Wedding Critique of the Week (Available Light 2) 9/6/10

[ruslan safin]

<p>William, you are quite right - i don't mean just a simple flip nor changing ring finger. That was how i would have posed the couple at the beginning. :) David, i am very old school too so i was embarrassed by the way you placed the couple. Well, if you and your couple are happy - what more can i be thinking of? i've had some PP tricks about your pic to express my idea, sorry to waste your and my time...:)</p>

[billsymmons]

<p>I think it would be improved by taking out the tree and warming the colour. The pose and expressions are excellent</p><div></div>

[roger_dennis]

<p>Overall, I like this composition/pose.<br>

Here's how mine might look, really nothing new added, except some re-sodding in the foreground.</p>

<div></div>

[Uhooru]

<p>I like the mood that the original creates. I think to over warm and lighten it too much destroys that late afternoon quality of light. Maybe just some little touches would do? Here's a poor attempt including some straightening, though the grass line doesn't really bother me, and poor attempt at cloning out the tree with just a small amount of local brightness and warming to keep focus on the faces which by the way, are really good. You really got great expression and feeling. They both seem to be enjoying the idea of him pouncing on her on the spot :)</p><div></div>

[steve_johnston9]

<p>Got to say that of all the versions, I prefer the original it looks a lot more like real life.<br>

I know we as photographers have photoshop, but we don't always have to use it. </p>

[ruslan safin]

<p>Steve, we have to use it if the original has unbalanced pose, dull light and poor placement of the couple.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I appreciate everyone's comments, enjoyed seeing the different PS versions and am glad that the image elicited as many comments as it did. Part of my agenda in presenting this image was to suggest that fill flash doesn't need to be obvious and that it can actually add some measure of "pop" and extra specularity to the subjects. The couple would look just as attractive without the extra fill but I also think that the overall light would look dull without it as well. Because of the wide open shade, reflectors would have proved of little value. I'm also happy that in spite of the thin latitude of light tolerance digital affords, I avoided any blown highlights while retaining some details in the shadows. The pose was purposeful, I first placed the bride and fluffed/messed the dress for the somewhat crumpled look to give the dress some details/highlites/shadows. I kneeled and demonstrated the pose for the groom before he joined the bride on the ground and ensured that I had a nice profile of their faces for the camera. To really see this image in it's best light you'd need to see the job my pro-lab did with a large print :-)</p>

<p>It's rare That I ever take portraits of people outside and not use some flash (typical example: <a href="../photo/9649052">http://www.photo.net/photo/9649052</a>) . IMO, it's handy, dandy, available, and predictable. I'm also likely one of those "bread & butter" style shooters that tend to rely on tried & true formulas when shooting weddings and generally reluctant to experiment with lighting at a paid wedding shoot. A current master with flash, available light, and creative use of light IMO is Parker Pfister. One of the best bridal portraits that I've ever seen was taken by Parker using a $25 deer spotlight purchased at Walmart. Be sure to catch his wedding coverage on the Photovision instructional DVDs if you get the chance (his people skills and personality also creates a style apart from his photography that must be seen to be appreciated).</p>

[davidmoore]

<p>David, sorry to come late to the party--it's been a busy week for me.</p>

<p>My eyes love late afternoon light. My camera, not so much. It lacks the mind's remarkable ability to assimilate warm and cool tones into a cohesive image. In David's image, the cool blues of open shade and the warm golden afternoon sunlight are both present. The bride and groom are bathed in blues and reflected greens--not the most flattering tones for light skin. Additionally, the f7.1 aperture has rendered plenty of detail in the foreground grass--which is not in good condition.</p>

<p>The good news is the classic pose and lovely energy between the B&G. My compliments on getting this shot within tight time constraints.</p>

<p>I've done a few adjustments to give the image a more consistent tone, one which is in keeping with the classic portraiture look of the pose. I've also done a bit of PhotoShop groundskeeping with the grass and tree behind.</p><div></div>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Thanks David, I agree with your observations and am smiling that the discussion centers on the cool light in combination with the warm light while the flash lighting is tertiary. My pro-lab did a better job with color control than I did, but then, they always do :-)</p>

[davidmoore]

<p>I think there's so little discussion of the fill flash technique in this shot simply because you got it right. Less fill and the faces may have been shadowy; more fill and the dress would have blown out, and facial features would have been modeled less naturally. It's difficult to offer a critique, or even a compliment on something which, if done correctly, shouldn't be noticed at all... as is in this image.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Thanks David..........</p>