Wedding Critique of the Week 10/17/11

[picturesque]

<p>This week's image was taken by Marilyn Berrys.</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 wrong.</p><div></div>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>Wow, this is a stunning shot. The reflection is perfect, the color range is wide and bold. I especially like the red and gold\yellow trees, tell me, how long did it take to paint them those perfect colors? ;).</p>

<p>My only complaint, and it really isn't a complaint is the image is too small! Blown up to the full size one could really take it in. As it is, the bride and groom seem a bit small, almost lost amid the landscape, but I imagine if this were poster sized, this wouldn't be much of an issue.</p>

<p>Great shot! Great work. Very well done.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Well, I am on my way to class but I will throw out my .02¢...</p>

<p>My critique would be on the image presented, although I too would like to see something around 200mm framing more of just the couple and the reflection. Can't say that I agree with f/2.8. Even f/4 and 1/200th would give improved sharpness, the idea that any lens is sharper as you stop it down. And f/2.8 at this distance isn't really going to throw anything out of focus so much as rob you of sharpness. Not a fan of the grass in the corner of the frame, however that is easily resolved with my next suggestion. When I first saw the image I thought it would better presented as some sort of panoramic. Finally, I just did a really fast PS to get some blue in the sky.</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I also don't understand why this was shot a f/2.8. Would have used the other end of the 17-55 to get something like this as I find the white sky triangle and the grass in the foreground distracting :</p><div></div>

[fuccisphotos]

So this is a lovely shot, and in an album as a double page spread would be fantastic. But here's where I often have

problems. I have tended to shoot very wide like this in the past. But unless you are getting a big enlargement, the couple

becomes minuscule and it ends up essentially just being a landscape shot. Then I find myself in post cropping down

more to around the couple. But if I just had done that with my lens there instead of in post, the resulting produced shot

would be much higher resolution and quality. Now that I have my 135mm 2.0, I am doing MUCH tighter shots and loving

it. But I think getting these nice wide shots is important too, to set the scene so to speak. Same reason why most of us

with first dance shots start wide, and then switch to close ups. I like the addition of the bluer sky in john's edit. it helps to

match the intense blue in the reflection of the sky on the water.

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Lovely shot. I imagine this as being a money shot for enlargements. </p>

<p>I might have cropped the sky off a little to get rid of the blown area, and to take the couple just above the horizontal third line.</p>

<p>Print it big!</p>

[fotografz]

<p>NIce shot that utilizes a special time of year and a place that the client's will cherish for many years to come. </p>

<p>I'm sure that in the over-all flow of the day's shooting there are plenty of close-up and more tightly framed shots ... so this one will set the over-all time and place with-in that flow.</p>

<p>It is good to remember that when shooting such images, use the lowest ISO you can so you have the option of various crops for different applications later. </p>

<p>Well done.</p>

[maira_sharron]

<p>Agree with Marc. My favorite shots are the landscape shots. People pick locations for various reasons, one being the scenic value, and it's not a mistake (in my opinion) to minimize the bride and groom in order to capture all that is around them. Sometimes they want a photo on the wall that memorializes the day, and them, surrounded by the beauty around them. I'm quite sure several close ups were also taken. I do prefer the panoramic created by John. That said, I also like Dieter's shot. Lower ISO and higher f stop would be better. With this shot, you could create a creamier, painterly effect by using a noise reduction action, and maybe an action that incorporates a little Gaussian blur throughout the trees. I have actions at home (I'm currently at work) - maybe I'll play with the image and post later.</p>

[marilynb]

<p>Thanks everyone for the responses so far. As Marc and Maira assumed, I took plenty of close ups. However, this location has a lot of meaning to the couple, so I wanted to showcase the landscape. <br>

They will be getting a 12x12 album, so this shot will likely end up cropped similar to John's edit as a spread. <br>

The wedding was a few weeks ago, and I don't remember what led me to shoot this at f2.8 - yes, I should have stopped down. That being said, I find the 17-55 very sharp wide open.</p>

[savagesax]

<p>I kind of like the crop that dieter made. You can see the people better. It is, however a very creative photo.</p>

[markonestudios]

Very nice, contextual image. Not sure if it's just my monitor here at work, but I find the saturation a bit overcooked. I would dial down on that just a touch. Otherwise, very nice image to fill a 24x12 double-pager nicely. I also reckon you won't lose out too much in terms of DOF at f/2.8 since you shot at the 17mm end of things and on an APS-C sensor camera but yes, in future, bear in mind you need not shoot that wide for such a composition, In this case greater DOF is your friend. I also like John's crop and treatment of the highlights in the sky at the top.

[ianivey]

<p>This is definitely a shot made for canvas. a 20x30 or 20x40 would work really well. I'm trying to remember to shoot at least a couple like this -- it's hard because I'm so attracted to facial expression which, in a shot framed this way, is not present in the viewfinder. </p>

<p>This is the kind of shot that brings in additional revenue after the fact. A wider-aspect crop like John's would get rid of the foreground grass, and would be a great stand-alone enlargement. Yes, see whether you can bring a bit of blue into the sky at top. Aside from those two issues, there's little I'd change.</p>