Wedding Critique of the Week 4/26/10

[picturesque]

<p>This week's image was taken by Victoria Sprung.<br /><br />This is Part 2 of Wedding Photo of the Week. You can see all submissions in the thread with that title.In your critiques - include what you would do to improve the shot or why the shot is perfect as it is.<br /><br />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><div></div>

[jamesjems]

<p>When I looked at this week's entries, I have to admit that I didn't take my time with your image, Victoria, I glanced at it and kept on looking for something more visually arresting...<br /><br />Now that your image was selected as the one we pull-apart this week, I now have an opportunity to go back and decide why it didn't blow me away...<br /> First off: what's right about it: I like that it's simple: three colors, predominantly, with some balance thrown in too. The red pillows keep the balance, L/R, and stick out nicely. It's nearly black and white with out being a B/W image. (I always love that). I like that there are foreground elements, a middle, and texture behind the subject. If the planets align perfectly, or we get off our butts and endeavor to make pictures, we'll always have an interesting forground, middle ground and background, but alas, often we don't often get that. You did. That's nice.<br /> I like the fact that the window highlights are totally blown: it's an inside shot. We don't want to care about what was going on <em>outside</em>, now do we?<br /> Why did my eye not linger on the image the fist time I saw it? Well, here's why I think: The subject is lost in the rest of the room. He's too small. With me, (and this is personally my own bias), I look for the subject to become the dominant element in my composition. Not necessarily the biggest element in my photo, but the <em>dominant</em> one. Compositionally, he's competing with the red, black and white for my attention. Here, I don't know who he is...He's got on a boutonniere, but other than that, I don't know who he is...<br /> <br />Additionally, your composition is divided cleanly in half by the line the couch makes. He's nicely off-center (I like that), but the straight-through-the-middle composition isn't compelling me to look further. I'd like to see more shadow detail brought out in the sofa, and especially his clothes. You made a different choice than I did, and that's <em>fine.</em> *IF* I had had the time to improve this image when I took it, (and honestly, when shooting a wedding, no one has enough time...) but if I had had it, I would have used a longer lens, zoomed in to eliminate the distracting window at camera left and made the subject appear bigger while trying to keep the candles in the foreground. And keeping the brilliant RED both left and right.<br /> Keep these critiques at a healthy distance, Victoria: it's all too easy for any one of us to sit back and snipe from afar. I'm sure you can think of ways you would have improved your own work too. Keep it up. All of us need the practice.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>This was tough for me as well. I agree that a tighter frame would have been much better. EXIF puts the lens @ 33mm on a 28-75.... so zooming in would have helped. It would have also cut out the window. Since it doesn't matter what's outside, why include it at all. Zooming would have also helped prevent some of the flare we have going on (although maybe that is why you wanted the window, some folks seem to like that). Regardless of the window, we are still over-exposed: we have lost detail in the light areas of his tux. Thinking out loud, I might have just had the groom turn the other way with is back to the window. And when possible, a fill reflector! I think the other thing that might be off is just all of the lighting. It's a mixed lighting situation with room light (look at the reflection of the tungsten chandelier in the coffee table), sunlight and EXIF says your flash fired. Couple that with ISO 3200 and we are taking it all in. I might have gone for more drama here, drop the ISO, kill the ambient and I think the overall exposure and color would have been better, but I don't think I would have turned the groom at that point. One other finicky note is that I would like to see the groom left hand resting on the couch, not behind it.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>The strength is in the masculinity of it and that is enhanced by the strength of the Geometry. <br>

<br>

The Geometry however is not utilized to the maximum.<br>

<br>

Either one is pro or anti "Blown Windows" in this type of capture - I am pro, but if we go with a large negative space then it is my opinion that negative space has to be well balanced and the lines defining it, clean.<br>

<br>

I hope there is not a suggestion for B&W – as that would kill the strength of the Geometry of the Tri-tone<br>

<br>

IMO the Vision and Idea are very good and three little darkroom fixes make this Image stronger:<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

<div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>A comment on the technical specs and discussion with John –</p>

<p>I read the EXIF: “1/80s @ F/2.8 @ ISO3200 - Flash Forced fired.”</p>

<p>That doesn’t leave a lot of room for dropping the ISO, keeping the Flash Fill to a bare minimum and keeping a safe Tv - especially if we were Hand Held.</p>

<p>Also it is unlikely that we were resorting to a large lighting rig, etc – my best guess is there is one Flash bounced in and not a lot of time to play about – in fact until I read the EXIF, I thought this could have been Flash-less and there was just good utilization of bounce from the Window. (Victoria - maybe some details, please? ? ?)</p>

<p>The exposure on skin tones seems fine to me (as much as one can tell at Low Res) – so the Tux fall where they do – I think seeing a 100% Hi Res Segment of: Coat; Shirt and Skin tone on Face, (Victoria? ? ?) would be interesting to make more detailed comment in this regard.</p>

<p>Making the Flash more dominate, would kill the dynamic of the Available Light Capture, IMO - a trait of which is the "mixed lighting". Again as per the Window being Blown, one is either Pro or Anti - in this capture the mixed lighting / slightly skew colour balance is fine, for me.</p>

<p>To begin fidddling with the dominance of the Flash Balance, we are then making a new Image - not enhancing this one - I think there is a line in this regard, if you get my drift. </p>

<p>WW</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>I agree with John about losing details of the tux. It's kind of like the groom is growing out of the couch. Making this an 8x10 crop with the center line of the pipe slightly off center and some simple dodging around the edges of his tux I think would alleviate many of the issues people were concerned about. I do like you foreground/background usage. I also agree with William, in the future having the edge of the hand at the top of the couch rather than over it is probably stronger visually. Very nice on the whole though.</p>

[victoria_sprung]

<p>Hi,<br>

Thanks for the comments, everyone.<br>

I took several frames of the Groom in this position, and this is the one I liked best. I wanted a shot of him in the environment, rather than just a portrait with him filling the frame.<br>

I do like the crop that William W made, but I prefer the blown out window personally :)<br>

I do agree that the white on white tux/tie could have been less blown out, but I'm ok with that sacrifice in this particular photo. Of course, I could have burned it in a bit in post processing.<br>

There was sunlight coming through the window, but unfortunately not enough to light up the whole room. I definitely wanted to use the flash (bounced off the wall behind me) to fill in some of the shadows, without losing too much of the mystery.<br>

Of course, had this been a photo shoot and not a busy Wedding, I'm sure there are other ways I would have come up with to shoot this. But, I'm rather pleased with this simple portrait of the Groom.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em>"I do like the crop that William W made, </em><strong><em>but</em></strong><em> I prefer the blown out window personally"</em><br>

Please note it was not a crop, <em>but re-alignment </em>and I do agree with the Blown Window.<br>

Maybe that's your meaning - I am just clarifying. <br>

Also - the Flare is gone.<br>

WW<br>

<br /> </p>

<p > </p>

 

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>It's a nice enough casual image. I'm more bothered by the blown areas on the groom's shirt and pants than I am the window since it's a light source, though I'm not fond of the flair and light spill on the curtain. Since we don't have details in the shadows, I crushed the blacks further and eliminated the ugly pipe on the corner wall.</p><div></div>

[ruslan safin]

<p>i would propose this one</p><div></div>

[richardsnow]

<p>OK, here's my quick PS work. Only got a chance to look at this one about 20 minutes ago. I cropped to what I think is a stronger image. Then I adjusted the highlights and shadows to bring out some of the lost texture in the couch and tone down the blown out areas of the tux.</p><div></div>