Wedding Critique of the Week 6/27/11

[picturesque]

<p>This week's image was taken by David Moses.<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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br /><strong> </strong></p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>I would have moved to the right by a few inches. This would have put the cross and the apex of the roof midway between the two individuals in the foreground. Doing so also would have cleared up the background clutter that currently appears to emanate from the nose and mouth of the RH subject.</p>

<p>Also, I would have zoomed a bit wider so as not to cut off the shoulders of the subjects, the apex of the roof, etc. The photographer appears to have used a 24-70/f2.8 lens. In the ideal world, the relatively new 24/f1.4 prime, used wide open, would have been ideal because it would have thrown the background further out of focus.</p>

<p>Just my $0.02,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Here's a quick and dirty mock-up of how it might have looked with my suggestion to move the photographer to the right a bit, a bit more blur on the background, and a bit sharper on the subjects. It would have been too much work to simulate a wider field of view, so I didn't do that.</p>

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

[tom_mann1]

<p>PS - Also, I probably would have asked the two guys to turn around and got another shot with them facing the camera, but with a bit of the top of the pew visible to show that they were seated.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[ianivey]

<p>I don't think I understand the photo or what David was going for when he took the shot. I can't see the eyes of either subject, nor can I see the full expressions on their faces. I don't get the sense that anything of particular importance was going on -- it looks like they're just chatting, and neither seems animated. </p>

<p>Plus, you've got the photo-bomb guy growing out of the mouth of the subject on the right. </p>

<p>The crop seems awkward -- I'm dying to see more of these two guys (not just their faces, but a bit more shoulder and arm or something, rather than floating heads).</p>

<p>Tom's edits improve the shot marginally, but I don't think they transform it into a keeper, because there's just not enough substance or context. This is therefore one I'd put in the discard pile, I believe.</p>

[the_mongrel_cat]

<p>hi</p>

<p>thanks for the comments. definitely agree about the clutter. and i've got no idea how you did that mockup - bravo. also agree about shifting the angle slightly to get a bit of symmetry (although symmetry is not something i'm entirely comfortable with in photography).</p>

<p>i don't think i'd do the turn around shot though, i suspect it would be a tad cheesy.</p>

<p>as for the 24 1.4 - yes please! i suspect that i could do much better work with that and the 50 2.4 than my current 24/70 and 70/200 combo, but i'm too chicken to try!</p>

<p>also, i notice you warmed the tone slightly your version. when i see b&w beside a slightly warmed version of the same pic i always like the warmer one, but i always have the nagging feeling that i'm just being silly and that the warmed version won't age so well. any thoughts?</p>

<p>you also raise a good point about cutting off shoulders. i've been trying recently to "get close, get closer" and have been trying to be unafraid of cutting things in order to get a more intimate feel. i don't know yet whether this is or can be a good thing. i suspect that i need more practice, and that the fault is in my technique rather than the principle.</p>

[the_mongrel_cat]

<p>hi</p>

<p>thanks for the input. it was just a shot about the groom and best man waiting (it's part of a little 'waiting' set). i just wanted to get a shot of them chatting but also include some space. the rest of the pics in the set are all with the frame full.</p>

<p>the angle of the shot is definitely off thanks to the clutter on the right. and i think you used the correct word - akward.</p>

[ianivey]

<p>No objection to trying to get close -- that's probably a good thing to try and experiment with.</p>

<p>But get close with the goal of making an image that features <em>something specific </em>the viewer can latch on to, like a face that fills most of the frame (especially with an interesting expression). Here, my eye just doesn't know what to look at. This is partially because there's no human face to look at (just two profiles), and no object in the frame of obvious interest. So I just have no idea why you took this photo, other than that you thought you were supposed to be taking photos. </p>

<p>I'd call this a composition problem, with some off-timing thrown in there.</p>

<ul>

<li>Composition: no faces, no eyes, no expressions, awkward crop, and off-center/asymmetrical framing for no obvious reason other than that the photographer didn't think about composition before pushing the button. </li>

<li>Timing: nothing interesting going on = no memory to preserve; just a couple of guys passing time. </li>

</ul>

<p>If you'd composed the shot (especially if you'd done so with faces visible) and then waited patiently for the right moment before releasing the shutter, it's very likely that one of them would have made the other one laugh, or elicited some interesting facial expression. This would have given the photo a purpose, which it currently lacks. (No one ever thinks, "Hey, you know what I need? I need some photos of me waiting for stuff.") :)</p>

<p>A photo of a groom, waiting, is interesting if it captures an element of some relationship (e.g., laughter, supportive friendship, shared tears) or an identifiable emotion or reaction (apprehension, expectation, worry, excitement, surprise). I think you probably were just shooting a bunch of shots, here, and this one doesn't add to your story.</p>

<p>A good way to improve is to shoot less, think more. Compose, think, (possibly recompose), wait, wait, shoot.</p>

[laurel_jensen1]

<p>My eye gets confused, as has been mentioned already, and I'm not sure of what the photo is about and how it adds to the story. I did a quick edit and tried to improve the composition as best I could by removing the clutter behind the gentleman on the right and took out the window over the cross (although that edit would be obvious to all the principles and guests and wouldn't fly as a deliverable to the b&g). I also darkened it a bit so the faces, especially the one on the right, would not be blown out and then cropped it. To my eye, now I first see the cross, then the gentleman on the right and then the one on the left. If I knew the groom and best man I might understand this photo and appreciate it - but it definately says something about the "cross", however that gets interpreted, as that's the dominant feature.</p>

