mark_harrington1 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 <p>Let's get the party started with an image review. This was taken at a wedding in December. What do you like or not like about it? How would you have posed or shot the couple?</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_m Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 <p>at very least it needs some form of vignette or other manipulation to draw the viewer to the couple. as-is, I drift over to the sky or right side. Maybe tighter crop?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_m. Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 <p>I agree with Howard. It is distracting. Perhaps a bit cliché as well. I may be wrong but I am seeing a flatness about it that is a bit off-putting. There seem to be out of focus areas that are more distracting than isolating</p> <p>It is not a bad picture but I do not think it is up to professional standards. Sorry.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen t Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 <p>Ditto Howard and Rick. Looks like perhaps the camera was on autofocus and picked a spot other than the couple. Pretty setting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochen_S Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 <p>I feel an urge to cut off 50+x% on the right side of it. It would need a turned groom to justify its current size</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_harrington1 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 I whole heartedly agree on the crop. I would add that there are some distracting branches between the faces. As far as flatness, focus and lack of professional look, you need to be more specific and say why and how you would have shot it differently. The purpose is to learn, blanket ubjustified statements aren't teaching tools... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_cohen Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 <p>I would have lit the couple to get some contrast into the image and darken the background. If there were no clouds in the blown-out sky, I would have added them in post. I would have asked the groom to remove his phone from his pocket.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_harrington1 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 Excellent eye on the phone Peter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 <p>Too much background/foreground, not enough couple. I would have cropped closer on them, probably from off to the left to place the waterfall more behind them, but with a longer lens and wider aperture to drop the background out of focus. Would like the background a touch darker with some fill flash on them to make them "pop" in front of it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_m. Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 <blockquote> <p>As far as flatness, focus and lack of professional look, you need to be more specific and say why and how you would have shot it differently. The purpose is to learn, blanket ubjustified statements aren't teaching tools...</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm sorry. I did not mean to offend. When you shoot your subjects in front of busy or distracting subjects then it is important to 'separate' the two. You can do this by lighting your subjects so that they pop out of the background. You can also adjust your aperture (assuming the lens will do it) to throw the background out of focus and make your subjects more prominent. </p> <p>In this picture, as Stephen said, it looks like the camera chose an autofocus point that was not quite on the subject. The way to avoid this is to select an autofocus point in your camera that is over the place where you want your focus to be sharpest or to focus then compose. Select your autofocus point (usually the center one) then recompose your image. You can also manually focus but I find this tedious and unreliable. </p> <p>For this shot you used a D3s with the 28-70 F/2.8 lens. You shot at ISO 400 and at 125th second. Your aperture was F/13. You were spot metering and in manual mode. You were at 34mm and your flash fired. I see file type JPEG but I can't tell from my viewer whether you shot raw or that was something you did in photoshop CS5 which you used for at least some post. </p> <p>Perhaps others can use this information to help more.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_wilson1 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I like it. It's an environmental portrait and you used the environment. I think using a 2 step graduated ND to bring down the sky a notch or adjust in post, maybe some slight darkening around the right and left edges. An environmental portrait does not need to have so much prominence of the couple, but more a strategic placing. Obviously this is not the ONLY shot you took, just one if them. I agree a bit of flash or a reflector to add some subtle kick would be nice but the light is really from behind so just a smidge. The pose is well done, the feet and foundation are nicely placed, not the sloppy awkward poor foundations seen so much because people don't want to learn the basics of good posing. As for a crop, I would pull some, not much though, off the right rock pile, that will also place the couple in a bit and trim a little sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_harrington1 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 <p>Rick, I don't get offended by constructive criticism and I don't explain why an image does or doesn't work, but in this case, I will. For this image the focal point was set on client's face, shadows were opened up with fill flash due to the afternoon sun streaming in directly behind the subject; contrast was reduced in post to apply a painterly soft effect to the image which the client wanted. The image was captured in RAW and intentionally underexposed slightly to keep the whites of the dress from blowing out and shadows blocking up. Actually there was only one spot to shoot from so the POV is what it is, and I have presented the image full-frame to stimulate conversation. The final image was cropped to a 10x20 image for the client's book tightening the crop. As far as separating the client from the background, the easiest way would have been to lower the ISO and open up the aperture but this was a quick shot taken on the path back to the reception venue and we were running behind so more than three images was out of the question and I needed to make sure the faces were in focus. Side lighting would have been better to carve out some depth but not possible given the hassle of setting up the light stand in the rocky terrain and lack of time. Sometimes you just have to work the best you can, with all the elements involved and get a workable image. I think you must be seeing the effects of the paint texture layer for the oof areas because I can assure you the focal point was dead on the face. As for professionalism of the image, that is your call and subjective. I