NEW! WEDDING CRITIQUE OF THE WEEK 9/28/09--Bridal Portraits

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>The first two seem to have some blown highlights.<p>

[picturesque]

<p>Theresa, if that other shot is supposed to be 'the' bridal portrait shot, then go ahead.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Like many males, I suffer from "little brain syndrome" which makes it very difficult for me to multi-task.... which is also why I prefer single, well-defined questions or single image critiques. With all the topics in this post I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed.</p>

<p>I like John's terminology in calling his shot a "posed candid". Because it was taken on the fly and since the columns which merge from the top of the bride's head are so OOF, I think that there is enough separation to make the merge factor more acceptable. I like the eye contact, the expression and energy. The exposure is spot on and the highlights are intact. I'd also like to see some fill flash and a little skin cleanup in post. I don't understand why John didn't already have the flash on the camera. One can always turn the flash off if it's not needed but if the flash is in your bag or in the venue while you're outside doing portraits, it does you no good. I've always got a flash on both my camera bodies. BTW, the shot that John posted a couple of months back of the Naval officer and his bride in front of the Milwaukee Art Museum was a solid favorite.....very, very nice.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>David--you don't have to comment on anything else if you prefer to just provide critique on the images.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Thanks Nadine, I do understand that participation is voluntary and now that I've commented on each of the three images, I'll likely just settle back and visit this thread to follow the thoughts of others. Perhaps someone may benefit from my critiques, thoughts, and post-work contrabutions.......at least that was my hope.</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>Ok, per Nadine, I'm attaching an inside/different photo for comparison. I hope the others do, too.<br>

I disagree on the blown highlights because the dress has no detail back there--only in the front...it's just a little sunlight on a light dress...I think?!<br><div></div>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>Or....this...</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<div></div>

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>As always, David, you have an amazing POV and I really appreciate you taking the time to critique my image! I definitely like your edited versions of both images better!</p>

[missy_kay]

<p>Melissa,</p>

<p>That show is Phenomenal!! I love it so much</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Thanks Melissa, that's the first time that my POV has been referred to as "amazing" and I'll take it as a compliment, I'm pleased that you can be so gracious with a dissenting opinion. Thanks for the complimentary comments on the PS versions as well :-)</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>numero tres, but for the flare, like the way they used fill light. numero dos, don't like the poles sticking out of the head, uno, slight over exposure but they are all excellent images.</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>Ok, why did the thread suddenly stop?!</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"I disagree on the blown highlights because the dress has no detail back there--only in the front...it's just a little sunlight on a light dress...I think?!" -Theresa<br /></em><br>

<em></em><br>

Here's a PS function that you and some others may not be aware of that will eliminate the guesswork on what is blown or not blown. With the image open in PS, bring up your levels and the histogram will tell you that some whites have been blown if the graph data is pinned to the right side. By depressing your "Alt" key and left-clicking your mouse on your white-point triangle, the image will show you exactly what areas are blown.</p><div></div>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Melissa, in terms of the GND, I am just looking to see more color in the top of the frame. I don't think a GND would have had a negative effect on the bride. And it truly doesn't matter- in the same spot I'm not sure I would have slapped one on.... but it would have been nice to see!</p>

<p>As far as the thread stopping- for me it's two fold. 1) busy week. Two wedding last weekend, two wedding this weekend (although today is video). 2) commenting on so many images just gets confusing.</p>

<p>David, histogram is of course a good indicator but I prefer to use Aperture (or I am sure ACR and Lightroom have the same thing) so show me my blown highlights and crushed shadows. Often times there will be areas that I know will be blown and that's OK- such as glare off a limo's bumper. I am certain Melissa's image has blown highlights, thus a histogram flush on the right, but the highlights (the sun lit sky) aren't relevant to this image/exposure. Just an example of where reading the histogram is one thing, interpreting the histogram is another!</p>

