Wedding Critique of the Week 5/17/10

[freya_jensen]

<p>andrew - no cropping I promise. And yes, this is part of 600 photos delivered to the bride and some are like papped shots and the more sophisticated elegant shots are also in the portfolio for the B&G. This shot just made me smile and I wanted a crit on its merits (or not!) I use my kit to the fullest. But I also carry a polaroid with me and use that sometimes for the extra something. My kit and I do wonderous things together, just not in this instance. :-)</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>I don't see anything wrong with the photo. It captures the joy of the moment perfectly. The DOF is great as well because it is focused on the bride and her reaction. The angle is interesting looking down into the car but it works since it shows a lot of the bride and you can see the crowd standing in the background as well. ISO 800 for a Nikon d700 is considered slow. It looks well exposed, it's hard to tell from the resolution of the posted image if the dress is blown out, but for an outside, action shot I would expect that to some degree. It is a really nice shot, I'm sure the bride will cherish the photo.</p>

[paul_reklaitis]

<p>The bride ordered this on canvas?! That is PROOF that it is a GREAT and FUN shot. Brides don't want photos, they want fun memories! I don't care if you used an i-phone or hasselblad, iso 50 or 6400, or even what lens you used. Brides don't care about the technical. (someone walking through a museum doesn't ask "I wonder what brush Picasso used") </p>

<p>Congrats and keep shooting with a smile! If I were you, I'd advertise the heck out of this photo. You'll get more business (from brides) when they see this fun photo!</p>

 

[greg_c.]

<p>I'm thinking about the word 'technical' as it applies to wedding photography and realize that it is central to this picture critique conversation.<br>

<br />Should wedding photography lean more to artistic or technical merit? I know that both aspects are needed but which most successfully prevails and is the first so dependant on the second?<br>

<br />A search of this thread finds 'technical errors' 'technical aspects' 'technical issues' 'technical job' 'technical image' 'technically not so good' 'technical capture merits' 'technical oversight' and finally 'Brides don't care about the technical'.<br>

<br />And not one mention of art. I think that Brides care about art, however it is achieved, in their wedding pictures.</p>

[june_daley]

<p>Agree with Paul - the bride loves it and that's all that matters! If I was the bride, I would have LOVED this shot too. It's fun, you really captured the moment. I don't think the technicalities really matter with a shot like this. Well done!</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>"What kind of car is it"</p>

<p>Not sure, but it looks like it might be an Austin Healy Sprite or MG Midget (basically the same car with different nameplates).</p>

[freya_jensen]

<p>yes, a gorgeous Austin Healy frog-eyed sprite..</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here is an idea that I was thinking about for this image. I have selective soften parts of the image including the groom to allow attention to be focused on the bride.</p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p> </p>

 

<p><em>"Should wedding photography lean more to artistic or technical merit? I know that both aspects are needed but which most successfully prevails and is the first so dependent on the second?</em><br>

And not one mention of art. I think that Brides care about art, however it is achieved, in their wedding pictures."</p>

<p>Greg, perhaps the word "technical" is getting in the way ... maybe "craftsmanship" would be a better term?

</p>

<p>There isn't a single artists in the world, past, present or future that didn't/doesn't utilize "craftsmanship" as part and parcel of their "Art".</p>

<p>Contrary to popular opinion, artist DO talk about brushes, paint and technique. There is a huge amount of "craftsmanship" involved with something a seemingly simple as oil painting. Do it wrong and it doesn't matter how great the "Art" part is if it flakes off the canvas in a year or so.<p>

<p>I think this specific forum is weighted toward the craftsmanship aspect of photography because it shows up a lot ... or the lack of it, shows up ... (not specifically this image which is a nice capture, and 20 people have said so already).

</p>

<p>To promote the idea that "Artistic Merits" mitigate the need for "Craftsmanship" ... and that art is all that clients look for or want is a very slippery slope ... especially for those who have yet to get the "craft" part under control.

</p>

<p>Art is not just a happy accident ... although it can be accidental from time-to-time ... however, isn't it preferable to be in control and aware of your tools, and to bend those tools to your creative will? IMO, that is what leads to consistently artistic work that the client can count on rather be at the whim of the accidental nice shot ... or not.</p>

[gregory_c]

<p>Good shot, hard to duplicate again !</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I'll add just one more comment on this post while I'm on vacation and taking just a moment to check in with my P-net community. Images that are to be enlarged and printed on canvas typically need to be technically well-executed or crafted. An enlargement will likely empasize the softness of this image.....and may actually draw more attention to the weaknesses in craftmanship.</p>

[ejder]

<p>I see nothing wrong with the aperture: it isolated the point of interest, which is the bride. I see good things about the wide angle and the perspective: the people in the background tend to form a converging pattern that leads toward (but does not intersect) the bride. Her expression is evident and genuine, which is great. Such insignificant blowing out of the dress is not going to make a difference to the bride and does not detract from the photo IMO.</p>

<p>The weakest point may be that the perspective and wide angle gives the car a very "small" feel. However, if not for that perspective, other things might not have worked so well.</p>

[dawn_tyler]

<p>First of all - I love this image. It captured a moment. It is not technically sound in all aspects, and yes we all wish to take as near-perfect images as we can. However, it can be improved upon with the help of modern technology!</p>

<p>I basically sharpened, recovered the blown highlights with some tools and the exposure tool, adjusted the levels to make it more vibrant, less blue-toned and to appear sunnier. I selectively lightened certain areas to remove the muddy reds from the groom and guests appearance. I used the clone tool on the brides face in areas that were shadowed slightly and voila. I think the adjusted image looks splendid and that the bride would have been most happy with this capture, despite it's technical flaws.</p>

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

[ejder]

<p>I honestly don't like the yellow/green cast or oversaturation many people seem to be adding to the bride's skin tone (and the rest of the image). I prefer David's edit.</p>

[freya_jensen]

<p>dawn, thank you for spending time working on the shot - it really shows what can be done and I shall work on my PS skills when I do a not-so-great-techincal shot next time!</p>

[jenkins]

<p>I just wanted to add that that MG Sports Car is a very special green called British Racing Green, you really can't change the colour it just looks wrong.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I agree, Simon. <br>

<br>

It is like "Post Box Red" (the colour of "Royal Mail" Post Boxes). <br>

<br>

In fact the original looks a little lightened to me anyway, the green should be darker a more solid, green . . . most likely given a bit of pump because: <em>"It was a dark gloomy british day and I wanted to make it stand out." </em><br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>