WEDDING CRITIQUE OF THE WEEK 7/27/09--AKA Wedding Photo of the Week

[picturesque]

<p>This week's image was taken by Sutejo Kurniawan.<br>

<br />In your critiques - Include what you would do to improve the shot or why the shot is perfect as it is and why. Remember that this is not a contest. Sometimes an image will be a winning image and sometimes an image that needs some help. Try not to just say "great shot" but explain why it works. Or - "Doesn't do it for me" without explaining why.<br /><br />The photographer up for critique for this week should remember that the comments expressed each week are simply "opinions" and the effort and focus of these threads are to learn and to take images to another level. There will be times where the critique is simply members pointing out why the shot works which is also a way for others to learn about what aspects contribute to a good wedding photo. In reading all critiques -- You may agree or disagree with some points of view - but remember that there are varying approaches and often no right or wrong answer.</p><div></div>

[melissa_arcuri1]

<p>The image is real, natural. No turn your head this way, tilt your hip out, blah, blah, blah...i despide that. The bride is having fun and the photographer captured that beautifully. As most shots like this one, it is done quickly with no time to obsess over lighting and all those pesky technical details. The image is good, thats what matters. Convert to black and white maybe and crop out a bit off each side and be done with it. Kudos Sutejo!</p>

[nuzumphoto]

<p>I like it. Good shot....I just don't know what is in the image on the right side there...looks like some sort of handle?</p>

[mbbrown]

<p>I love the image. It's warm and happy and really captures a mood. If I would do anything at all, I might crop in a little tighter on the ends. But, even as is, it's a keeper. Good on ya, Sutejo!</p>

<p>Oh, and while I suspect it would make an awesome B&W, I think this image in color has a certain warmth about it that might be diminished to a degree in B&W. But, hey, no harm in trying, right?</p>

<p>Excellent pick of the week!</p>

<p> </p>

[mbbrown]

<p>Sorry, couldn't resist. That thing protruding out of the right edge was bugging me. It looked like photo/video equipment. This is just a tighter crop. Also a very slight vignette to tone down the edges. Otherwise...awesome!</p><div></div>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I like the moment and I like what Mike has done by cropping in, adding a subtle viginette, and eliminating that distracting blob that was on the right edge of the frame. I think the bride appears soft. I'd like more DOF to improve focus on the bride and what appears to be the MOB. Looks like some WB issues and I'd prefer some crisper whites. Since it appears to be a grab shot, I'm not as bothered by the flood of light coming from the background via the window as I might be if the shot was staged. I'd also prefer not to cut/crop the image through her hands but again, since it was a grab shot it's not as critical. I would have liked at least a touch of bounced fill flash. Thanks for sharing the image.</p>

[William Michael]

<p >The image grasps the Bride to Be's joy, the Mother's Pride and the Bridesmaid's, perhaps mixed emotion, also it seems the Brother or Father is in shot, but outside the “Circle of Women” which is quirky – but perhaps might be distracting. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Which leads me to comment . . . yes this could be a Grab Shot - but that does not dismiss preparedness, IMO. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Although the shutter was timed to capture the emotion: I believe it was shot in quite a controlled environment and in that regard, it falls short of some technical proficiency. I think that it is important to balance technical proficiency with capturing the moment and I am sure there will be views as to when and where each takes the priority.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In this particular case I believe there was more scope for technical proficiency without sacrificing “being there” for the moment of good shutter release – this is all about preparedness. This first, most obvious distraction is the black handle-like intrusion; other issues which could have been addressed are the Bride’s Hands, and the horizontal protrusions through her head, and perhaps the convergence of the verticals – though the last does seem to be justified somewhat as it tends to exacerbate the feeling of the viewer looking in on an intimate moment.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >A simple camera viewpoint change – camera left and slightly lower - would have ensured the Photographer was better prepared for a wide shot, such as this, or an half shot of the Bride alone – without interfering backgrounds, protruding black things, and cutting off hands, also the convergence of verticals would have been less pronounced, also the Man in the background could have been easily removed from frame.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Obviously speedy and accurate selection of camera viewpoint comes with experience – and there are times when just getting the shot is the dominate concern – but on the face of it this is not one of those times.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So, what I would like the Photographer to take from this critique is to, upon arrival at any venue, (in this case the Bride’s Bedroom), to more closely consider and assess the environment and plot where one might perch the camera’s viewpoint(s) to give clear views and ensure the backgrounds do not interfere – especially beware of hard verticals and horizontals. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >That discussion aside, this image is fresh and happiness streams from it - no doubt it will be treasured by the Mother and the Bride, both.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>William, </p>

