WEDDING CRITIQUE OF THE WEEK 8/24/09--AKA Wedding Photo of the Week

[picturesque]

<p>This week's image was taken by Sutan Siagian.<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>

 

<p>Sutan's comment: I shot using Nikon FM2 50mm/1.4 f4.0 1/60 kodak colorplus iso 200.</p><div></div>

[KenPapai]

<p>Pretty good, and close to being "perfect". The girl's hand on the left is far too close to the frame. Ideally more separation to see the aisle better and the context. Still a cute shot I am certain the clients will love.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Other than what Ken already pointed out...perfect. Clients will eat that up!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I like it, I like the tilt/composition, I like the moment and the little girl's expression. With her face to the side light she has nice light on her face. I'd prefer a little flash to provide some extra fill for the other flower girl and the bridesmaid with the racoon eyes just behind the front flower girl. Some flash-fill might have reduced the blown highlights just outside the door as well.</p>

[emma_g2]

<p>First of all great kudos for photographing children! The hand that is close to the frame doesn't bother me at all, which is weird as this is usually something to avoid. I think the tilting and quirky angle on the image allows the hand to be 'unoffensive'. I also like the blown out highlights in the back, you can still make out the bride.<br>

If it was me I would have tried to get more floor in the foreground, to chop off some of the ceiling which unbalances the photo a wee bit.<br>

Finally, I think capturing the girls in such cute poses really makes it.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I like the tonality and drama in the shot a lot. Fill flash would have ruined it. Don't care much for the tilt though. Without it the faces on the left would probably not be there either (don't care much for them either). But tilt is forgiven if it was shot without looking through the viewfinder :-)<br /> And bonus points is awarded for shooting manual focus and film! Great job!</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>I am usually a fill flash type of guy but I agree that I don't think fill flash would have added anything to the shot. Considering this is an "on-the-go" shot (not a lot of time to perfectly compose with a fixed focal length and so on), I'd say it's one great shot. I would certainly have been very proud to have captured it.</p>

[savagesax]

I really like this shot. Normally when I tilt an image I'm thinking B&W. So here is a B&W image. I actually prefer your color version much better.

 

Shooting with natural light is dangerous for several reasons, such as movement, the image being too dull, flat looking, therefore most photographers would favor using a strobe. I feel you really captured the moment and using natural light works perfectly. You turned a normally dangerous image into a work of art.<div></div>

[mbbrown]

<p>I love the shot. In fact, it was my favorite as the entries were being posted.</p>

<p>The only thing that struck me off the bat was it looked a little flat. Back in the film days, we would have called it "a little thin" in reference to an underexposure. What I think it lacks, and just barely, is some black snap. Some contrast pop, I feel, will make this awesome image even more awesome.</p>

<p>Otherwise, I love the expression, and I also think flash would have killed the feel of this image. It almost has a movie film quality to it and I love it.</p>

<p>This is the only change I would have made, had it been my image. (below)</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>The Families will eat this image: it is a very tight and well executed <em>Professional </em>Capture – and the Subject choice, assists that. <br>

<br>

***<br>

<br>

I am neither a fan nor an advocate of the tilt - unless for reason. This has reason.<br>

<br>

I am a fan of AL and in this image the Lightscape is well managed and well captured. <br>

<br>

The Primary and Secondary Subjects are both lit to capture their emotions and both the lighting on them and their emotions are juxtaposed. The fact that one other of the minor Subject is not perfectly lit is of no consequence to me, neither is the proximity of the farther Flower Girls' hand to the frame edge, and IMO, the monotone version losses impact.<br>

<br>

The timing of the shutter release is indeed perfect - or as close to that as possible.<br>

<br>

Using what appears to be Available Light and with adherence to well planned Technical Preparation including: Camera Angle and Viewpoint, and also, it appears quite conscious thought apropos the Tv required for Subject Movement and the Av required to grasp a DoF for maximum emphasis: this Image is a good balance and an example of High Technical Skills; Good Artistic Intent; and Perfect Timing.<br>

<br>

A credit to the Technical Expertise, (which I comment often is underrated and or overlooked) is this comment from my Colleague, Bob: <strong><em>"You turned a normally dangerous image into a work of art"</em></strong><br>

I agree.<br>

<br>

WW <br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>Michael--the slight flatness is likely from the process of scanning the negative. Scanned images from negatives never look quite as snappy as digital files on screen. It could also be you aren't used to the creamier and flatter contrast range of film (?). This in no way is meant to be derogatory. This creamy and flatter quality is something I like about film. Plus, the tendency these days with digital files, is to use the clarity, contrast and saturation controls to the point of excess (IMHO)--I don't mean you do. Needless to say, I prefer the original. I don't see any lack of black in the image.</p>