am a Professional Photographers of America Certified Professional Photographer (CPP) which means I had to pass a comprehensive written test about equivalent exposures, composition, posing, processing and a whole host of photography related topics as well as a portfolio review from 5 certified judges including things such as selective focus, short light, broad light, various ratios, posing and other such things. In addition, I have an AA degree in photography, am a Nikon NPP and support myself solely on my photography business. Does this mean every image I take is a winner? No, of course not and sometimes I just wing it and ignore all the "right ways", but it does mean that I can converse with you or anyone else in a competent, professional manner and have a basic understanding of photography, which is why I say gratuitous statements without reinforcing support aren't beneficial to anyone. In addition to all this, I just picked a recent image that had some good and bad points to discuss and was trying to breathe some activity into a forum that I used to really enjoy. If this forum is going to be just a bitch-fest of egos and one upmanship, I likely will loose interest rather quickly and continue to participate in the other forums of which I am a member. If that is the way it ends up, it will be a shame because in all of this, I'm only trying to grow and help others grow as well.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_6502147 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 <p>The two things that I do like is the light and pleasant dynamic between them. Hmmm, unless the sky is super interesting....why bother including it (or that much) ? Besides, the foliage or rock would give appropriate (ample) contrast. Her dress is either super starched or this seem rather staged - too much for my liking. I'd have the vail up 10' into the air (by assistant/s) and let it flow down & repeat this several times....and you'd have several shots to pick from. Perhaps even part would land v. close to the camera. That said, I'd likely move in closer (wider lens)...and adjust to their level, I mean even if you had to use a step/ladder or some sort of plank....which would remove most of that uninteresting sky. Also, I'd give them around 2-2.5 ft of DOF, allowing the rest to go soft/er > and the falls behind them or aside would still be visible, but allowing them to be the center of the attention << as they should be>>....for the viewer (not necessarily in the center of the frame).</p> <p>Mark, aesthetics of the frame have to do with experience....and less to do with education that one received. Not to be super critical, there are many great photogs that don't have your education, but they know instinctively what works and what doesn't.</p> <p>Les</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_m. Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 <p>I don't know you from Adam. You posted an image. You solicited a response from folks who expect to be takes seriously. Then, when we did not rave about the image you became offended. You complained about our commenting without being specific. So I took you at your word and went back to basics in an attempt to help. So you really got offended and posted your (impressive) credentials. Got it. Perhaps if you had explained all of that up front we might have had a better idea of how to speak to you. I posted the EXIF data so that we could all better analyze the shot. Had you done that we all might have changed the way we viewed this picture. <br> None of that changes the fact that most of us felt we could offer constructive suggestions on how to make the shot better. I believe most of us honestly believed that this was what you really wanted. In the end, your clients decide. If the B&G love the picture that is all of the accolades you need. </p> <p>I am perhaps a bit less thin skinned having for years had editors diss what I sometimes thought was my best work. Nothing like an old newspaper editor to give an honest opinion. Whenever my work is reviewed by others I have to remember that they are not as emotionally invested in the product as I am. In this case, we did not know that you were on a timeframe. Did not know how the B & G were reacting to you and each other. We could not see the available vantage points and were not emotionally invested with the couple. We did not look at this shot with the constraint of having to get a certain number of "keepers" to fill the book. Perhaps the 'take-away' is that providing reviewers more information is probably better than setting a trap for them.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 A few months ago Eric Kim took a critique workshop with Magnum. Eric said one of the best lessons he learned was to stop defending and justifying every photo. I watched those critique videos and Eric really didn't say much in defense, so he seemed pretty gracious about the lessons from that workshop. The toughest thing for any of us is to graciously accept what we asked for. It's the single biggest impediment to any critique, rating or feedback process, whether on photo.net or elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 <p>It's fine, why do you ask?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_harrington1 Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 Rick, I did not post this image with the intention of setting a trap, either an image works or doesn't work. iI posted this image because it has good and bad points and I'm totally ok with discussing them. I've had more than my share of critiques, both good and bad, so I am fairly immune to feedback that is specific and well reasoned. Saying a photo isn't up to professional standards without specifics is not only unfair to the maker, it can damage their reputation and persuade others who may google them for potential commissions to avoid using them. It is for this reason that a rebuttal on my part is required, and perhaps why there isn't more life in this forum. Posting metadata adds nothing to the conversation unless you say by using an aperature of 3.5 you could have reduced the shutter speed to 1/125 for example, and helped separate the subjects, but that wasn't expanded upon, so who cares that I used a D3s with an effective fl at 35mm. Again, my reasoning was to discuss what works or doesn't work not to make personal attacks such as this is not up to professional standards. You expect to be taken seriously but your critique was not serious... Lex, again I am good with critiques of my work, silly me for using the opportunity to review images as an opportunity for others to benefit from, especially those who are lurking in the shadows trying to decide how to improve their work, a model I've been trained in and use in other critique forums (pretty much most professional critiques explain why) however, when a critique is offered which is not substantiated and has the potential of discouraging business prospects a reply is mandated. Technique is quantifiable, art is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagesax Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 1 The main distraction for me is the top half of the photo is sky. Ugly sky at that, no clouds. nothing. The good news is you can crop this out. It's always a great thing to shoot wide, crop later. 