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>Okay, so I must be doing that wrong because it isn't working for me...</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Let's not get into yet another argument over blown highlights. I don't know what criteria Photoshop or Lightroom uses to determine a blown highlight. However, I do know that 255/255/255 when an eyedropper is used, says that you have stark white, with no detail. If you eyedropper Theresa's image, there are very few spots that are stark white. This is not to say that she has or does not have blown highlights. Or that the dress probably will not <strong>print</strong> with as much detail as even shows up now in her image.</p>

<p>As John points out, interpretation of the histogram is important. For instance, if you are processing your images mostly for onscreen viewing, not prints, you can add a lot of clarity and contrast, and get away with more 'blown' highlights than if you processed your images for print, where your dynamic range is compressed by the medium itself. Most will agree that the dress as it stands, is too light, but on the other hand, don't 'paint by the numbers'.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Melissa, are you having problems with PS with what I described above? If so, be sure that you are left-clicking your mouse and not trying a right click. Also, be sure that your mouse cursor is on the small triangle (under the input levels and not the output levels) while you are holding down your "Alt" key. Feel free to shoot me an email if you'd like more info or can't get it to work for you.</p>

<p>I wasn't looking to start any arguments about blown highlights.....I just that I'd share a PS trick that took me a few years to discover. My intent was to share some information and not to send a message or begin a debate, please excuse me.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>David--there is no need to apologize. You rightly posted some info that I'm sure Theresa will find useful, and obviously, Melissa has. I wanted to avoid back and forth comments about whether there are or aren't blown highlights in an image, as we have had in the past.</p>

<p>Theresa--the thread stopped, I guess because people aren't interested in discussing peripheral topics related to bridal portraits, as I had hoped. That is OK. However, since you've posted some other images, on my request, I will comment about the topics I tried to bring up. To help with that, I've posted 2 of my images--same bride--that will be used to go along with my comments about 1) time for bridal portraits and 2) what a bridal portrait is.</p>

<p>First--what is a bridal portrait? To me, the classic bridal portrait is either a full length or half length of the bride which shows the dress and/or the beauty of the bride. So usually her face is clearly shown, which is usually supported by good lighting. The posing is simple but attractive to the bride, because she is showcased, not the scenery, lighting or other parts of a scene. She isn't used as a prop or 'bridge' to support another visual idea for the image. Usually, the classic rules of posing for portraits are observed. Things like joints bent, S-curve arrangement for females, face turned to 3/4 view, chin down to show off the mask of the face and eyes, head tilt, eyes centered in sockets, focal length to not distort, angle to not distort, fingers curved, if shown, etc., etc... The bride is usually smiling, but not always.</p>

<p>My first image is a simple S-curve half length of the bride. While far from perfect (there is a reason I am posting a less than perfect image) it generally observes all the requisite general rules of portraiture. Some problems are that the bouquet isn't quite low enough, and the fingers are not particularly pleasing. I always shoot at least one classic half length and two full lengths (front/back) of the bride at each wedding--sometimes many others and other variations, but I never fail to do the basic ones. Later, and sometimes in conjunction, I try to shoot other kinds of bridal portraits, like my second image, which is more fashion style. Yes, it has some blown highlights, but to me, that is of minor importance. I actually like that it helps outline her.</p>

<p>The second images breaks a lot of portrait rules re posing. Angle, focal length distorts, arms are straight--I'm sure one can find many more. The sensibility is quite different here, yet it is a bridal portrait. This is why in Melissa's image, I don't mind the straight arm at all. In fact, I like it a lot more than if she had the bride bend her arm. It gives a visual counterpoint to the other arm reaching across, which is another rule broken. In my mind, if an image works, it works. If you look through bridal magazines, you'll see lots of examples of images that break portrait rules. Of course, the subjects are professional models, and they know how to pose. The trick, for real life weddings, is to know how to pose brides who are not models, when doing this kind of image, so that they don't look awkward. Usually you can tell if a bride has 'body sense' or not. With brides who don't, I don't try to put them in the more complicated poses.</p>