[sutan.siagian]

<p>I would like to say thanks for all the flattering comments.. I really did not expecting such comments.. since I am relatively new into the photography. Moreover I would also like to thanks to all the critiques and explanation why this photo being good or bad...<br>

<em><strong>"You turned a normally dangerous image into a work of art"...</strong> ah.. thats to much for me..</em><br>

I was inspired by Jeff Ascough regarding his style in available light. I like to use available light as much as possible since IMO, the photo will a bit tell the condition of the wedding. I was lucky, the quality of light in this wedding was superb. Even shooting using PS camera looks nice. Perhaps its something that all photographers would like to have..<br>

I also learn from the a photo critique few weeks ago from William W (thanks a lot..) where he emphasize the importance of technical preparation before the shoots.. Jeff Ascoguh in his interview also said it. On my previous job I always walking around 'chasing' the objects, and sucess percentage is very low, since i using a full manual analog camera, so i always miss the moment.<br>

This time I tried to be a 'sniper', I think about the composition, choose my position, adjust my setting, wait the moment to come and snap.. Well of course not many shots I took, and perhaps I also lose a bit of the moment, but I can make sure this is the composition that i really want to get (consider I only have 36 shot to get before film changing).<br>

About the tilting.. I did it by intention. The purpose is to nail the flower girl to the bottom left of the photo.. ( a little bit experiment i think ;) )<br>

Once more thanks for all the critique.. Cant wait for another snap :)</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"I also learn from the a photo critique few weeks ago . . . the importance of technical preparation before the shoots."</strong></em></p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I'll make just one more point about the lighting. In this instance the lead flower girl's chin and face is in a perfect position to catch the available light. Had she been looking straight ahead or lowered her chin, you'd lose that nice light across the face so there's a degree of luck operating here. If this is from a sequence of processional images, without the use of some supplemental flash there's a good chance that several of the girls and the bride could have suffered the raccoon eyes-look evident in the bridesmaid directly behind the first flower girl. Also, without some fill flash, the bride/dad at the end of the isle is likely to suffer from strong back-lighting. Speaking for myself, I don't approach a processional like this without some fill flash.</p>

[sutan.siagian]

<p>@ David<br>

I agree with you, if i was the only photographers in this wedding a flash will be a mandatory. Moreover, I would not dare using 35mm camera.<br>

In this case I am the photographer who simply responsible to the artistic shot of the wedding. There is another photographer to capture the processional minute by minute and to get the formal shot.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em >[As I was writing a response to David's comments, Sutan was writing at the same time. </em><br>

<em >Sutan has expanded upon his role and the conditions under which this image was captured.</em><br>

<em >I believe my comments are still useful and I have resubmitted them unedited, with this header as an explanation to make better sense] </em><br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

Luck involved regarding the direction of the Girls' faces?: Agreed.<br>

<br>

Going Sans Flash for the Processional with harsh & direct sidelight and a narrow aisle is a dangerous ploy and without maximum leverage?: Agreed.<br>

<br>

This being one from a sequence within series of shots specifically of these two Girls?: My guess is no - considering the "sniper" and "36 shots" comments, above.<br>

<br>

Always having Flash Available to use?: Not always possible. Sometimes prohibited here, in some Churches. I have commented on this particular situation before - it is unclear whether using Available Light only was the Photographer's choice or a stipulation. My guess is it was the Photographer’s choice. <br>

<br>

If it was the Photographer’s choice to pull the Processional Shots without Flash, then the General Discussion of that decision being either “Brave” or “Silly” will run for days I expect. And there will be many on both sides of the fence of that discussion. <br>

<br>

My view is: I love leverage and I am / was in business. In business leverage is very important; being safe and sure is very important; having all the bases covered is very important; because one only gets “one go” at the Wedding Photos. <br>

<br>

But I also love Available Light Capture, and I admire the skills necessary to execute same.<br>

<br>

So for this thread and for this particular occasion I choose “Brave”: because none of these facts of luck etc, we mentioned above, retract from or dilute that the statement:<br>

<br>

The image in question of critique: <em><strong>was nailed, and nailed well.</strong></em> <br>

<br>

From the commentary recently supplied by the Photographer, <em><strong>as much as there was luck there was precise premeditation also.</strong></em><br>

<br>

WW<br>

<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[sutan.siagian]

