art_tatum

<p>Ditto Neil. Brilliant.</p>

<p>I can tell you that with a similar number images RAW/Jpeg and card types it takes me about an hour to unload them from any of my cameras, connected directly by USB to the computer and into LR. Anyone?</p>

<p>I switched to Nikon and developed a rash.</p>

<p>Not too bad at all. I would be more mindful of where they are in the frame when shooting.</p>

<p>What lens were you using? Their eyes are so white, what software did you use in post?</p>

<p>My first response when I saw the posted question was... you don't (mix it up). I agree with D. Schilling. This is one of the few moments in a wedding where everything slows down. I take this time to really look and see what is in front of me.</p>

<p>To all three of those examples just wreck what might have been a good photograph. Also, all three immediately date stamp the images to the 'the time when photographers started to play with actions'. I like timeless.</p>

<br /> You can also forget about your 'Bridezilla Clause' as it is impossible to 'prove' and quite preposterous really. By this I mean you are sending a paranoid signal to the couple reading the contract and by inference suggesting SHE may be a bridezilla.<br>

<br /> You can never protect yourself (as you seem to want to do). You should be totally focussed on doing the best you can, and good things will follow. I know it sounds like a cliche, but it actually works.</p>

<p>The original image is perfect as is, given the distance. The one second this photographer had to get that moment would be more important to me as the client. As for the two 'fixes' above adding in blue sky... why?</p>

<p>The little girl is cute but the hands and smile say "I hope this is over soon". The other card leaves me flat. My eye is drawn to the candle and then it stops. Use a color image and one that yells WEDDING. I like the font and the use of u/l on the candle card.</p>

<p>If not in the viewfinder then Lightroom 2 has an excellent tool for fixing horizons.</p>

<p>5+ MB photos to critique?</p>

<p>I have shot with both the D80 and the D300. The D300 is a wonderful leap forward if only for the back LCD screen. I know, I know Alex mentions the D300s. Same animal, different stripes.</p>

<p>BTW excellent observations and samples by WW above.</p>

<p>I always have my fees paid in full three weeks before the ceremony. I never change this billing practice and consequently I have had no problems. Have I missed out on some weddings because of my policy... probably. However, I photograph much better with money in my pocket!</p>

<p>Everything is orange. I couldn't get past the first page of the gallery.</p>

<p>This is clearly a shot that we should not be evaluating... it should have been tossed.</p>

<p>I would suggest that you cannot legally work/photograph in Mexico.</p>

<p>You want an opinion of four photographs?</p>

<p>To make it easier for others <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=929166">here is the link</a>.</p>

<p>Hmmm. I want to start by saying that these are good examples of what wedding photography should be. The selections from both weddings don't give me sense of the whole wedding because they are couple-centric. Overall easy on the eye, balanced light, good detail shots and good post. <br>

On the not-so-good side of the coin some of the shots look too contrived and there are some limb amputations. <br>

You have what it takes Kay.</p>

<p>Looking at your photos I see very little (if any) thought put into composing your shots, particularly what is in the background. Take more time to think about your shots. Weddings happen once (usually) and you are responsible for 'getting' their wedding so take it to heart... and think.</p>

<p>I think I would just use an orange filter!</p>

<p>It's a no brainer.</p>

<p>After thrashing your wedding photography I took the time to look at your documentary work. Now I know where your love lays. I could go on about what I like in your doc work but the photos say it all. I am only going to eat half the crow pie.</p>

<p>Fine Art Photography? This is from your web site. I am thinking that I find most of your wedding photography depressing and removed. In fact it is rather indulgent, so much so that I wonder if you are shooting for the couple or yourself? It may start with the fact that most, if not all of your photo's are WAY too grainy and soft. I'm too depressed to leave any more comments.</p>

<p>I finally 'got' Lightroom and have not looked back since. Previously I used Bridge and CS4. Lightroom does everything from soup to nuts. I do however use Graphic Converter for my initial cull (the good, the bad and the ugly edit) because I find it faster. Yes, no, no, yes, yes, yes, no and so forth.</p>