Shot a Wedding Last Weekend...Thoughts?

[bryce_sickich]

<p>Hi all...I haven't posted on here much, but wanted to provide a link to a recent blog post from a wedding I did last weekend for some constructive criticism (that doesn't mean be rude, honest, yes). The officiant was the rudest I've met so far, and had a restriction that prevented my second shooter and I from going beyond the first pew...but nothing on flash photography..weird. It's always a shame when you picture a great shot/angle in your head, only to have your dream crushed by a rude officiant! </p>

<p>I keep my studio part-time (licensed/insured/yes I pay my taxes ;-), and until now have completely advertised by word of mouth and my reputation. Honestly, it takes a while, but it's worth the wait and is the best kind of advertising. I'm just starting to get inquiries out of the blue, so pretty excited about that!</p>

<p>Anyhow, here is the link to my blog:<br>

<a href="http://www.photosbybryce.com/blog">http://www.photosbybryce.com/blog</a></p>

<p>I'm also curious as to your thoughts on my website and layout. Just this year, I've started blogging my clients shoots, so that's why I don't have a whole lot of posts. Still working on updating my portfolio as well, so I don't have every shot I want on my site at the moment. Seriously though, looking for pointers/tips/thoughts/etc. Thanks so much!</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>*sigh* a rude officiant does have a way of sucking the joy out of your work!</p>

<p>Of course this is why I <em>always</em> go to rehearsals... You typically meet them ahead of time, and can go over with them 'acceptable' movement/behavior before during and after the ceremony. Not a cure all, but at least you know ahead of time...</p>

<p>I'm curious just how bad the 'golden hour' was? I almost never go B&W with those because the color is so fantastic... but the color does look off in those (to much blue for proper golden hour?)... Did you not get out until sunset/twilight?</p>

[bryce_sickich]

<p>Marcus,<br>

Yes, it was probably a little after "Golden Hour" now that I think of it. There were some intense cloud layers obscuring the light, but I like it because it's a more subdued. After shooting the wedding party under a pier in the middle of the afternoon, I appreciated the soft light of twilight! </p>

[Marcus Ian]

Yeah, no doubt the light is a lot softer, but clouds and

late timing suck the golden out of golden hour very

quickly... though you may be able to recover some by

playing with your WB...

[aleks_biteman]

<p>Personally, at the reception, it seems your flashes are very direct and harsh, you may have been able to point those up, seeing that the ceiling is low enough. This would've spread the might more evenly and softened it quite a bit.</p>

[bryce_sickich]

<p>Aleks,<br>

Yes, you're right. Looking at that now, it would have helped. Good to thing to think about next time!</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Bryce, overall good job. The images have a "delicateness" and softness to them that makes it feel very romantic. Ovbiously you and wide apertures are good friends ;-)</p>

<p>I was about to comment about the reception shots when I saw Aleks' comment. In my opinion those are not up to the par with the rest of your work on the day. Harsh shadows, lots of less-than-flattering fall off. Did you use a modifier or just the flash head diffuser? What was your lighting setup there?</p>

[bryce_sickich]

<p>Mark, thanks for your comments! I didn't use any modifiers (except for flash head diffusers), and like Aleks mentioned, I would have been better off aiming both strobes up and bouncing off the ceiling (which was white btw).</p>

<p>The room was kind of an odd shape, and the setup was a little weird. I had two AB B800's on opposite corners of the dance floor, and used on camera flash for fill w/bounce card (set to manual, 1/4 or 1/8 power...can't remember). I had about 10 mins down time before the wedding party arrived, so after setting everything up I took some meter readings and played with the exposure a bit. The strobes were set to similar power settings....I think I ended up backing both of them down a bit. </p>

<p>I've got another wedding in 3 weeks, and the reception location layout is much nicer. Fortunately the ceiling is also white, so I have no reason to not get the lighting perfect! Thanks again for your comments and suggestions. I'm always looking for ways to improve and fix my mistakes! </p>

 

[savagesax]

Sometimes flash unit's aren't needed. In general the photo's you posted are over exposed. You can tell

from the washed out cloths that have no details and the faces are also a shade over. You can also tell form

the reflections, hot spots on the faces.

 

I like the detail shots, such as her shoes.

 

The group shots need some work. Turn the people more in an angle so the guys guts aren't showing. Ask

the person if he'd mind taking off his glasses.

 

You are off to a good start. Check out some portrait books and wedding books.

