Wedding Critique of the Week 8/30/10

[picturesque]

<p>This week's image (Available Light theme) was taken by Linda M.<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>

<p><strong>Linda's Notes:</strong> ISO 125 f5.6 1/200 - I was planning on showing a different image with some off camera flash, but went with this one based on the restrictions. No modifiers.</p><div></div>

[savagesax]

I really like the shot. I'm uncomfortable with the fence. Maybe vignette the image a bit so the fence doesn't pop out so boldly or using photoshop, darken the fence area.

 

Was there a fence on the left side of the image? Most likely yes. If not I would have done the same shot on the opposite side.

 

For my tastes I'm not fond of the old classic style of having the groom or the bride raise a leg, therefore this may look a bit stiff to some folks.

 

I'm sure the couple will enjoy the image for many years.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I like the pose, the profiles and the geometry of the arch and the scene. I think I'd like the shot taken more from waist-level instead of eye-level so that the horizon doesn't cross directly across their faces. I'd prefer to see the color of the sky, water, and greenery so I'd like this image in color without the blown-out sky. I've changed the composition via a crop and added alot of digital fill.........more fill would have been even nicer so that the flowers and the front of the bride's dress was better lit.</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>I like this photograph, because it looks like a photograph, not “an image”, which is how we often talk nowadays.<br>

I also like the square format.<br>

I like these elements NOT because I am a tired old fat fellow wallowing in a by-gone era . . . I like these elements; because they suit the pose; they enhance the emotion; they create more interest . . .<br>

I like the juxtaposed two scenes and the B&G standing between those two scenes, this is signifying the <em>day of change</em>: them both standing right in the middle.<br>

As <em>corny</em> or as <em>poetic</em> as that interpretation might seem – it was what I noticed. <br>

The other reason I like all these elements is because it seems to me the Photographer looked beyond what the human brain would see, from that camera viewpoint.<br>

The eye / brain mechanism adjusts the scene (yes I know most of us know that): my point in stating it is that this POW is about “seeing the light” . . . most people’s eye/brain’s would have seen this below:</p>

<p> but it seems the Photographer’s eye saw beyond that.<br>

I might have liked even more shadow on them . . .<br>

Brava!</p>

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

[fotografz]

<p>Nice shot as is.</p>

<p>I'd be tempted to experiment with the crop and lengthen the shadow, increase the contrast, and correct the perspective.</p>

<p>When you think about it, the horizon running through their faces is why the rim lighting works. </p><div></div>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"When you think about it, the horizon line running through their faces is why the rim lighting works." -Marc</em><br /><em></em><br />Actually, I can assure you that I did <em>"think about it" </em>which is why I wrote the comments that I did.. While the darker background does help to illuminate the rim lighting, if the sky was not blown-out there would be plenty of contrast to bring out the rim lighting (especially since the rim light on the leading edge of the bride's face is also blown-out}. Additionally, the waist-level perspective would be less predictable and more in line with the perspective of a classic MF image that is suggested by the square format.</p>

[neilambrose]

I'd say the horizon is in exactly the right place. There are three converging lines all meeting at a single point just behind

the groom's head. Raising the horizon would breaks the tension of those lines as well as removing the juxtaposition of light

against dark for the bride's profile.

 

My eye is drawn heavily by the negative space on the left side of the frame. I like compositions with negative space but in

this case the absence of any tonal definition in the shadows detracts a little. If I were to crop it I'd look for a 645 format,

which would take it in pretty much the same direction as Marc's to reduce the weight of the clipped area.

 

The sky isn't blown out on my screen. In fact, it looks about right with a nice fade from hilight to mid tone. I like the lighting

as is and would not be tempted to brighten the groom's face. Shadow is important and an equal ingredient to light. There is

enough definition to work as is, in my opinion.

 

Very nice picture.

[William Michael]

<p>What do you think of the comments thus far, Linda?<br>

WW</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>While the sky may not appear blown on your screen to your eye, Neil, you can simply bring it up in PS and check. The sky and the leading edge of the bride's face is blown on the jpg file presented here. You've also contradicted yourself by stating that you "like the lighting as is"....but stating that the lack of tonality in the shadows detracts from the image. IMO, some tonality in the shadows would likely improve the image but to get that, along with avoiding blowing highlights would have likely required some supplemental light....which raises another point about the limitations of available light.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Yeah, Neil ... that was my take on it ... I like neg. space also, but not so much of it when it's totally blocked out.</p>

<p>Not sure how you'd get the immovable background land mass to be lower or higher without totally changing the perspective, and thus the whole natural feel and geometry of the shot.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Instead of shooting it at eye level, you shoot it from waist level.......</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I tend to be fussy about Horizons and also Decapitations, but in the ORIGINAL square crop the horizon’s placement doesn't bother me because it leads into and ends at him and proportionally is not that large across the image (i.e. not as much annoyance impact) - which is one reason also whit I prefer the square crop it is better balanced in this regard - compared to the 5 x 3½ crop ratio of Marc's crops, as one example.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I really like this shot but I feel the black area to the left and above the couple is a little too much and draws some attension away from the B&W. I would go with some thing like this.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Maybe more like this with more arch at the top.</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>Stuart's interpretation is more sensual.<br>

I don't always jive with his tilts; I do like this one, though.<br>

WW</p>

 

[shawn_mertz]

<p>After reading the comments of others, I am interested in knowing more of Linda's thought process. Dave makes a good case for adding fill light. Others like it as is. In the original crop I think too much about what is in that big black space. Other than that I like it as is. I would crop about half the black away on the left but not tilt it the water will pour out of the lake. </p>

[lindamccague]

<p>Hello! Thank you all for your comments. I just finished up a 3 day indian wedding, so have been away for a little while. I like the tilted crop too. I don't normally tilt at all and tend to try and keep things pretty straight, but I do like it. A tiny bit of the sky is blown in the image right by the grooms head. The rest has detail in the original image.<br>

I did ask the groom to lift his leg. I never thought of it being old school. I was just keeping with the theory... that if it bends... bend it! :) I think he lifted it a bit too much though and it kind of looks like a stork pose to me now.<br>

Again, thank you all for the critique!</p>