Hello! My first post in Weddings

DmanningDmanning Registered Users Posts: 88 Big grins
edited July 14, 2010 in Weddings
I just posted over in the portrait forum for the first real time. So now on to the wedding stuff! I have been shooting with a professional mindset for a little over 3 years now. Until recently I have been focused on portraits and now I realize how much I love weddings...

1.
925935403_jYcve-M.jpg

2.
925939417_9REQy-M.jpg

3.
925914528_Rnpwz-M.jpg

4.
926161073_cgXdL-M.jpg

5.
926194511_aTEzN-M.jpg

6.
926194351_XQNb3-M.jpg

7.
926110213_7NgM2-M.jpg

Comments

  • AgnieszkaAgnieszka Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,263 Major grins
    edited July 9, 2010
    Very pretty! Share some more :eat clap.gif
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited July 9, 2010
    pretty decent stuff here. if you are shooting PJ style then a lot of these are spot on imo. You really capture some moments.
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • DmanningDmanning Registered Users Posts: 88 Big grins
    edited July 10, 2010
    Thanks guys! I really appreciate the encouragement. I shoot a majority of PJ. I definitely need work on posing for formals and then lighting for the formals. I feel in these shot I didn't really accomplish what I wanted. Also the church was incredibly dark and I didn't want to shoot formal at a high iso. So there I just accepted the fact that the background was much darker than the foreground. I look forward to getting to know you guys.

    1.
    925948191_oteZy-M.jpg

    2.
    925947506_pEfs4-M.jpg

    3.
    925956913_LgGd3-M.jpg

    4.
    925965213_z5YBW-M.jpg

    5.
    925910589_TTVZ5-M.jpg
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2010
    Alright, just off the top of my head:

    1.
    925948191_oteZy-M.jpg
    Shoot from a higher angle. This bride is thin and pretty so you're almost okay, and in a candid situation sometimes you just gotta click the moment, but in general for a *formal* portrait this is something you should think about and take care of: shooting DOWN towards your subject is 100x more flattering than shooting up towards them. Not to be sexist, but shoot up for heroic, manly shots. Shoot down for elegant, graceful bridal shots. (Hey, you can shoot women heroically too, I do it here and there, it just has to be the right situation...)

    2.
    925947506_pEfs4-M.jpg

    3.
    925956913_LgGd3-M.jpg
    The light is pretty soft and the skin tones are great, but you've got a candle growing out of the bridesmaid's shoulder, and depth is shockingly deep for such a shot. What aperture and focal length was this made at? The depth makes it look like it was taken at f/11, or on a P&S camera.

    I would also say that the image is a touch over-exposed. True, it doesn't look like you blew anything out, but I still would have toned it down a bit...



    4.
    925965213_z5YBW-M.jpg
    See comment on photo #1. I understand that you did this to compose the background, and I do this from time to time as well, but even if you capture this shot, ALSO capture another shot that flatters a bit more.

    Also, the light is a bit harsh on her face, I would have posed her facing in the other direction, since the broad side of her face makes it at least appear as if there's softer light in that direction. Whatever that overhead light is, I would have used it as a hair light only, and made sure not to let it hit skin. Like so:

    553672349_MbFdh-S.jpg


    5.
    925910589_TTVZ5-M.jpgShallow depth does not instantly make something artistic. This isn't the worst example I've seen, but it still doesn't have a strong focal point. Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE shallow depth and creamy blur. But you gotta do it tastefully, and the rules of subject / composition still apply. I certainly might have captured this exact shot, so don't feel like I'm saying it's no good, but I would have ALSO captured more distant shots that let you see more of the subject, and give you more compositional options.

    And, by the way, I will freely admit that I'd be envious to have done work like this within MY first 3 years!