[bryce_sickich]

<p>Bob, <br>

Thanks for your comments/suggestions! I'm definitely going to dial in my exposures with OCF better, as that seems to be an area that needs improvement. I spend a lot of time reading and checking out the work of other photographers for inspiration, and little things I can implement. However, I refuse to copy what others have done, and it bugs me when I see other photographers that do nothing but copy others!</p>

<p>Thanks again for your comments, and I definitely appreciate the constructive criticism. After every shoot/event/wedding, I always try to take something, learn from it, and apply it to the next!</p>

<p> </p>

[gil_rosado]

<p>Nice job. What technique is used in post processing to achieve the soft look.</p>

[t_tran4]

Great photos. I agree with the others that the reception

shots can improve. Maybe increase the ISO and

bounce off the ceiling. Try to balance the lighting of the

subjects with the background. The subjects are lit up a

tad too much compared to the dark background.

 

I really like the bright soft radiant style of your other

shots though. I personal don't think you have a "general

over exposure" problem as Bob mentioned. I took a look at his wedding portfolios and in my opinion, his photos can use a bit more exposure. Not to be offending, but that's just my preference.

[William Michael]

<p>You also asked for comment/feedback on your website:<br>

My reading of the “about” page gives me a strong impression that the Photography Business is a meagre sideline to the main goal of becoming a Professional Airline Pilot for a major airline.<br>

I do not think that the possibility of leaving that impression in a Prospect's mind, is a best practice marketing approach to adopt for a Professional Wedding and Portrait Photography Business.</p><br>

<p>WW</p>

[katrin_d.]

<p>I see some temperature/color balance issues in the ceremony photos and it looks like you focused on the couple behind the bride & groom for their exit out of the church.</p>

<p>As far as posing goes, you definitely played it safe but it looks a bit old fashioned - I hope you don't mind me saying this. I suggest you get people to "do" something, direct them as opposed to having them pose. Also keep an eye on the background, in one of the photos of the couple, I see the wedding party mingling in the background [the b&w one] which also has their feet cut off.</p>

<p>Entrance into the reception: you want to always frame it so you don't see the venue's coordinator in the background, some of the better ones know better but you can't rely on that. Their job is to cue in the couple but maybe talk to them beforehand so you know where they will be standing, they know where you will be standing so they're not in the photo. Also not entirely sure about the cropping of that particular photo, there seems to be an awful lot of headroom.<br>

I would have also loved to see more of the twilight photos in color as well as more photos that aren't as "close up" on the couple and include more of the location.</p>

[bryce_sickich]

<p>Thuan,<br>

Thank you for your comments! I'm definitely going to work on balancing the ambient light with flash to get a more even exposure...simple thing to fix, but I agree it will greatly improve the quality of my reception shots. </p>

<p>William,<br>

Thank you for pointing that out. Not something that I realized until I read it with that perspective in mind....made some edits to my bio. Thanks!</p>

<p>Katrin,<br>

Thank you for your comments! Yes, I do need to adjust the temp/color on the ceremony photos. That particular shot, yes, I did focus on the best man and maid of honor...mainly because I wanted something different for my blog post. I do have other "in focus" shots of the couple leaving the church. <br>

As far as the reception goes, the room layout was kind of awkward. With the way the tables were setup, that was really the only "decent" position from which I could shoot the wedding party entering the reception. I'll work on the cropping of those. Also, I see what you're saying about photographing of the location in some of the shots. <br>

I will take the "directing vs. posing" into consideration when I'm working. See what you're saying by old fashioned...no offense taken. That may be more of my style, but I don't ever want to be stubborn and "stuck" on any one thing.</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone, I really appreciate all of the feedback!</p>

[savagesax]

Thaun, there's no need to compare my work to Bryce. That wasn't his question nor mine. I did not ask

you to review my work! So try not to in the future.

 

However, since you commented on my work I have to ask a very simple question to just you. I normally

never do this...

 

Kindly answer this question for the readers. The bride pays a lot of money for her dress. Perhaps

thousands, because I shoot a lot of weddings in the Beverly Hills and the general Los Angeles area.

Higher end clients. So why would a photographer overexpose a dress to the point of not showing any

details of her dress? Even if the dress may be a free dress, such as her mothers dress handed down.

 

We have to be careful. In photoshop it's hard to bring back the details when overexposed. If the face is

underexposed this can be adjusted without effort.

 

I'm not saying to never be creative, such as overexposing. I use this effect in most weddings, however

blowing out the details should be done when the photographer wants to. Surely not doing this during the

formals.