<p>Great contribution! When I looked at the image I saw a snapshot. Absolutely nothing wrong with a snapshot, I am not trying to take away anything from the image and Lord knows I take a lot of snapshots myself. However, I really liked your critique which, if nothing else, made me re-interpret the scene. Here's the catch though.... if I understand your suggestion correctly, the camera needs to be to the left and lower but it needs to be low enough to to put the brides ahead above the headboard and to the left enough so that the picture frame doesn't slice into it, but not so far left as to have the bride cover mom's face. All-in-all, I would say that would have been pretty hard to pull off even if I had "planned" for that in advance?</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thank you for the kind comment.<br>

<br>

<strong><em>"All-in-all, I would say that would have been pretty hard to pull off even if I had "planned" for that in advance?"</em></strong><br>

<br>

No, IMO not. It is all in the geometry. The bed is about 6ft long and that image was taken with the wider end of the 24 -70 it looks to me pretty close to 24mm.<br>

<br>

I use a 5D and a 24F1.4L quite a lot for portraiture. . . the SD would have been close to 4ft - maybe even closer, the movement required to re-frame would have been only inches - perhaps less than 1 foot. <br>

<br>

Irrespective of all of that and not debating if the Photographer had enough time to move, or not, the point I am making is:<br>

<br>

<em>to know and plan where NOT to be, is just as important as being in the "best" vantage point.</em><br>

<br>

And in the environment of the Bride's Bedroom there is little rush - it is controlled physically - not like when a Flower Girl or Page Boy runs down the aisle - it's not like shooting a football game or boxing match.<br>

<br>

I might sound harsh, but I don't mean to be - I am merely suggesting that when one enters any environment one must reconnoitre all the angles and know which are better, firstly for the light, and then for viewpoint and perspective. The scene was controlled and the action limited the light was controlled IMO the Photographer was not in the best Camera Viewpoint possible – which is a basic, and without opening up that discussion, basics seem more and more sometimes dismissed or overlooked or excused “to get the shot” <br>

<br>

WW<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[e._hughes]

<p>I really like the raw emotion on this image, but I find all the different colors a bit distracting. I would probably have gone black and white, with some sharpening, and burn the edges just a bit. Love the emotion!</p>

<div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>My suggestion would be to tighten in on the powerful part of the photo.</p>

<p>The suggestion William made is the same one I'd suggest ... in future squat down a little when using a wide angle lens in a smaller space.</p>

<p>We can get into the lazy habit of shooting from full height at eye level, and it isn't always the best view. The forced perspective of the background can get weird at times from that high up shooting down on a subject. So can the foreshortening of the subject itself.</p>

<p>He's a crude simulation of what William was suggesting by getting lower. </p><div></div>

[sutejok]

<p>Thanks for the critiques. I really learned alot, things i wouldnt have learned, unless i took this shot. This was the first wedding that I have ever covered, so still lacking of alot of technical experience is not a surprise.</p>

<p>Thx, Michael for cropping it, I agree, that is much less distracting, and it takes away the obvious distortion on the photo frame at the corner. I thought of not cropping because I wanted to show more of the surrounding, to re-tell the sense of space during that moment. Eitherway, I need to remove the videographer's handle for the frame. </p>

<p>Thx William, very very constructive. Yes, positioning really wasnt in my head on that day. It really should have. In fact, I dont think I paid attention to backgrounds, too focused on the foreground. The other technical details might be fixed if there was time.. The next two shots that i took after re-framing, the bride didnt look too natural anymore, as she was more aware of the camera. I guess the fix is get it right the first time :)</p>

<p>Regarding this comment: "<strong>to know and plan where NOT to be, is just as important as being in the "best" vantage point.</strong>" I like it and dislike it too.. its very safe, but wouldnt that limit alot of things? creativity? :) I dont know, I'm not that experienced anyway to show my stand on that.</p>

<p>Anyways, thanks again for the critiques! </p>

[William Michael]

<p ><em >"<strong>to know and plan where NOT to be, is just as important as being in the "best" vantage point.</strong>" I like it and dislike it too.. its very safe, but wouldnt that limit alot of things?"</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Let me explain further my point of view, it has naught to do with stifling creativity or interfering with the Subjects’ individual reactions and / or interactions between the Subjects. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >And it is not a matter of “being safe” or not<strong ><em >, it is just procedural</em></strong>. </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em >Just as procedural as Artist would set an easel in a specific position according to the <strong >Light</strong> and to <strong >Define the Perspective</strong> he required. </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >It is all about planning where the camera best should be positioned: Reconnoitre and Forward Planning, based upon some simple premises that artists have used for centuries pertaining to: light; viewpoint (perspective) and Field of View (Focal Length Choice).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As the Bride was sitting – the general <em >Ready Position</em> for the camera would be around waist height for the Photographer when standing. Alternatively the Photographer would be kneeling or crouching in the ready position if using the viewfinder to the eye.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This is more important as the Camera Viewpoint gets closer to the subject (Perspective) and as the Field of View expands (the FL gets wider) – because if not checked with a lower camera angle, as already mentioned the <em >Foreshortening</em> creates an erroneous feeling of space and (usually) lessens impact. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Having the camera ready position lower, for a seated subject, and higher for a standing Subject in no way interferes with her actions or interplay with other Subjects.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As another example – let’s assume in the Bedroom entered a Flower Girl, and she was 4 years old – as she ran over to give the Bride an embrace (Bride still sitting on the bed) – a Standing Eyelevel Camera Viewpoint would render most images of that embrace useless with a short subject distance and a wide lens . . . so when I am talking about <strong ><em >Preparedness</em></strong>, I mean the moment that Flower Girl walked through the doorway, the camera would drop to that lower, <em>Ready Position</em>.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

