Wedding Critique of the Week 11/30/09

[picturesque]

<p>This week's image was taken by Anna Simonak.<br>

 

<p>This is Part 2 of Wedding Photo of the Week. You can see all submissions in the thread with that title.<br>

 

<p>In your critiques - include what you would do to improve the shot or why the shot is perfect as it is. 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>

 

<p>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>

[bobcossar]

<p><em>"OOHH....it's all Blurred.....and it kinda squint too."</em><br>

<em>"Yes. And look at the funny colours too."</em><br>

<em>"Nobody's paying any attention to what's going on."</em><br>

<em>"Maybe the camera just went off by itself...."</em></p>

<p>These are some of the kind of remarks I can imagine the guests making when they see this image. Certainly there are occasions where a serendipitous moment can occur and a wonderful image gets created......but more typically the photographer is hired on his abilities to <em><strong>control</strong> </em> how the images will look and to apply some recognisable artistic standards too.<br>

If I had taken that...no-one would ever have seen it....but that's me.....I would be interested in hearing from the author though, as to the meaning(s) Anna shows us here.<br>

Respects, Robert</p>

 

[anton frid photography]

<p>Anna<br />I really enjoy this image. There is something very peaceful about it. The reason why I like this image very much is because the viewer is not really sure what the bride is feeling at that particular moment. We cant see her expression. Her body language is very peaceful, or maybe not? Thats the fun part. Maybe the bride is trying to keep cool in the midst of getting ready, or she is going over her vowels in her head, or just relaxing before the big ceremony. It really adds to the mystery of this image and her body language. Anna Simonak. - Mona Lisa! <br /><br />Technically, it also works. It looks like you are using available light, which i am a big fan of. Even a bit of motion does not effect it. I think the composition is well done. The clutter of the room is hidden with different subjects and you avoided the table and the plants to really focus on the bride and her dress, which in my opinion really makes this shot sparkle. It’s a timeless dress on a gorgeous tall body which really works, so in summary. Job well done. <br />I took your image and just slightly played with color balance to take away a bit of yellow. The B/W shot also works. It looks a bit like a picture from some Italian tuscany wedding. The only thing about BW is the metalic or jeweled detail on her dress kind of blends in and doesnt give the same attention to the viewer. <br />Anton</p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p><em><strong>"I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date."</strong></em><br>

<em>-Alice in Wonderland</em></p>

<p>I like it.</p>

<p>It captures the frenetic energy of those last minute moments when getting ready.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I really dislike the image on several levels. While I'm OK with some occasional motion blur, this entire scene is soft. The bride looks "down" and with the exception of the attention her dress is getting, she seems isolated and alone. Something possibly interesting is happening to camera right but we don't see it. The colors are drab and unnatural. The side of the dress closest to the window light is blown. The woman in the center area is OOF, has no hands, and appears to be caught in an awkward stance (flat-footed) with an unflattering expression. The appeal of Anton's edits above IMO are due to making the image smaller (focus/softness minimization) and converting to B&W (color problems minimized). Like Robert above, if I had taken the image no one would have ever seen it. I'm sure some people are going to cite this as an "artsy-effort", OK, but then maybe try a conversion to a brush/watercolor treatment, as below. Thanks for sharing the image for review.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Here's the image with some color desaturation and watercolor brush treatment.....</p><div></div>

[dawn_tyler]

<p>Hi Anna,</p>

<p>I quite like the lighting coming from the left onto the subjects in the picture. However, like David said there are quite a few let downs in the overall image. I probably would have ultimately put this in the deleted pile if it was mine as well. It is sad because there is something very gripping about the soft lighting and the background is very soothing and elegant which isn't something you always get in a dressing room prior to a wedding - in fact it can be quite a mess and chaotic normally! It's such a shame because the room and dress are quite lovely.<br>

<br /> At first glance it looks like the whole image is blurry, but upon closer inspection the center of her waist and the dresser in front of her and such are in focus, so my only real thought was to add focus onto that area if you wanted to salvage the image... so I went for a lomo-effect, slight sharpening, selective highlighting in certain areas, color adjustments, etc. This enchances the area of the photo which is not blurred with motion, and makes the dress and her shoulders the focal point. </p>

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

[john_deerfield]

<p>I have to say that I don't understand the image. It would help is the OP would let us know their thoughts/intentions of the image? Some EXIF data would be helpful. I would want to know what lens & exposure mode (including ISO, shutter, aperture). And is this the original image or a processed one? Only because the color is just strange. Which of course is a white balance issue over all but it just seems more than that. The OP said the image was taken in low natural light yet there appears to be a window letting light in camera left? IMHO, focus is off, shutter is too slow & white balance is off. If this was meant to be an "art" shot, I would have rather started with a definable focus point, and a fast enough shutter as to not blur everything in the frame. Then if I wanted to create a mood, I would use Photoshop. I can always add a bit of motion blur to the dress or some of the other treatments shown with but to a sharper image. If an associate had presented me with this image the first thing I would have asked is what lens did you use. IMHO, this image doesn't have the characteristics of a fast prime or even constant aperture f/2.8 lens. Admittedly, it's difficult to say because of the blur, but even just the color rendition strikes me as a consumer lens. I would point out the vignette in the upper left corner just so that they are aware of it when taking images: get a slightly wider shot if you want to crop it out. Could also be an effect of a filter on the front of the lens (which may also contribute to less saturated color). Again, something to be aware of. I would also suggest using flash. In this case, a flash on a stick positioned on the same side as the window and bounced into the ceiling/corning. Coming from window side isn't going to ruin the natural light effect, it will only help raise up the shadows and give me some color definition. Of course I would say that their shutter was too slow and I would want to know why they used that shutter speed.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>"I have to say that I don't understand the image. It would help is the OP would let us know their thoughts/intentions of the image? Some EXIF data would be helpful. "</em></p>

<p>Agreed -- the lack of technical detail, which is supposed to be part of this type of thread, is annoying. My guess? Shutter speed of 1/15, hand held, no flash of course, ISO 400, f/4. However, maybe this is film and the photog did not pencil anything in a notebook?</p>

<p><em>"Some details about the shot would be helpful."</em></p>

<p>Only detail offered was 'natural light'. Of course.</p>

<p>I like the photo a lot, except for the two distracting elements -- the two looking off frame with a somewhat harsh crop next to the little girl.</p>

[heather_claypool]

<p>When I look back on my wedding day, I remember it as a blur...litteraly. That being said, this image really works for me. Not seeing the bride's face makes her somewhat anonymous...she could be any bride. And the blur of the dress and the bridesmaid tending to it might as well be a metaphor for the day itself. As for the Bridesmaid facing the camera, she's OOF, but you can tell she's smiling which again, is what's important. <br>

I do agree that there could be more focus on the bride as opposed to the dresser in the background...and the blur on the smiling bridesmaid would be more appealing if it were due to shallow depth of field instead of camera shake, but besides that I think this image shows some raw emotion...without the attempts at Photoshop Salvation. </p>