WEDDING CRITIQUE OF THE WEEK 9/7/09--AKA Wedding Photo of the Week

[picturesque]

<p>This week's image was taken by Kate Barnes.<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 th is week should remember that the comments expressed each week are simply "opinions" and the effort and focus o f 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 rememb er that there are varying approaches and often no right or wrong answer.</p>

<p>Kate's comments: Just arriving at the Kirk - bride meant to be in focus but driver stepped in the way. Sony A900 50mm f/1.4. Also has been over saturated as a cloudy day.</p><div></div>

[bobcossar]

<p>It's very unsharp, it appears to be underexposed, you can't tell who is holding the bouquet, and what is<strong> he </strong> wearing, perhaps the shot could have been taken <strong><em>after</em> </strong> the driver was through stepping in the way, and given all that....why show it in its present form at all...?</p>

[mbbrown]

<p>Well, your comments state the obvious; the bride is out of focus. It's a lively shot, though. I love the composition. I'm not wild about the blown highlights in the bouquet (as I'm sure David Schilling will agree), especially as the missed focus has placed them as the center of attention.</p>

<p>Otherwise, it's a bit contrasty for my tastes, but that's a subjective thing. I would have loved to seen some fill light in her eyes to at least minimize the raccoon effect. But, that said, I'm not sure how the use of flash might have changed the dynamic of this shot. It's a shot that appears to be unstaged, so split-second decisions would have had to have been made, specifically focus and lighting.</p>

<p>Personally, I almost never shoot at 1.4 unless it's a very specific and well-controlled situation; especially in close proximity in which you lose DOF at an even greater rate.</p>

<p>I won't do any PS mojo to it as I believe what makes this image both work on many levels and not work on many levels are contained within the confines of the opening and closing of the shutter...not the post production. Although you might be able to recover some highlights in and around the eyes with some minimal effort.</p>

<p>What I've learned is to never assume cloudy days will give you sufficient natural fill light.</p>

<p>All in all, I like it and I think I would have loved it with sharp focus on the bride. Her expression seems to be very happy and natural. Good on ya for capturing a moment!</p>

[mbbrown]

<p>OK, I know I said no PS mojo, but I couldn't resist. I just wanted to see how much detail could be recovered from her eyes, as well as what a general sharpening might do for the focus.</p>

<p>It don't know if this is an improvement, or what...</p><div></div>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Well yes, technically I am not a fan of this image. However, I think the bride will like it and that is really what matters. I am not sure it was shot @ f/1.4 or if it was just shot with an f/1.4 lens? It doesn't look like f/1.4. It does look a bit over processed already to my eyes, but it is one of those shots that I would rather have even with it's flaws than to not have at all. Wasn't in Jeff Ascough's interview that he said sharpness has become a bit overrated (or something to that effect)? For me, I think it would be better in black and white (since the colors just seem off to me) and I like the square crop and a sloppy border. I once read that if you can dazzle them with brilliance, you baffle them with something else. Will this shot make the PPA traveling loan collection, no. Is it perfect, no. It's not even very good. But it quite possibly might evoke an emotional response from the bride- and that makes it worth having.</p><div></div>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>While a good moment of the Bride, the OOF and headless attendant bother me a bit.</p>

<p>Love the darker look, almost as if she is stepping out into the light, as though emerging from a tunnel.</p>

<p>Technically it is not as bad as Bob paints it. Its well composed from the stand point of using the car to frame her, then the inclusion of an attendant gives reason for the happy smile. The use of a filter (guess) makes too much of the contrast but I could see that being a PP issue more than a bad exposure (based on the whites being near blown). Lowered contrast helps this image a fair amount.</p>

<p>I would say Kate has a good eye and this is a shot to show that potential.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I agree with David W. when he says: "I would say Kate has a good eye and this is a shot to show that potential."</p>

<p>I'll admit that this shot really caught my eye. The bride is stunning and the expression is full of warmth, joy, and excitement. The antique car adds a dimension of interest as well. I'd prefer a little (OK....alot of) fill flash which would help light her eyes and reduce the yellows/reds on her skin. I'd also like much more DOF (something closer to f/8) to bring the bride and the bouquet in focus. The bouquet appears blown but even the small jpg file has quite a bit of details that can be recovered in post.....suspect that even better is possible if this was shot in RAW. I like the idea of the sloppy border and the crop but think you need more of the bouquet holder in the frame to reference the bouquet. I'm also hoping that the "bouquet man" is someone important to the bride like a grandfater, uncle, father, or such, as that would provide even more meaning for the bride than what is readily evident for others viewing the image. Below is my little PS mojo to illustrate the direction I'd like to see the image go towards. Thanks for posting the image for Wedding POW Kate :-)</p><div></div>

[landscape_shooter]

<p>Anyone know what model car this is?</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>My guess is a '57 Buick.........and since I'm old enough to remember the cars of the era, that must make me an antique as well :-)</p>

[William Michael]

<p >I don't mind the head missing and, in this particular image, I really don't mind the overall soft focus on the Bride.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I do think lessons can be learnt, however:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >"The driver stepped in the way" = "Focus was not Locked"</p>

<p > </p>

<p >"The driver stepped in the way" = “I bet you frame with your right eye and you had your left eye closed?”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >"Cloudy Days" = "more even light - yes" BUT the direction of the diffused light is still from above and therefore eye socket still cast shadows . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Timing very good. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Composition OK – as I am not keen on her calf being cut off – either in tighter and show no leg, or back 12 inches and “ground” Her – she paid a lot for the shoes.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > <br>

WW </p>

[savagesax]

To be totally honest here I wouldn't show this to a client, because the bride is out of focus.

