ianivey

What ISO, if you don't mind? 

Aivar, normally I think selective color is cheesy, but this one really works. Nice contrast, both between the color and b/w, and between the model and the background. I'd love to know how you lit this shot, and how you edited it in post, if you're willing to discuss the details here.

The only thing I think I'd change is the position of her left arm -- it covers up a part of her right arm in a way that I think is unflattering, but I'm not sure why. She's slender, and I think exposing that part of her arm would accentuate a good shape, whereas maybe if she slid her left arm down so her left wrist covered her right forearm just below the elbow, it might be a more flattering pose. Either that, or I'd have her put her left arm out behind her and maybe lean on it or just drop it straight down. I'm not a posing expert, though, so maybe someone else will have a clearer explanation (or simply disagree with me). 

I'm not sure whose expression I like better.

I just noticed that you lit her by bouncing off a gold bounce card. That helps me understand why she looks so tan. For example, look at her lips, and where they transition to facial skin. The lips and face are very similar tones in this greyscale image -- very low contrast.

Her lips are very well defined, but that's despite the exposure -- it's just because she has full and well-shaped lips.

Try adjusting red levels a bit? That might help darken her lips a bit more and create better contrast in the mouth area. (Won't fix the light-source problem I observed, above, but it will help with facial contrast.)

I agree with the prior poster that the image seems soft. If you applied a blur layer for skin smoothing, mask out the eyes and mouth from that layer to recover sharpness there.

It's a combination of high-key and ... not high-key -- the background and the white shirt are completely blown out, while no part of the face approaches white (255), suggesting a lot of post work in Photoshop. 

The difference between the pure-white exposure on the shirt/background and the somewhat low-contrast-mid-range exposure of the face makes the photo a bit surreal, which in this case I find distracting. Maybe you could add a curves layer for the whole image and lighten up the face and hair a bit more to better match the apparent exposure of the shirt?

It also looks a bit like you did some work with the dodge/burn tool directly on the face. (Maybe this was a levels or curves layer with a partially brushed-in mask over the face?) The skin seems to have unnaturally uneven highlights and shadows that would either be caused by direct dodging/burning, or perhaps are actually natural, but they look odd because you obliterated the shirt and background in post. It looks odd because it creates mixed signals about the light source: was the light so bright that white was blinding, or was it a more even light that allows plenty of detail? This image has no obvious single light source, and so disturbs my eye.

With so many hair strands flying off to the side, my eye keeps looking for some individual hairs, which I think you also "trimmed" in post. Her head therefore seems implausibly round, especially at the top left side of the image, everywhere except for the middle right area where the large chunk of hair flies off to the right.

On first glance, this feels like a disembodied head. I want to see some evidence that her being has mass and edges below the shoulder, which you could accomplish by leaving in some detail in the shirt and letting it (and especially her left arm -- right side of image) separate a bit from the background.

Aivar,

I like the bride's arms where they are, because they create an interesting line to follow left to right across her back, and into the groom.

Her expression is okay, but not obviously delighted, which would improve the overall feel. The groom's expression suggests to me that he's slightly confused but willing to tolerate another minute or two of this. So, expressions on both faces are not what I'd want to present to my clients, but a long way from a disaster (i.e., they don't ruin the shot, but I'm not getting the sense that these two were focused on each other at this moment).

The dress is overexposed, and you lose some very important details. The groom's tux is exposed well (you get most of the details in his tux), which, because the tux is black, means the dress will be blown out like this.

When you're shooting the back of a bride, the details matter: the folds, the layers, the lace, the laces. With a photo like this, I'd want to be able to show the bride all the little aspects of her dress.

I'm guessing you shot this in JPEG. If you shot this in RAW, you'd likely have been able to recover a lot of those details. Consider switching to a RAW workflow for precisely this reason. High-contrast situations are the rule in weddings with white dresses and black tuxedos.

You probably metered off the bride's back or face, which correctly exposed the skin but blew out the dress. You could drop the exposure by a step and still meter off the bride's face, and you might get better results with the dress.

I'd probably have tried to get her to hold her bouquet behind her, rather than in front.