[sd_woods]

<p>I normally loathe colour, but I will admit that on this occasion black and white wouldn't have been as good. The bride almost seems to have an aura, good picture.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I guess I'm squarely in the minority in my comment about the bride being soft since I'm the only one that mentioned it................</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I guess I'm squarely in the minority in my comment about the bride being soft . . .</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Hearing that, David: I was off on a tangent :)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Not sure if it is an OoF / DoF issue, or not - Check the Floor (Carpet at extreme bottom left of frame) which seems in the same Plane as the Bride's Torso and Face.</p>

<p >On my monitor, Her Torso and the Carpet display the same acutance, but her face is softer.</p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >I would like to know the Tv (Shutter Speed)</em>. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I make a preliminary guess, <em >subject movement: head and face - as she was laughing.</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >My second guess is the sharp Plane of Focus might be just behind her Face.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Maybe both?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

<div></div>

[sutejok]

<p>:) Good point. It looked sharp to me until its being pointed out.</p>

<p>Or I might be focusing it the wrong way? Normally, I set the autofocus point on the center of the frame. I will then autofocus on the subject's face, and then reframe the picture. How wrong am I by doing this? </p>

<p>But considering that the bride's face is not that far from the center of the frame, could this have been the cause? </p>

<p>Please advice.</p>

<p>I will look up the shutter speed later at home. </p>

<p>Thx</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>I do not think it is a focus and recompose problem.</p>

<p>When you look up the Tv (Shutter Speed), if you could also provide the Av (Aperture) and FL (Focal Length), that would be good.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[sutejok]

<p>1/80<br>

F2.8<br>

ISO1000<br>

Focal Length 24mm </p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong ><em >“1/80s @ F/2.8 @ ISO1000: Focal Length = 24mm”</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >My original estimate was accurate: assuming the standard single beds about 6ft x 3ft, rear of room is about 12ft to 15ft, which makes the Camera to Rear of Room about 10ft, which places the Main Subject about 4ft from the Focal Plane.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >That means at F/2.8 you are working about 12 inches DoF (for the Bride) - so if you nailed AF on her face accurately, and moved the only camera a few degrees to camera right, then the Focus should be fine.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But if you actually nailed the focus on her bust line (top of gown) and moved the camera slightly camera right, then it is possible the face would be beyond the tolerances of sharp focus – and soft.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >It appears she is slightly angled forward, so that could explain the Torso better acutance (it being farther from the camera, than Her face).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So, my analysis is: at F/2.8 you are very slim on DoF and that is a tight rope to walk, IMO.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, I think there is credence in the Subject Movement theory.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >1/80s is not enough to freeze her head especially when she is beginning to laugh – laughing means breathing with effort, breathing with effort means head movements. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also smiling means mouth movements.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You might investigate an high quality sample to conclusively prove it, but even at the low resolution image the Teeth are the least sharp – and I think that is a result of an head movement, upwards.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think you might have two technical issues: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >1. Tv selection too slow for the ambient exposure and you capture head movements.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >2. Av selection too open to be “safe” for the very close Subject Distance, even though you were working at FL = 24mm.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >IMO in that Room Ambient and with access to a 5DMkII, ISO 2000, or even ISO3200 would have been a better initial selection.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >A minimum safe Tv for Available Light Adult Human subjects, when “still” is 1/125s.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Working a 24mm on a 5D at 4ft to 6ft Subject Distance, F/5.6, I consider “safe” – F/3.5 is really pushing the limits, for me.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >That all might sound “textbookish”, and "too technical" and I don’t wish to bring up the “Theory” stuff and initiate any debate in this regard . . . but suffice to say, this is the stuff is we were taught at Photography College, and we were examined on it, and if we failed the theory, we were kicked out, and lost our apprenticeship too. </p>

<p ></p>

<p >Knowing all this stuff now, goes towards “Preparedness” when one enters a room, IMO. And there are many ways to learn it - one just has to have the "want".</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Rest easy, the image is a smacker. The Mum and the Bride love it I am sure. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >We do, we ask, we learn, we do better.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>While I understand that this was Sutejo's first wedding, I can understand that she might not have noticed the focus problem but as I reflect back to several wedding POWs, and many of the submissions for the wedding POW, it appears to me that focus problems and soft images are pretty common. For me, the lack of critique comments concerning focus is difficult to understand.</p>

