Wedding Critique of the Week 10/10/11

[picturesque]

<p>This week's image was taken by Josh Gilreath.</p>

<p>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</p>

<p><strong>Josh's Notes:</strong> Hasselblad 500cm, Kodak Portra400, 80mm f2.8 @ f5.6, Sunpak 662 flash bounced</p><div></div>

[theresa_skutt]

Love it! Being super picky, unless this was a candid, maybe move the flowers down a bit so they don't compete with her for attention. Really pretty. What effect caused the soft focus?

[cyrus_procter]

<p>Your framing is excellent I love the soft focus effect, just perfectly done, not too much, but a very nice effect. Wonderful flowers, and wonderful select focus. Her expression is also genuine, and I really like the light, especially on her back, where there are many nice shadows and highlights that blend together just lovely.</p>

<p>From my perspective the first thing that I look at is eyes, and in this case I can't see her hers. She does have her vale on, but when I look where her eye should be, it just seems really strange, almost like there isn't an eye there even though I can see the shape of it.</p>

<p>The Bride, her dress and the fence all blend wonderful together, they all have a soft white quality to them that works, because all that stuff should be soft, white or both. However when I look over the railing and see the out of focus background it seems too white, as though the contrast and color has been completely sucked out of it, it certainly draws attention to the bride, but when I look at the image as a whole, I find it to be very flat. There is no sense of the green outdoors, there is no sense of the blue sky, and for some reason this bugs me.</p>

<p>Over all I think you did an excellent job, my opinion is just that, and you should take it with a grain of salt. Keep up the good work!</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Perfect.</p>

<p>On my monitor I can see the eye quite clearly and the background is a nice soft pastel range of colors that provides a nice feeling of depth ... IMO.</p>

<p>I wouldn't change a thing. Hey, sometimes it happens, LOL!</p>

<p> </p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>I certainly see your point of view Marc and its a good one. I'm simply critiquing the image on my gut, which is why the OP should take it with a grain a salt!</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>It's a beautiful photo, with lovely colours composition etc., masterful. The one thing that spoils it for me is the Gaussian blur. It's a personal thing maybe, but I really don't like it in any picture, and for me it undermines what would otherwise have been a lovely moment. I don't like it even when very subtly done, but this is what I would call a heavy effect.</p>

<p>For me the position of the flowers, composition etc. is perfect. And lovely light.</p>

[josh_gilreath]

<p>Thanks for the kind words everyone! For those of you who were interested in how I added the blur my method is as follows: New layer, Gaussian Blur filter in photoshop with a radius of 12 (this will make the image super blurry), adjust the opacity of the layer with the blur to somewhere between 15-35% to get the desired amount of blur. You can even use the eraser tool to take the blur off of the eyes and off of the mouth and use this more as a skin softening technique. <br>

For those who don't like the blur, I understand. I don't add this to every shot I take, but with this image in particular I just felt that there needed to be a softness and the original negative scan was very sharp! I did look at it both ways and I personally decided that the blur worked. <br>

Thanks again for all of the comments! </p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>I was flabbergasted when I saw that this was captured on film, but once Josh explained his technique, the creaminess in areas started to make more sense to me. It looked like to me as if someone took the clarity brush in lightroom and applied it in selective areas putting it almost at -100 or so. I like that your effect makes the bride stand out more, but right now it feels more painterly to me than a photo. Sometimes my clients really want that, and I provide that, others want it to feel very real. If I was already in photoshop, I might have softened the skin around her left wrist a bit more. Other than that, nice capture.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>I actually wondered about the softening also ... however, it would be interesting to see the image full sized since little sub one meg jpgs at 700 pixels tends to exaggerate many effects more than they really appear on a normal print.</p>

<p>I used to shoot with a 503CW and 203FE ... and those big negs combined with the brutally sharp Zeiss lenses often called for some filtration like a Zeiss Softar, or a black net filter or even a nylon pulled over the lens to mitigate the sharpness. In this case, the selective use of blur tool seemed to work to my eye for this specific image. Creamy-dreamy which seems to go well with the more contemplative, "day-dreaming" attitude of the subject.</p>

<p>Really love seeing a film image ... it takes me back to times when skin tones weren't the big issue that it is with digital. </p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>This image is amazingly beautiful! I am not keen on the blurr but that is just me... and I would PS the flowers so that they were not touching her face... but again that is just me... overall beautiful amazing image...</p>

[William Michael]

<p>When I saw this in the “Upload” thread: I “ooohhhhed” at the Pastels.<br>

And then I read at the bottom of the frame “Kodak Portra 400”.</p>

<p>Well I am glad this was chosen for critique, so I can formally “ooohh”.<br>

Very nice indeed, soft, poised, yet totally relaxed and it engages the viewer to enter into her thoughts.</p>

<p>An excellent example of Bridal Portraiture.</p>

<p>Now I’ll read all the other comments . . .</p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Neither the eye nor the Post Production blurring bother me.<br>

I am still transfixed on her gaze – and the Viewer’s attachment to her gaze is strengthened by an excellent profile shot and the Lines of the Profile, including her back, which is marvellously included in the framing.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[fotografz]

<p>I often just go with a gut reaction as to whether I wished I had shot an image (thinly veiled jealousy : -) ... and in this case I wish this was my shot, not Josh's ... LOL!</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I think it's beautiful, and love all the tones, awesome sky tones on the film through the Zeiss glass. The Hasselblad is still my favorite choice, with film of course.</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>Great shot. The only thing I would do is maybe soften the flowers a tad in post, as they are the sharpest thing in the image and draw my eye away from the bride. I prefer a bit more eye contact and would have turned her head a bit more towards the camera, but that is really more of a personal thing than a problem with this lovely photo. I'm sure the bride and groom loved it. Congratulations.</p>

[savagesax]

It's really fantastic. You may want to try and brighten up her back just a bit in photoshop, the balance could help match her arms, but don't do a lot, just slightly.

[savagesax]

Is this any better? Just a 5 second adjustment. With more time it could look erally good. I think.<div></div>

[savagesax]

typo - really, not erally

[StuartMoxham]

<p>It's a beautiful shot but I am not too sure about the blur.<br>

Anyhow I thought it would make a great monochrome image so thats my suggestion for this shot.</p>

<div></div>