just married

I think the shadow areas in this photo need to be a little lighter. (You want to see a little more detail in those areas.) However, what you notice when you lighten things up is a lot of smudging of the details, as though a lot of noise reduction had been applied. The end result is that if you make the shadow areas lighter, they look somewhat artificial.

I don't think deep shadow areas, lack of detail, and "empty spaces" are necessarily to be avoided. In many cases (as in Niki's photograph) they provide context and scale for the areas that can be seen, and in this sense they contribute much to the photograph. In addition, too much extra (unnecessary) detail will begin to intrude on the view of the main subject and/or the main reason for the photograph. It's the relationship between the seen and the unseen that carries the impact of many photographs, and I think that's true here.

It's hard to know, with different monitors, different viewing angles, etc., if we're all looking at the same thing. For instance, if I look at my monitor from one angle, this POW looks a little too dark overall; from another angle, it doesn't.
Perhaps prints of each POW should be mailed to all interested Photo Net members for inspection prior to discussion. :)

Wonderful picture Niki, the lighting is beautiful. I love the mood.

Best regards my friend.

If this were my shot, I would have had to crop it. And then I would have loved it. The details on the bride's dress withstand the bright light into which this romantic couple walk. The religious symbolism is obvious but not overwhelming. It tells a great story with dignity and drama.

Martin, I think you do bring up a good point here, regarding how we all might just be looking at something slightly differently on our monitors and because of that might come up with different conclusions.

For example, when I read Fred's first comment here regarding the details in the shadows and it leaving him a bit flat, I didn't fully understand where he was coming from. On my main monitor, what I was seeing was only faint indications of what lies in those shadows. The hint of something--but not the seeing of anything specifically--worked well from my perspective and I didn't see how what was actually 'hidden" there played into the image. Later in the week, I looked at the image on my laptop which I won't/don't use for critical work on my own images. On that screen, the objects in the darkness were more clear and had I evaluated the image based on what I saw there I may have come to the same conclusion Fred did or I may have suggested that these areas be taken down to the level of tone that would render only those hints of detail that I in fact saw on the other monitor. My comments would have been different as to how the image worked for me based on that rendering of the image. But I also know that my own images look much different when I go to my website on the laptop than they do either on my main monitor or in print. I try to avoid commenting based on what I see there.

But when we get to these cropped versions, I think we again have to revisit the whole idea of the context of the image as presented. The latest crop by Alberta presents an image that certainly works but is not the same image, or even close, to what we were presented with as to content. It would have to be read as a totally different idea and photograph. These are personal interpretations of how that person may have rendered the scene if they had been there based on their own bias. They, unfortunately, totally ignore what the photographer wanted to convey. These are just differences of opinion but do not objectively evaluate the image we were presented with. They can work, some obviously like them better but they just are not the vision nor do they remain true to the intent of the photographer who created the original image. I do think we owe it to the photographer to evaluate their image and try to understand their point of view. To only render our vision keeps us planted where we are and in familiar territory.

John makes many good points about considering the photographer's vision.

In addition, though, I think one can say that the original vision is, in fact, more interesting than the re-workings here. Alberta's is static by comparison. True, it is focused. But that's a minus for me. Because it loses all the story, the narrative, the unfolding, the dimension, the character, and the context of the original. It brings it down to the very basic elements, bride/groom/lighting. Much more typical, less imaginative, less wonder in the relationship of the couple to space. Focus and directness aren't always pluses. In this case, as they detract from a richer story, they are counterproductive not just to the original intention of the photo but also by a simple visual comparison.

To be clear, I think the original misses in terms of details and sub-plot, and in the way the negative space is used, though I think the negative space is important and shouldn't be undermined. The original is a much better attempt than what else has been attempted, not just because it is the photographer's intention and the re-workings seem to go very much against what the photographer wanted, but because it's simply a better, richer, and more full composition, story, and treatment (in terms of the light/dark contrast, etc.).

