My Second Wedding As Second Shooter

[mitch_w1]

<p>This was my second wedding. I'm second shooting again in Feb and would like any constructive criticism that can help me further step up my game. FWIW I shot these on two 40Ds. Most of the getting ready shots were on a rented Canon 35L 1.4. Other lenses that saw a lot of use were the 17-40L and 85 1.8. The 70-200 2.8 also saw some use at both the ceremony and reception. Okay, so let the tough love begin! Thanks for your time.<br>

http://mitchelwuphotography.blogspot.com/2010/01/susan-michaels-wedding.html<br>

Ps - spoiler alert to the photo contest judges as I entered one of the photos in this set into the "up to 3 years" category.</p>

[savagesax]

I liked the detail shots alot. Work a bit on posing the bride with her flowers. She spent a lot of money on them, so pose her a bit better by putting the flowers aiming towards the camera. You did a really nice job for your first wedding.

[mitch_w1]

<p>Thanks for the feedback, Bob. I will definitely try to be more conscious of posing and bouquet position at the next wedding. Attention to small details like this can really impact a photo.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Really good work, Mitch. I like it!</p>

<p>#1 though #9 are great images. No comment beyond nice job.<br>

#10 doesn't work for me. It seems contrived and I'm not sure what it's saying.<br>

#11 and #12 great compositions and good timing, but you could do with better control of flash.<br>

#13 and #14 - definitely need to drag the shutter. Nowhere near enough ambient.<br>

#15 - good image.<br>

#16 - really good image - great catch of a nice expression.<br>

#17 - well lit, but with a distracting background that breaks the composition.<br>

#18 - great composition but too much light fall-off. Drag the shutter more. I'd use 1/8 on a tripod or 1/15 hand held for this sort of stuff.<br>

#19 - interesting composition<br>

#20 - #21 - a little bit cliched but executed very well<br>

#22 - underexposed<br>

#23 and #24 - nice compositions and almost perfect, but spoiled by visible flash shadows.<br>

#25 - that's a miss in my book as it's only half lit. Underexposed, too little ambient, and too much flash spill.</p>

<p>For your second wedding you did an excellent job.</p>

[mitch_w1]

<p>Neil, thanks for taking the time to provide those detailed comments.  Very, very helpful.  You are, of course, spot on with your lighting comments, i.e. dragging the shutter and flash technique.  I did attempt to drag the shutter at the wedding to capture more ambient light but apparently not nearly enough.  Will try a hand held 1/15 next time per your suggestion. Realizing these are areas needing improvement I spent a good deal of time yesterday experimenting with dragging the shutter techniques and off-camera flash - both relatively new techniques for me.  I didn't like that my dancing shots were so static so had my wife and daughter dancing feverishly around the living room as I tried to drag the shutter to capture motion trails and ambient light.. with very limited success (I was using the second curtain setting on my flash).  Much more practice is required there.  As for your comment on #10 - definitely contrived!  This was a shot requested by the groom... I assume to show off the quirkiness of their footwear choice.  Thanks again!</p>

[rt_jones]

<p>I will echo most of Neil's comments because I think he is spot on in his assessment. I'm also in full agreement that for your 2nd outing these are really excellent. Keep practicing off camera flash - it's a whole new world.</p>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Neil did a very good job of commenting. I just want to add the following:</p>

<p>1) Use more wall bounce--most of the flashwork I see is ceiling/card or similar bounce (?).</p>

<p>2) Not sure I would slow the shutter more on 13 and 14 unless the backgrounds are nicer. I might also stand farther back for some and use my tele to cut out backgrounds and maybe blur them out more (then I'd drag more). A more tele perspective would be nicer on upper arms too. When you direct a bride like this, you might ask her to lift her arms outward slightly or use some semi-posing where the upper arms aren't flat against the body.</p>

<p>3) On 17, would not have used that background. Seems you have some uneven lighting going with lamps (?). The outside isn't nice enough to make a special effort to include it. I'd have just gone with the room interior somehow. Turn them around so the light from the window in on them, not behind them. Without knowing what was in the room...</p>

<p>4) On 18, I agree with Neil, but since I direct more, I'd really direct the guys into a "bar pose"--turn bodies, maybe bring the groom forward or have him stand to put the emphasis on him or have some stand, or just him sitting. In other words vary it more. Don't know if you have the room to back up but again, a less wide focal length to make the bottles/shelves appear larger in relation to the guys.</p>

<p>5) On 19, how come the groom isn't kissing the bride like the poster?</p>

<p>6) Not so much on 23, but on 24, maybe light the cake dimensionally instead of flat lighting?</p>

<p>7) Agree with Neil on 25. Those tray/gridded ceilings are tough to bounce off. Might have gone for upper walls.</p>

<p>8) Still not seeing a lot <strong>you</strong> in the shots. A lot of the shots are from somewhere else.</p>

[mitch_w1]

<p>Thanks RT and Nadine. Your comments are great, Nadine. As far as "seeing me," which I assume refers to developing a style of my own... I think the key word is "developing." Rome was not built in a day and it looks like I won't be either. I don't see how anyone can force something like that so I will continue to hone my craft and hopefully a more distinct style will begin to emerge. Thanks again.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Mitch--yes, I understand. Just saying...</p>