 

We all have artistic styles and I'm not trying to take this away from Bryce or anyone. Hope this makes

sense.

 

We can get into technical approaches to shooting in RAW. That wasn't the OP's question.

[Dave Gardner]

<p>I like them...for me a bit more contrast would be nice...but that's me. I'm also not a big fan of flash...but i think you covered it all and did a really good job. I think the couple will be very pleased..</p>

[bryce_sickich]

<p>Dave…thank you for your comments! </p>

[fotografz]

<p><strong>Bryce, IMO, that specific wedding exhibits a distinct style,</strong> and it is quite appropriate for a beach wedding or any other Florida type environment. The over-all impression is light and airy feeling with pastels and lovely skin tones that most Brides will love. Achieving a signature style is one of the harder things to solidify with wedding work, and I believe you are well on your way to accomplishing that.</p>

<p><strong>My advice would be to exploit that look and feel,</strong> get it as consistent as possible in a variety of situations … clients initially buy on over-all impressions … then once you are comfortable with getting that style as second nature, delve deeper into ever more meaningful content.</p>

<p>While your look and feel is a desirable one, it is not unique (nothing in the computer post processing age remains unique for long), so what can help separate you from others is what the images are about, not just what they look like. </p>

<p><strong>Consider infusing your coverage with less "camera aware" images,</strong> and work to capture more real moments as they happen … trust me those sorts of scenarios happen a lot at a wedding if you tune your "seeing radar" toward that objective.</p>

<p><strong>Regarding off-camera lighting …</strong> I'm impressed that you are doing this and encourage you to continue refining it until you can bring the look and feel closer to your lighter/airy outdoor signature style. One suggestion I would offer is to think as much about the backgrounds as you do about the main foreground subject.</p>

<p>Personally, I'm not a fan of just jacking up the ISO to accomplish more background exposure and then lighting the subject with flash … this technique can lead to an inconsistent look and feel front to back … inconsistant noise, color shifts, varying contrast levels between background and subject. </p>

<p><strong>So, consider eventually lighting the backgrounds</strong> so you can use a decent ISO that produces better color and contrast ranges through-out the images. For example, the B&G exiting the church shows a dark room behind a slightly over flashed subject. If there had been a light in that room, it would look more like it actually was. (I understand that you may not have been able to do that with this stringent officiant hawking your every move, but often <em>"where there is the will, there is a way"</em>). It is just an example that could be applied to many similar situations … like when the wedding party makes their grand entrance at a reception … put a light hidden outside the door aimed at the ceiling just above the entrance.</p>

<p>Same for your first dance shot … light the background with a light set to a bit higher power than the one used to light the subject so they are backlit.</p>

<p><strong>Here is an example of a shot done in a dark reception room that demonstrates how you could pull indoor shots to be more consistent with your light airy outdoor shots.</strong> The couple was quite close to the wall and normal lighting would have resulted in some form of shadows thrown by the subject, or at the very least showed the ugly wall more than I would have liked. So, I placed a second radio triggered speed-light on the floor behind them, and let the TTL on-camera speed-light do the fill flash work. Fast, easy, and it works every time.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

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

[fotografz]

<p>BTW, here is an example of placing a light in the other room so the B&G aren't emerging out of a black hole. </p><div></div>

[bryce_sickich]

<p>Marc,<br>

Thanks for all of your comments and suggestions. I'm grateful for all of the feedback I have received, and plant to put what I can into practice to become a better photographer. Definitely going to pay more attention to lighting the background to avoid that "black hole" look. Now, it's standing out to me in the worst way, and I want to fix it! As far as developing my style, still working on that for sure. I want to stand out and have a uniqueness that sets me apart from all of the photographers in my area. So much of the "same ol' same ol'" here.... <br>

I just shot another wedding last weekend, so plan to get that blog post finished up this weekend and post on here for critique/review as well. Thanks again, and I really appreciate your comments!</p>

<p>Bryce</p>

[scott_slomback]

<p>Bryce- I don't have any criticism. I enjoyed all of the images you shared from the Daytona Wedding and as a fellow Florida photographer I think any of my clients would be thrilled with the images you provided. You did a great job.</p>

[bryce_sickich]

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>Thanks for your kind words! As you know, everyone and their mother in FL wants some kind of beach something wedding! Always looking for ways to stand out and be different than the norm. Fortunately, the actually wedding didn't take place outside, as it was miserably hot that day! Thanks again and best wishes to you and your business!</p>

<p>Bryce</p>