I still wonder about what looks to be a heavy amount of noise control applied in the shadow areas (notice the smudging of some details). It makes these areas look a little unnatural, in my opinion.

I also wonder why the floor appears to drop away, from right to left, whereas the walls are perfectly perpendicular. Is this just due to the use of a wide-angle lens, or were the walls aligned for perfect perpendicularity in Photoshop?

These are the photographer's words. I myself have taken many shots like this and cannot say that I had a "vision" other than what was in the viewfinder. I almost always cropped the end product, or straightened it or corrected the color and/or lighting. I don't think that a radical crop of this photo changes the photographer's vision because I don't believe there was one. Just good timing. And a camera.

The only problem I have with this statement is that it ignores the fact that the images WAS made and not just passed over. The fact that something is quickly responded to does not mean that there is no vision. Vision is something innate on its most basic level and specific when we snap the shutter. It doesn't have to be fully conscious, our mind can work in nanoseconds and we don't have to be able to define our vision before we make snap the shutter for it to be the result of vision. Once we realize this, we can start to understand how we as individual photographers really see--there are no grab shots or accidents, we responded--purposefully--to what was before our cameras.

Alberta is making a case for this being nothing more than a mindless snapshot.

Which is what most photos throughout history have been.

It does make me question why we bother to critique at all.

After all, it's just a momentary snap of the shutter, right?

The joke may well be on us in here.

Obviously, some amount of forethought was involved, or the photographer wouldn't have caught the bride and groom standing in the entranceway when the picture was taken. Or been standing where she was when she took the photo.

In any case, the photo's original presentation certainly seems more effective than any of the alternatives that have been offered.

I don't agree with Alberta's conclusion that Niki had no "vision" simply because, in his own words, the photograph was "taken almost by accident," and good responses have been provided regarding that conclusion. I think the divide might revolve around the word "vision" and what it entails to have and execute a vision. That's beyond me to discuss at the moment, and it would probably make a good subject for the philosophy of photography forum (if it hasn't already been discussed there). The only point that I want to make is my opinion that having a vision does not necessarily require deep contemplation and careful consideration prior to pressing the shutter. As a photographer acquires experience, I think "vision" increasingly become more innate and reflexive (although perhaps never entirely so). In this regard, I agree with John A. that a photographer's vision, over time, can become something easily and almost instantly accessed. I base this opinion on my own experience, and I hope others will think of their experiences in this regard: I can much more easily see a potential photograph that appeals to me when I am moving through a landscape now than I could 20 years ago. Similarly, I feel that my ability to compose an image that appeals to me when looking through a viewfinder is much more developed now than it was 20 years ago. My acquiring a "vision" for landscapes that appeal to a part of my being is something that has been in the works for many years, and many times it is simply there when I encounter an aspect of the natural world that triggers it.

A lot of vision also resides in our own editing, our choosing which photographs to keep or to show. When one goes through a day's or a week's or a month's worth of film or files and selects which photos work and discards or puts others on hold, one is developing and moving forward their vision.

To piggyback on what Stephen Penland said, the picture being taken "almost by accident" is a humble way of saying that the photographer had a fleeting opportunity for a great shot & took it. That's called seeing the world as a picture waiting to happen, and being ready. I enjoy the picture more knowing that it was "real", and not a planned shot.
As for the actual picture, I love the largeness of the room & the stark contrast between light & darkness. I wouldn't want all of my wedding pictures taken in this style, but I sure wouldn't mind having a few like this.

Ti prego perdonami per aver suggerito e mostrando una versione diversa della vostra bella fotografia. Dopo uno studio molto più mi rendo conto che è veramente bello solo il modo in cui è. (I hope the translation is accurate :)

Ciao ~

Alberta, St. Petersburg Florida

Very good bw shot ! Congratulations !

Best regards, Mircea

You captured an immediate emotional response of the moment. Lovely!

Whether it was posed or incidental this is an absolute stunning collection of imagery.

Best Wishes

David