<p>Ultimately though, if you are making a statement about the groom and his best man and not about the cross/religion/etc. and their relationship to that aspect of life and/or the wedding commitment, you needed to wait for more expression or position yourself in front of them. In the right cultural framework, if christianity is a big part of all of their lives, I might keep it in the mix.</p><div></div>

[maira_sharron]

<p>Using Tom Mann's edit -- There is an expression in their faces, but I feel that it might have gotten lost because there is too much to see. I'm not opposed to extreme cropping for certain photos, and this would probably be one that I would try it on. By making it a portrait crop, you can create a bit of symmetry with the flow of the arch on top. The expressions become more noticeable and the composition/crop could be considered bold/unusual/interesting/creative.</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>I don't mind the backward Profiles all that much. I understood when I saw it, that it is the Groom and Best Man "Waiting" - I am content that this is all it is - no deeper meaning is fine by me: The two Blokes sharing that time together - quite simple - it might mean a lot to the Groom (and or the Best Man) and it need mean nothing more to me.<br>

Often it is the just the simple moments no one else thinks to capture the Client, best likes - we have no idea what they are saying but I bet a Mars Bar the Groom remembers "Waiting" when he sees this image and that might just be enough for him to want this Photo and keep it just for that moment.<br>

Too often the focus on small moments, is all about the Bride all day? ? ?</p>

<p><br />I do think an <strong>Higher Camera Elevation</strong> would have assisted.<br />And also conversion to B&W with a <strong>Greater Range of Greys</strong>.</p>

<p>I was intrigued at the EXIF: <br />I think you are <strong>tempting fate pulling 1/40s</strong> (I assume Hand Held) for those shots inside the Church Sans Flash. <br />At ISO100 you had yards of room to shoot at 1/125s – perhaps you should re-consider you technique sans Flash indoors - both in regard to Camera Shake and also Subject Movements.<br />I’ll make a wild stab and suggest that Av Mode might be catching you out and you are not watching the Tv as diligently as you might? And also that you might have just stepped inside from outside and had not adjusted the ISO?</p>

<p>To continue the conversation which my good colleague Tom began and one point I disagree.<br />The 24/1.4 (or 35/1.4) would be “nice” to have, but apropos the background blur, but I think getting higher would have been more assistance to the overall shot.<br />There is not that much more blur to be gained by moving to F/1.4 from F/2.8 for a close shot like that: I guess that you were at about 5Ft SD and the FL = 32mm.<br />I use both a 24 and a 35 Fast Prime lenses and at close range for Portraiture: and truly, the DoF moving to F/1.4 will about halve what it is at F/2.8.<br />For that shot the DoF was about 12 inches perhaps a bit less.<br />Anyway the point I want to make is: moving to F/1.4 will not, IMO, make very much difference at all, to the B/Ground Blur’s texture either – I have scouted my samples and can’t find a reasonable A/B comparison, if I get time I will make one, to show what I mean.</p>

<p>Back to the image in question:<br />I’d also look at the background in respect of the <strong>verticals and horizontals.</strong><br />I am not fussed at all that the cross is not in the middle. The Groom sits on that side of the Church waiting for his Bride and it makes sense to me that the Cross should be where it is – but the horizontals are just a “little bit” out: and so is the Vertical on the Cross and the Window and that’s just so irritating . . .<br />The point is if the Customer not irritated by the being just a little bit skewed then that’s fine.<br />But the Customer who notices the little skew gets driven nuts, so IMO better to be “neat” or have a purposeful skew.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<p>ASIDE:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I have scouted my samples and can’t find a reasonable A/B comparison, if I get time I will make one, to show what I mean."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1009739">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1009739</a><br />522995SOOC: F/2.8 @ 1/40s @ ISO200<br />522996SOOC: F/1.4 @ 1/125s @ ISO200 (opened up ?Stop to counter the optical vignette of the lens when at F/1.4)<br />I attempted to simulate the EV and the TYPE of light, in the Church: this open shade; winter; about 1645hrs.<br>

The bushes at the end are 13mtrs away from the camera (my guess at the distance of the Church’s end wall).<br />The Shallots are 1.3 meters from the camera and that is the Plane of Sharp Focus.<br />The bushes are obviously not smooth, but the line of tiles is and so is the small white post at the end.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Good comments, William. </p>

<p>I completely agree with your "Mars Bar" comment / bet. :-) I often have subjects say things like, <em>"I remember exactly what was going through my head when you took that picture"</em> and want a copy for that reason.</p>

<p>The couple might also like a shot where the photographer asked them to turn around, but that's another story.</p>

<p>Going to a 1.4 from a 2.8 can't hurt, but as you correctly point out, with short FL lenses, the difference in blur circle size at infinity is not as large as it would be at longer FL's, as evidenced by all of the P&S cameras with small background blur circles, even when the subject is close. </p>

<p>An distinction that is rarely made is between DoF and the size of the blur circles for objects at infinity. In contrast to the DoF, the size of the blur circles for objects at infinity (when focused close) IS dependent on FL for a fixed sensor size. </p>

<p>Thanks again,</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thanks to Tom - for the technical bit: <em>"An distinction that is rarely made is between DoF and the size of the blur circles for objects at infinity . . . the size of the blur circles for objects at infinity (when focused close) IS dependent on FL for a fixed sensor size."</em><br>

Best to you,<br>

William</p>