<p>As for your images--actually none of them show the classic portrait posing, except, perhaps Alternate View II. This isn't necessarily bad, but you can, for instance, see how in Alternate View I and Posing Bench, the arm/hand that is hidden can be brought out and arranged so that it is gracefully shown. In at the altar, the arm should be bent this time, and one normally doesn't shoot a straight on silhouette, particularly of a bride in a strapless dress, as you see the shoulder area doesn't look particularly attractive. This is not to say that your bride won't be very happy with your images, as she looks lovely and happy--two things that are top goals in bridal portraits.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>As for having the time to photograph--that is the perennial problem at weddings. Particularly, I find with brides, as opposed to grooms. At many weddings, the groom's side is done quickly and on time, while the bride is late in getting ready, so the formal portrait part of her session, pre-ceremony, is always cut or postponed til later, when you have even less time, because you are trying to shoehorn the session in elsewhere.</p>

<p>I find that when I have the bride's attention and can direct, it helps to have a plan in your mind's eye. I pretty much know what I'm going to do within the time I have. I shoot my basics and then go from there. In my sample above, I shot that classic half length in the 10 minutes I had before the bride stepped outside the door into the aisle. Included in that time were the shots for her, the flower girls, and the bridesmaids. This is why the lighting is not the way I wanted but I had no time to do anything else. The flash is bounced off the ceiling, and I don't like the shadows and yellowish (halogen) highlights, but it is what it is. I wanted that painting behind her.</p>

<p>Otherwise, I try to get what I can, when I can, such as in John's candid. To this effect, I use my custom setting(s) on my 5D and 40D to the hilt, programming in pre-sets so all I have to do is flick the dial to instantly be dialed into no-flash, high ISO, or whatever. And, pre set your AV or TV so you can kinda use those like the custom setting. Also, be on the lookout for candid portraits anytime, anywhere. The following was shot as the bridesmaids were fixing the bride's shoes. Do I wish the door was more out of focus? Yes. But otherwise, I like it, and I think it is a bridal portrait. Shot in 1/80th of a second.</p><div></div>

[danzel_c]

<p >Great follow-up Nadine with an example of the type of dialog you were hoping to create. I think critiques work when it’s aimed at specific questions from the photographer (such as Theresa’s above), otherwise, we could just end up commenting on things they don’t really care about. </p>

[faheyphotography]

<p>I actually enjoyed this discussion a lot. Maybe it's because I'm still somewhat of a novice, but hey, I found it insightful.<br>

As far as the time issue goes, I feel this discussion displays perfectly how we can break the rules and get away with it when we are unda-presha! due to time constraints. All three are beautiful exposures IMO. Sure, we have some blown-out highlights, and we have some pillars growing out of a head, but in the end I think these are things that we more or less only notice as photographers, but the B&G will likely look over (or not even notice) these microscopic faults and treasure them for the rest of their lives. The important thing is, like Nadine pointed out, that the photographers utilized every single second of their time or went out of their way slightly to capitalize on these opportunities. I have been to a couple weddings this year only to see the photographer moping around doing nothing while so much is going on, and it really irritates me to see that.<br>

And btw, I think the blown out highlights work in both images, and the pillars can be easily taken out in a matter of minutes via photoshop.<br>

-Ryan</p>

[gregory_c]

<p>WOW,, Melissa Papaj, your "Parasol Bride" shot is fantastic ! When shooting in that environment: outdoors, sun shining bright at a angle, is tough, some stuff overexposes, etc. you did a great job. I want to put some of my images on here, but I probably would get chewed up !! Some people complain about color while overlooking the true skill of posing & framing the shot. Great job.</p>

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>Thanks both Ryan and Gregory. Such nice compliments! I know that I have been chewed up way more then once on photo.net, but I feel like that is the best way to learn. In fact, I think photo.net is why I am continually learning because people here are willing to critique and analyze everything in every shot. But, I do agree, it's always more fun to hear the great complimentary stuff. :)</p>