2 I usually carry a ladder with me. In this case I would have used it. I like being even level with the people. I don't like looking up noses and also double chins show up and accented larger. Bodies, men and women look bigger/wider. 3 I'd have the bride relax and drop her right flower arm, with the flowers hanging. 4 I like the pose of the guy! 5 Often if you put the guy forward and the lady back a shade, she often looks slimmer, not that this lady is over weight. She really isn't. She's about your average looking bride that we photograph every week after week. So you could actually put half of her body slightly behind him and turn her facing more towards him. 6 My critique is on the very critical side. Frankly, I think they will like the image. 7 Try B&W and crop real tight. Nice job...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 <p>I thought there was a too much space around the B&G in the original shot. Maybe if there had been a nice looking blue sky with some white fluffy clouds the space might have worked better.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 <p>Nice picture, Mark; too bad the sky's a bit bland. </p> <p>More than the picture, I appreciate your effort to drum up some activity around here. It didn't go unnoticed. :-) </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_thalheimer Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 <p>I think it's a bit too heavy on the right side. Crop the right or possibly a square format? The eye keeps wandering over there. I do like the bright overcast light</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_harrington1 Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 <p>Sadly in California we aren't always blessed with nice clouds or even a blue sky. I always shoot wide to allow for cropping as I don't know what the client's final output request will be, its a long debate, crop in camera or in post, and I'm sure it won't be solved here. My original post was to stimulate conversation, I did not post the final image as it would not have been nearly as robust a conversation. I hoped to get some serious discussion so I could help share my knowledge and see the image from a different perspective. The image has long since been delivered to the client. Here's the final presentation form (formatted for a 10x10 album). You can see it address several of the comments made by others but sadly because of the tone and lacking a true sense of community and learning the discussion has degraded into a more defensive and frustrating process than I anticipated. You can see the negative space, formal balance, symmetry and color harmony work much better to improve the image from its original presentation. Comments regarding personal style such as bringing ladders and flowing veils are one way to shoot the image, but remember, weddings are hectic and frenetic, I've never photographed a wedding where everything worked well and ran on schedule. In this instance, bringing a ladder to the site would not have been practical, even if it could have been secured on the rocks (which it couldn't) the time to arrange and throw the veil would have eaten away at the precious 45 minutes usually allotted for formals. After all, there are many people to pose and photograph, time with the b/g is limited as they want to socialize with family and friends too. The image described with the flowing veil would also have been out of balance and harmony in this setting. The eye is always drawn to areas of greatest contrast (color, brightness, action) these are standard compositional elements. As captured the flowing veil would have led the eye out of the frame and away from the b/g who are the purpose of the image. Additionally, the way the image is presented here a single 10x10 of the couple is possible, an environmental portrait is possible as a double truck (as here) or the opposite page from the b/g could be faded to enable compositing other images. We should all strive for flexibility in our work. I'm sorry my efforts were met with derision and my work isn't up to the standards of this group and is sadly perceived as unprofessional. I'll bet I have a lot to share if egos could be put aside and a true desire to share knowledge were fostered...<br /><br /></p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_harrington1 Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 <p>btw, the right is still to dominate where the vertical wall of rock is, but the image has to fit into the prescribed aspect ratio. Sometimes you just gotta deal with it. To me, a tighter crop would have introduced more tension to the image but that is speculative. Here's how it would have presented tighter. The couple btw wanted to showcase the waterfall and beauty of the area.</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rekfotos Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 <p>Ok, here it is short and sweet. I skimmed the other posts and it seems like things got a little off track. Here are my thoughts on the images from the OP:</p> <p>I would like to see the image flipped horizontally. The original has me looking first at the rocks opposite the couple. By flipping it the eye will naturally go to the right side of the image. I would also like to see a blue filter added to the sky (if you do that sort of thing). A little more color would make all the difference in the world. </p> <p>So much effort went into the shot, and although not perfect, I would be happy to put it into my portfolio as is. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Ian Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 <p>I think I would say three things about the image.</p> <p>1) (and the first thing I noticed) The plastic 'feel' of the image - it appears as if excessive NR was applied which kills much of the detail - to the extant that it almost appears a SF was used in many areas - it certainly has a bad 'dreamy' feel IMO. Given the shot specifics, there is no necessity for the treatment, so I assume that you've chosen to do this. IMO, the plastic look is a bad choice -especially given the context.</p> <p>2) The Crop was not ideal. I feel there was significant dead space in the sky, and to the right (as others). It looks as if you've tried to fix it in the follow ups, but frankly, it looks (IMO) as if you've overdone it. To much is as bad or worse than not enough. However, this is certainly a stylistic choice.</p> <p>3) Her dress. I mean it looks as if it's been caught on a nail, and she's tugging it. Not sure if there's an easy fix for it (other than noting it and correcting at the time), but it is very distracting to me. The POV only accentuates what otherwise might have been quite natural looking.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now