<p>In response to William's comment:<br>

Luck involved regarding the direction of the Girls' faces?: Agreed... <em>me too.. :)</em><br>

This being one from a sequence within series of shots specifically of these two Girls?: <em>I took 3 shots on the girls and satisfied with 2 shots. I will attached the other shots that I am satisfied with</em><br>

.. Without flash.. My guess is it was the Photographer’s choice. <em>Yes.. I would prefer to have good AL all the time, but its not always the case, so I think a survey on the venue is really important before the wedding.</em><br>

My view is: I love leverage and I am / was in business. In business leverage is very important; being safe and sure is very important; having all the bases covered is very important; because one only gets “one go” at the Wedding Photos.<br>

<em>Agree.. thats why I would not dare shooting the wedding alone.. Good luck not always happen all the time..</em><br>

From the commentary recently supplied by the Photographer, <strong><em>as much as there was luck there was precise premeditation also. </em></strong><br>

<em>premeditation... If i did it to much, would it not reduce my creativity?</em><br>

<em></em><br>

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

[William Michael]

<p><strong >"<em>premeditation... If i did it to much, would it not reduce my creativity?"</em></strong><br>

<em><strong > </strong></em><br>

<em>No it would not reduce your creativity. There is a misunderstanding of my meaning: “premeditation” </em><em>I meant the “thinking through the process of HOW to how to go about the capture in GENERAL TERMS – the planning of where to be so one is the best position to react to all the possibilities which might occur”</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>For example, your decision to be at a low camera angle for those Flower Girls walking down the aisle, was “premeditated”. You were best placed, at a low camera viewpoint, to capture mostly all their reactions and moods.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>Even choosing to tilt the frame could have been “premeditated”: even though it might have been a quick decision and made after looking through the viewfinder, up the aisle. </em><br>

<em></em><br>

<em>If you gave the decision some thought and some thought to the alternative of NOT tilting the frame - then you have performed an act of “planning” the shot, with "premeditation", as I was meaning it.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>Does that make more sense?</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

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

[sutan.siagian]

<p>@William.. Clear explanation for me.. thanks for the lesson...</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>All of the above comments by Sutan and William.........absolutely agreed. I also agree when Bob Bernardo wrote: <em>"Shooting with natural light is dangerous for several reasons, such as movement, the image being too dull, flat looking, therefore most photographers would favor using a strobe. I feel you really captured the moment and using natural light works perfectly."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

My primary point is that almost always the churches allow flash during the processional and that flash is much safer for most of the other images that would be captured just before and after the POW image above. In my experience, Sutan's position is typically where the lead shooter would be, my experience is that the 2nd shooter would be in the back area. My original comment was that I liked the shot quite a bit, however my experience with shooting processionals leaves me feeling nervous about shooting this part of the wedding without flash. Thus, my concern that a young shooter might be inspired by this image and decide to shoot their next processional sans flash which would likely be a risky approach.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"a young shooter might be inspired by this image and decide to shoot their next processional sans flash which would likely be a risky approach"</strong></em><br>

Yes. Good Point. Well stated.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Great shot. I imagine your clients are very happy with your work!</p>

[mbbrown]

<p>Nadine, I'm not used to "the creamier and flatter contrast range of film" only in the sense of not having shot a wedding with film since 2003. Prior to that, I have a long history of working with film and appreciate the inherent quality and character it has that digital is just simply not able to replicate. A scanned negative will still be subject to post-production...just as a digital image would be...and I stand by my original assessment that the image initially seemed a little thin; a little milky.</p>

<p>My tweak was very subtle. In fact, I didn't even touch the clarity or saturation. That, I felt, was more than satisfactory. I agree 100% clarity, sat, contrast, luminance, etc...are more overused, generally speaking, than not. My feeling is these parameters are best used for correction rather than creative effect.</p>

<p>All that said, I really like the image. But, the optimization of the output is separate from the inherent character of the input, be it film or digital, in my opinion.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Its a nice image from the POV of subject content, but...</p>

<p>I don't like this tilt so much, mainly as it includes the ceiling. If you were to use a square crop of the lower part of the image, I think it would be stronger. The inclusion of the BM's behind the flower girls is good and I think has just about the right aperture for the intended purpose. Well done.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>One more quick comment: Looking at the two images above, the 2nd flower girl might be perceived as a "step-child" since both those images concentrate the focus on the 1st flower girl. The shallow DOF in the closeup shot serves to exagerate the differences between them. I'd like enough DOF so that both girls are in good focus in the closeup image. If you gave both girls "equal" attention (focus) during the processional, then my concern would be unfounded.</p>