    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • DmanningDmanning Registered Users Posts: 88 Big grins
    edited July 10, 2010
    Matthew,
    Great critique, thanks for taking time out to do that for me. I definitely let myself get rushed at times and let things like badly placed candles take away from the shot. For the formals I pretty much stuck to f9 and used a 24mm-70mm range. This will definitely be taken to heart. Thanks again!
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited July 11, 2010
    Dmanning wrote: »
    Matthew,
    Great critique, thanks for taking time out to do that for me. I definitely let myself get rushed at times and let things like badly placed candles take away from the shot. For the formals I pretty much stuck to f9 and used a 24mm-70mm range. This will definitely be taken to heart. Thanks again!
    Call me NUTS, but if there's just two or three people in a formal, I have no problem shooting that sucker at f/2 or f/2.8. Heck, I've shot formals at f/2 and 2.8 with even more people, sometimes... It's all about directing them properly so that they're all in the same plane of focus...

    763675868_vYu25-M-2.jpg
    (Shot at 35mm on full frame, f/2 which was stopped down 1 stop on the 35 L. Nice and sharp, but still got background separation.)

    553625718_2Sgac-M.jpg
    (Either 1.4 or 2.0, at 85mm on crop. So yeah, I was really far away. But the shot was still easy, because there was a line for them all to stand on, so they were all in the right focal plane...)
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • DmanningDmanning Registered Users Posts: 88 Big grins
    edited July 12, 2010
    Matthew,
    Both of those images are natural light right? They look great. I suppose I was paranoid about not having people in focus since I still find focusing for 1.4-2.0 a little hit and miss. Even with a split focus screen I feel I miss too much in that range. Practice, practice, practice, right? :)
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited July 12, 2010
    I find f/4 is pretty safe for 2 people side by side with some wiggle room and still get some bokeh. f/9 is waaay overboard.
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • DmanningDmanning Registered Users Posts: 88 Big grins
    edited July 13, 2010
    Qarik wrote: »
    I find f/4 is pretty safe for 2 people side by side with some wiggle room and still get some bokeh. f/9 is waaay overboard.

    I worked with a photographer who shot weddings in film for 30 years. He encouraged me to shoot at f/9 or f/11. I guess it's time for me to take in some other experience. :) Thanks for the input.
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited July 14, 2010
    Qarik wrote: »
    I find f/4 is pretty safe for 2 people side by side with some wiggle room and still get some bokeh. f/9 is waaay overboard.
    F/4 and paying close attention to your background is certainly a great tactic. if you can find an opportunity to frame subjects against a clean, un-distracting background, stopping down is awesome.
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited July 14, 2010
    Dmanning wrote: »
    I worked with a photographer who shot weddings in film for 30 years. He encouraged me to shoot at f/9 or f/11. I guess it's time for me to take in some other experience. :) Thanks for the input.
    Judging by the equipment available 10-30 years ago, and the types of images that need to be taken at a wedding, I bet that was 30 years of moderately boring photographs. Sorry to be harsh, but yep, it's time for you to open your eyes to, well, the REASON people pay $1,000 or $2,000+ for f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4-1.2 primes.

    Of course let me caveat this all by saying that shallow depth is certainly a popular trend these days. And plenty of people abuse shallow depth, thinking it can mask poor artistic vision and creativity. So don't just go buy a fast lens and shoot everything wide open. All that creamy bokeh can make a viewer want to puke if there's no real substance to the image. And now it sounds like we're talking about food, haha...

    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • DmanningDmanning Registered Users Posts: 88 Big grins
    edited July 14, 2010
    ....I bet that was 30 years of moderately boring photographs. Sorry to be harsh, but yep, it's time for you to open your eyes to, well, the REASON people pay $1,000 or $2,000+ for f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4-1.2 primes....

    =Matt=

    No harm done. I have a long way to go and I realize it more and more everyday. Now I am even more excited for my next wedding. I feel like I have been given at least a few golden nuggets already. God knows I can't fathom reading another book about technique! It's time to shoot!
Sign In or Register to comment.