are spot on - so you may want to look at what the difference was there and see how you can do better with that in the future. With all that said I think your color is lovely and overall really liked viewing it...</p>

[mgk1966]

<p>Thanks all.<br>

@Betty - I was inspired by other sunflare shots that were posted here recently. First time using it. Not sure why sometimes I get rays, sometimes spots, sometimes nothing at all. I use LR for 98% of my editing. Does Pioneer have something for LR? Kind of weird that when I select "strong contrast", then bump up the blacks, it's still too flat.</p>

<p>@Bob - The ring shots are with a Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro. Typically 1 or 2 shots with this lens and then it goes back in the bag. I've shot about 2 weddings per month for the past year, minus a slowdown in the winter. I did shoot in raw. </p>

<p>@Raymond - Looking back now, it's blatently obvious that I blew the dress on some shots. Careless PP mixed with too much flash. I tend to slouch in my computer chair sometimes and end up viewing the screen from the wrong angle, making the shot look darker. Also, I have some issues with the recovery button in LR - it screws up the contrast on the subjects face.<br>

The bride is on honeymoon now, but I expect she will like them. She was easy going and delighted with the LCD screen shots I was showing her through the day. I haven't ever had any complaints about quality. Brides seem to be happy enough that I catch them with a natural smile.<br>

@Francie - See above re: blowouts. The reason the garter shot was exposed correctly was because I made some local adjustments. It was such a good moment that I had to fix that one. Never got around to doing the same on the bouquet. What do you mean by distortion on the wide angles? I just picked up that lens last week, so i'm getting used to it.<br>

Thanks again for the time looking through my gallery.<br>

Matt</p>

<p> </p>

[kathy_riddle2]

<p>Some people are very concerned about the whites being blown out. I agree with Bob as usual, and also feel you can get some of this information in RAW. Bob gives lectures throughout Los Angeles and also takes an average on 10 people to parks in California.</p>

<p>I really like your images. Your use of lighting is perfect and magical. I like your black&whites a lot. I get an uplifting mood experience and believe obtaining the perfect b&w image isn't a rule in wedding photography. In fact a lot of photographers turn there bad color images into b&w, which to me is sinful. You favored the lighter tones and I think it worked beautifully. Don't change that.</p>

<p>As far as light reflection goes you should post a few of your images for Gallery ratings. From my experience most photographers generally rate flare way below average, so take a chance and post your best flare image under weddings.</p>

<p>Wide angle lenses often cause distortion and the fish eye is a blast to play with. Don't worry about this unless you are shooting formals, there you need to be careful. On full framed cameras I like to keep the cut off line no lower than 35mm's If you find yourself at this line or below it, put the thinner people towards the outsides.</p>

<p> </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Matt, for some reason I can't see your images (maybe firewall blocking).<br>

Nevertheless if you find that images look darker or brighter depending on your viewing angle you should consider getting a pro level screen like Eizo Coloredge or NEC Spectraview. It makes a huge difference.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Nicely done, you've really come a long way since you first posted here. I recognize your officiant and have shot other weddings with him a number of times. You managed to handle difficult outdoor lighting about as well as anyone could given the bright sun. I still really dislike lens flare and bright sun in the frame most of the time. Flare often appears to look like a mistake and since your eyes are drawn to the lightest areas, it typically draws the eye away from your subjects. You might want to switch your thumbnails from the square format to the original ratio. </p>

[mgk1966]

<p>I'm glad you noticed that, David. Thanks. Been working hard, and getting canned from my civilian job makes that easier. Thanks Kathy as well.</p>

<p>Pete, I looked up that monitor. Pretty high, but I'm sure that does what I would need.</p>