<p>As a general rule I'm not a big fan of shallow DOF and agree that it creates "a tight rope to walk". I can fully appreciate a selective focus image here & there but IMO, wide-open apertures appears to have been adopted as a sort of "shooting style" by many.....at the expense of good technique.</p>

[sutejok]

<p>Lesson learned! :) </p>

<p>I will definitely try shooting with smaller aperture next time. I was shooting at largest aperture because I thought that's a logical way to get a faster shutter speed, and ISO was kinda my last resort if I couldnt get enough speed. And I remember reading somewhere.. Jeff Ascough is fine with 1/30th.. I guess I'm not superman.. yet :)</p>

<p>Hmm. I have a question then. When a lens is referred to as a "fast lens". does it mean a lens that has larger aperture? Many times I hear/read wedding photographers who likes to work with "fast primes" so that they can work better at lower light, stuff like 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2. So how do photographers normally ensure that their images are at sharpest even when shooting at largest aperture? </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"When a lens is referred to as a "fast lens". does it mean a lens that has larger aperture?.... So how do photographers normally ensure that their images are at sharpest even when shooting at largest aperture?" -Sutejo</em><br>

Yes, fast lenses are lenses that have the larger aperture.....typically 2.8 or larger. To get a sharp image you need to nail the focus, the more shallow the DOF, the less fudge-factor you have to play with. Hence the "walking a tightrope" analogy.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>“I will definitely try shooting with smaller aperture next time. . . </em></strong><strong><em>I thought that's a logical way to get a faster shutter speed”</em></strong><br /><br />Yes, agreed. But not just “faster”, but rather have a method to get “<em>fast enough for a particular shooting scenario”.</em> Also understand that if you were working the 24mm at an 8ft Subject Distance, (not about 4ft), your F/2.8 will buy you about 5ft DoF. <br /><br />I cannot speak for other Photographers, but, 1/30s Hand Held is quite doable, I agree. I have pulled slower Tv Hand Held (HH).</p>

<p>But, I very rarely would pull Tv = 1/30s if the Subjects were likely to move; or if I were very close to the Subject; or if I were using a telephoto lens to get close to the subject. Also, 1/30s hand held, requires correct shutter execution - ask an Archer or Pistol Shooter how much they practice that technique – in fact, ask an Olympic Archer / Shooter, how long to took them to learn how to breathe.<br /><br />Also, note I originally wrote: <em>"I think that it is important to balance technical proficiency with capturing the moment <strong></strong>and I am sure there will be views as to when and where each takes the priority."</em><br>

<em></em><br />I do not think the answer is just to use a smaller aperture or to mimic a particular shutter speed or have it as a goal. <br /><br /><strong><em>I think the answer is for you to define what your personal level of technical expertise and technique is to be, for you to be 100% comfortable in the execution of your craft.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br />The answer to that question, will set your course, I think.<br /><br />*** <br /><br /><strong><em>“Many times I hear/read wedding photographers who likes to work with "fast primes" so that they can work better at lower light, stuff like 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2. So how do photographers normally ensure that their images are at sharpest even when shooting at largest aperture?” </em></strong><strong><em></em></strong><strong><em></em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />Again, I cannot speak for other Photographers, but for me the answer to this question is very simple:<br />1. I learnt the rules, to know the limits. <br />2. I practiced the rules until the rules were second nature such that I didn’t have to think about them.<br />3. I constantly test the rules with each new piece of gear, in different situations, and I attempt to lift my technical capacity (technique) to bend the rules, as much as possible.<br />4. But, I know the technical limits, so I know when I must make a decision.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Perhaps a more practical answer to your questions . . . <br />The Caption of each Image is the Descriptive and those Tech Specs define the Rules of my Present Limits. <br />Each Image is just about a Full Frame, cropped to 7x5. The Bride in the Veil is a bit tighter - I framed her to her Bust, in the original shot. The square image is full-width, I only lost the bottom in the crop.<br>

<br />All the 24's are on a 5D (as you were).<br>

The 50's, at the Wedding, are on an APS-C Camera.</p>

<p>24 Pushed to my limits: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=911913">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=911913</a><br />

<p>50 Pushed to my Limits, (at a Wedding): <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=925228">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=925228</a><br />One Portion of my “Preparedness”: <a href="../photo/9205014">http://www.photo.net/photo/9205014</a></p>

<br />

<p>

<p>WW<br>

<em></em><br>

<em></em></p>

</p>

</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>As we get ready to close this thread, one more PS image just for fun. A little less red/yellow, some sharpening, and a fun frame.</p><div></div>