 

If you decide to use the image think about this. The flowers and the cut off person really have nothing to do with the photo. The expression on the bride is what matters, therefore I would simply crop out the person and the flowers. The impact of the picture is the bride's sincere smile.

 

As far as technical settings I would have used a tiny bit of flash to even out all of the shadows on her face and allow for a smaller F-stop. The flash would also bring out her dark eyes. White balance would also help the image a lot, along with correcting the under exposured issue.<div></div>

[savagesax]

Tried to get rid of the harsh shadows on the face and do a white balance. Not really sure if this actually helps.<div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>This is one of those "in-between" type shots ... where something in the background is just out of focus rather than obviously OOF to place attention on a sharply focused subject (like the flowers.) In between rarely works, and usually just looks like a focusing or depth-of field mistake.</p>

<p>A bit of contrast adjustment and selective application of "Focus Magic" software on the Bride. Unfortunately, the uploaded jpg is so small that the ability of Focus Magic is somewhat obscured by Jpg artifacts.</p>

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

[savagesax]

Nice adjustment Marc.

[katiekat555]

<p>Hello and thank you for your comments! I liked this shot (although it isn't perfect by along shot) as the bride looks so happy! In fact she looked happy all day and I have lots of great shots of her being happy but just liked this one for some reason. thanks again and I really appreciate lots of good ideas and advice from more experienced photographers.</p>

[gertle]

<p>I would also like this photo better if the bride was in focus. It appears to me that an off-camera flash was used, notice that the door handles have shadows and the bright spot at the back of the roof. Perhaps if the flash was camera-left rather than camera-right the attendant would have been less likely to step into the frame. Also might have made a difference in the overall contrast across her face. But then the reflections from the car might have been hard to handle.</p>

[patty_h.]

<p>Kate<br>

Are you showing or giving this image to the bride?<br>

And so would anyone show an image that is not technically good to the bride? and would the bride care about the bad focus and that sort of thing? or would the bride love the an image like Kate's just because its a beautiful moment despite the flaws?</p>

[William Michael]

<p>It is a balance and each image is taken on its own merits - and perhaps in some instances taking into account the Photographer and their position, also. <br>

<br>

We each have our own line as to what "technically good" means. Also how many other similar images reckons in the equation too when vetting Wedding Images.<br>

<br>

To be brutal: I have never taken any Photograph which I could not improve upon, had I been able to take it over again: but that's the point - it can never be taken over again - so how is it that we judge? <br>

<br>

I have been fortunate enough to be asked to be on panels to judge competitions - some international - I have given a perfect score, once. I began judging around 1985. Those two facts indicate my views. <br>

<br>

But Judging Panels and vetting Wedding Photos are different kettles of fish – and I think that need to be remembered – so the Balance is fine but a flexible line.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>On second thought, it could be a '57 Oldsmobile :-)</p>

[William Michael]

<p >It is an hardtop and a 4 door: I do not think either the ’57 (or ’58) Buick hardtops had a wing (level with the Bride’s upper arm) extending under the wrap of the rear window – also I think the had a different ¼ window arrangement at the rear.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Not sure about an Oldsmobile – more Buicks were imported here and quite commonplace for a while – especially that era late 50’s to early 60’s – classic, IMO - and just at a time when it was necessary a young lad to "know his cars" - funny what we remember and prioritized as important - I didn't get very good marks for spelling when I was 7, though. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think I would bet, it is NOT a Buick.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

[weddingbelles]

<p>This is the kind of image that brides just love, and they don't care that it's soft. I like the hand and bouquet, it gives the composition a context and shows who she is smiling at. THat person might not mean anything to us, but it probably means something to her.<br>

Most of the edits I saw looked like you were trying too hard to fill the shadows, and it's okay that they are there. You can't take a slightly soft moment and make it look like a retouched portrait, it just looked forced and fake, in my opinion. I did two edits, one with just a little fill, blacks to punch the details some, and some vibrance. The other is a high key black and white, most of the highlights are blown out, on purpose. It's a highly stylized look, but it's become very popular with our brides, and it can save images that are great moments but aren't correctly lit or exposed. Hope this helps :)<br /><br />Kenzi</p>

<div></div>

[weddingbelles]

<p>Second edit</p><div></div>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>If you pull up the original in PS, the whites are not blown, there is detail to be had in the bouquet. The edit that I did was not done to salvage or fix the image but rather to display and give a general idea of how sufficient fill light and a larger DOF might have looked if the image had been framed and taken differently.</p>

[weddingbelles]

<p>Sorry David, not personal, I actually liked your edit. It's really nice, just a couple other ideas.</p>

[sutan.siagian]

<p>Hi,<br>

My comments are :<br>

1. I prefer the bride to be in focus, the chance BG will take this shot will be increased.<br>

2. Since the one who hold the flower is not the Groom, or family, I think you can take him out of this photo, Bob Bernardo and John Deerfield shown it well on their comment.<br>

3. Are u using 1.4? My suggestion is not to use it in this documentary shots. Better 2.8 or more. If the light is not good enough, put the flash on to be safe.<br>

Regards</p>

<p> </p>