Did I execute this correctly?

[missy_kay]

<p>This was the first time I tried something like this at a wedding.<br>

<img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JyC7pVbPZqE/SotoPXJUiZI/AAAAAAAAA3M/9oLH9SXZxVY/s800/tamifav.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="552" /></p>

[picturesque]

<p>Appears so. There is no specific right or wrong with this kind of thing. If it looks good, great.</p>

[davidandkara]

<p>way to drag it!<br>

it looks good in b&w, but what's it like in colour? :o)</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Nice. Nothing wrong with it.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Very nice!</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Not unless you deliberately meant to blow-out the highlights in the dress.</p>

[savagesax]

I sure like it. This surely helps getting your name known by developing unique styles of your own. This separates you from other photographers in a big way. Keep up the good work.

[anna_bravington]

<p>I really like it, I don't think theres anything wrong with having a bit of fun here and there, it mixes it up a bit. I like to try new things now and again too, it makes things more exiting. Shows a bit of imagination and artyness (is that a word?)!<br>

(oh by the way, I actually sometimes like blown highlights in a dress when you go really high contrast - make the dress look white and sparkly)</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"I actually sometimes like blown highlights in a dress when you go really high contrast - make the dress look white and sparkly" -AB</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Apparently, blowing out the highlights has become quite popular lately.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>I like it, too. Weddings are supposed to be fun as much as they’re supposed to be

serious. Missy’s shot is fun and does a good job at capturing some of the dizziness that

surely must have been going ’round, so to speak.</p>

 

<p>Missy, I have a thought for the next time, but I don’t know what it would take to pull it

off. You twirled around the center of the frame, and put the couple in the center of the frame. I think

it would be really neat to frame the couple normally — even a portrait orientation —

with the heads at the top of the frame, just like you’d take a regular full-body shot. But still

pivot around the heads, instead of the center of the frame.</p>

 

<p>I’m sure it’s physically possible, but the gymnastics would be confusing, at the

least. Still, if you could pull it off, I think it’d be an even better variation on the theme.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[bstinshoff]

<p>Currious how the shot was taken. I'm assuming flash to freeze the wedding couple while twisting the camera with a longer exposure to get the blur.</p>

[missy_kay]

<p>Thanks everyone for your feedback! Sorry I was away from my computer all day and just read everything now. I just got kind of bored with the same old dance shot. I really want to get a video light or extra flashes on tripods but am limited to funds right now.<br>

<em>"Not unless you deliberately meant to blow-out the highlights in the dress."</em><br>

Darn! lol I didn't notice that<br>

<em>"I'm assuming flash to freeze the wedding couple while twisting the camera with a longer exposure to get the blur."</em><br>

You are correct! :)</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong><em>"Did I execute this correctly?"</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Re the Blurring Effect - good technique. Fun. No "right" or "wrong" execution. All new ideas are valid, IMO - it is just when they become the "only" shot of the night I would argue.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Re the Dress - (and the Male's Forehead) . . . if you have detail in the original file - I reckon the Post Production Programme you are using is letting you down a tad . . . I have mentioned this Programme before: maybe not to you? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >This Programme often has a distinct "sheen" which I see in your image – are you using Picasa?</p>

<p > <br>

WW</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Nice shot.</p>

<p>I can see full detail in the dress ... it is not blown out on my monitor, so I guess it isn't blown out on the original.</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"I can see full detail in the dress ... it is not blown out on my monitor, so I guess it isn't blown out on the original."</em><br /><em></em><br />Pull it up in PS, the dress is not 100% blown.....just about 60%. The groom's shirt collar is 100% blown.</p>

[bill_pador]

<p>Nice job using creativity & technique. There is no 'Right or Wrong' when making a creative image, it's all in the artists (Your) head and if the results look right & satisfying for YOUR taste then you did it right, also some artists (myself included) use blown highlights on purpose for creativity on occasion so those shouldn't be a concern once again if YOUR satisfied with the shot and in the end the CLIENT approves of it ;)</p>

[william l. palminteri]

She's conveying great mood, action, everyone's happy. That's far more important than a few errant 255's. <br>

She has a little fun at the wedding <br>

</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

This is a greart little shot that conveys the fun time everyone was having.<br>

That alone makes it a proper photgraph. It did its job. <br>

The shot's 'on the money'.</p><p>Bill P. </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

The gown has much more than a "few 255s on the gown", actually the gown is more than 60% blown. ... However, there's no need for 25,000 watt stage grid, flags, gobos, etc..., with some careful attention to the histogram (that's readily available on the back of the camera) and a Vivitar 283 one could avoid blowing out the dress. Indeed, it appears to me that blowing out the highlights has become more common and there's probably not that many people that really care one way or the other. There's also times when the whites are deliberately blown for the sake of artistic license. Perhaps I'm just an old traditionalists that values exposures with details in the highlights and the shadows. BTW, I never stated that the image was either "good" or "no good", I just made note of the blown highlights. Perhaps if the image was captured in RAW, the highlights might be salvaged. Also, it's possible that in the post-work and jpg compression, some of the highlights were lost.....which means that they might be salvaged. However, that would only be valuable information if one cared about the highlights one way or the other.<br /><em><br /></em></p>

[mgk1966]

<p>I personally feel this kind of effect is a lot of fun to use later in the night when everybody is cutting loose on the dance floor. It sort of conveys a feeling of wild and crazy. During the first dance I don't think it quite goes along with the mood you're trying to capture, although I'm sure you no doubt have plenty of other shots that do.</p>

[missy_kay]

<p>wow lol! Is this one better?<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2601/3849877172_c9f370137c_o.jpg" alt="" width="703" height="469" /></p>

[tholte]

<p>Fun shot but I don't like how the groom's hair seems to be slipping off his head.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Personally I like it much more with a little more of the highlites saved in the dress and the groom's hair slippage minimized. I think the motion blur technique was well done. I'm also guessing that you'd prefer to avoid blowing out the dress whenever you can. IMHO, it does make a significant difference.</p><div></div>

[savagesax]

I do like David Schilling's adjustments!

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"the groom's hair seems to be slipping off his head."</em></strong> </p>

<p>good call - that one slipped right over my head.</p>

<p>WW</p>