Bmoreshooter...thanks for PS'ing my photos and showing the steps. What do you mean by "burn the background though? I really like how that turned out. Also did you use the erase method on the second one, or did you cut/paste? Ive tried cutting, and lassoing, but it seems to look like crap when i do it.
Matt...thanks again for being a smart ass and uploading that video. Hopefully we all will become excellent photographers. I admit that portraits are my weakness, but I always find a way to step back and to be honest with myself about my work. If its great then im satisfied, but if its not then im back at it again. I dont settle for mediocre. Also a little encouragement from my peers goes a long way as well. BTW you didnt tell me what lenses you run. Care to share??? Also how do you get that nice glow around your bride? Im guessing its PP related.
Thanks to all for helping my eye see what it normally couldn't. You can only grow so fast from your own critique.
BTW. I have a second couple of friends trying to get me to shoot their wedding soon.
The background was added as a layer on both shots. On the second one I opened both of your scenic shots and cut from one and added to the other. Even if you don't like how it turned out save the idea because you may need it in the future. By burning I meant using the (burn tool) to darken the clouds. When cutting and pasting you willusually wind up with too sharp of a deliniation at the edges. Either way when working close to edges work at large magnifications and work small areas at a time.
I definitely agree that it is a good idea to shadow someone before jumping headfirst into a memorable event such as this. I am just getting started and every time someone asks me to shoot, I just offer to tag along or "help". I want to get as much exposure as possible before taking on my own jobs and I'd encourage the same to anyone else starting out.
And minding your background. I would wager that the background is EXPONENTIALLY more important than any other element of the picture. You can get away with boring poses ANY day of the week if your background is managed well. Consider:
1st shot- background nice and blurred, evenly lit, nothing poking out of bride's head,
2nd shot- shooting wider, so less shallow DOF, so I gotta be careful about what is in the background, frame the shot just right, and come up with a dynamic pose that draws your eyes in...
and has a tree growing out of her left ear....
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
Matt, how DID you light these, in particular, the second.
I see blue sky with some clouds in the second shot. This tells me you either got very lucky by shooting while a cloud was overhead... or this entire courtyard is in shade via a building behind you. The light on the building in the top corner makes me think the latter.
The fact your exposure is about 2-3 stops low for full-sun, yet the sunlit part of the building isn't blown, I'd suspect later in the afternoon... meaning ambient was probably that colder-feeling shadows you get from golden-hour shadow. A warm-than-ambient flash gives this a great feel. Is that a soft-light guassian blurred layer I detect (at least) on the foilage?)
Not being a person that gets much more fancy than shoot-through umbrellas... and the reason for this post: I'm curious how you lit the bride so smoftly, yet didn't have ANY spill, anywhere. Did you have a huge softbox and simply burned the foreground a little in post? I like it, but can't quite figure out how I'd replicate. (and given that it's the middle of winter, I can't got experiement... grrr...)
Oh come on, cut me some slack! It was a rat's nest behind her! Hahaha okay I'll try harder next time. Like I said, it's ALWAYS going to be a process! (But hey, I like a little Boba Fett antenna every now and then, ya know?)
Matt, how DID you light these, in particular, the second.
I see blue sky with some clouds in the second shot. This tells me you either got very lucky by shooting while a cloud was overhead... or this entire courtyard is in shade via a building behind you. The light on the building in the top corner makes me think the latter.
The fact your exposure is about 2-3 stops low for full-sun, yet the sunlit part of the building isn't blown, I'd suspect later in the afternoon... meaning ambient was probably that colder-feeling shadows you get from golden-hour shadow. A warm-than-ambient flash gives this a great feel. Is that a soft-light guassian blurred layer I detect (at least) on the foilage?)
Not being a person that gets much more fancy than shoot-through umbrellas... and the reason for this post: I'm curious how you lit the bride so smoftly, yet didn't have ANY spill, anywhere. Did you have a huge softbox and simply burned the foreground a little in post? I like it, but can't quite figure out how I'd replicate. (and given that it's the middle of winter, I can't got experiement... grrr...)
Awesome questions, man! This is how we get down to the bottom of things; by *truly* getting to the bottom of how something was done...
You're correct, we were in full shade, the building curved around us. Also, it was about 30-60 minutes before sunset... (Can you get the time of day from the EXIF?)
And yes, I did a very faint "orton effect" (google it) on that 2nd photo, since i don't have the best DOF separation when shooting that wide on DX. Some day I'll shoot FX and Nikon will have a new 24mm or 28m f/1.4 lens that I can rock out with, and then I won't need PS to help me with my BG separation!
The lighting was just a bare SB800. I probably zoomed it all the way in to 105mm, and just had someone spotlight it (from camera right) right at her face. If you look VERY closely, you can see that the light is actually NOT that soft, the shadow of her chin is rather sharp. But it doesn't stick out to you because it's just *barely* affecting the photo.
I wish I had the time to use a shoot-through, trust me! But I was assisting another photographer actually, AND we were on a VERY tight schedule...
...We didn't want to miss THIS shot, at the beach at sunset! (Same setup- bare SB800. I wish I had MORE SB800's, and more TIME, cause we could have rocked a fill and kicker light for this one, even without umbrellas!)
Oh come on, cut me some slack! It was a rat's nest behind her! Hahaha okay I'll try harder next time. Like I said, it's ALWAYS going to be a process! (But hey, I like a little Boba Fett antenna every now and then, ya know?)
Hey, I'm just mirroring what you say back to you. If you'd moved a bit to the right, or her to the left, she'd be in front of that hanging thing, and all would be cool.
Overall, it's a very nice shot, although I'm wondering why you made it as vertically high as you did and included all the trees, etc. in the shot as opposed to cutting image off below that dogleg'd branch over her head.
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
(But hey, I like a little Boba Fett antenna every now and then, ya know?)
Never in a million years is she going to notice that merger. Shoot, I barely notice it after having it pointed out to me!
You're correct, we were in full shade, the building curved around us. Also, it was about 30-60 minutes before sunset... (Can you get the time of day from the EXIF?)
I suppose I can... haha. I totally forgot that when I was peeking exposure info.
And yes, I did a very faint "orton effect" (google it) on that 2nd photo, since i don't have the best DOF separation when shooting that wide on DX. Some day I'll shoot FX and Nikon will have a new 24mm or 28m f/1.4 lens that I can rock out with, and then I won't need PS to help me with my BG separation!
Sigh... I used to own the 28 f/1.4 ... but I had to sell to pay for my own wedding photographer.
I'm actually not a fan of the Orton effect as shown by most online tutorials... I find it blurs and kills an image. I'm much more of a fan of processing the image slightly dull and then guassian blurring a soft-light blended layer... gives the effect AND brings back the pop from the dull processing. Either way I think the effect works great here - any image with foliage, really works, imho.
The lighting was just a bare SB800. ... If you look VERY closely, you can see that the light is actually NOT that soft, the shadow of her chin is rather sharp. But it doesn't stick out to you because it's just *barely* affecting the photo.
GAH! I should have seen that! I was looking for spillage and info on spots other than her and was so convinced the light was soft... Good call.
In this situation, I've also found that a movie light or something similar (like a mag light with parchment paper over the end) works really well too... when just need a 'kiss' of light to brighten it up. Good work on this image, I really like it. Did you use anything special for the 1st image you posted?
I wish I had the time to use a shoot-through, trust me! But I was assisting another photographer actually, AND we were on a VERY tight schedule...
Schedules... hate 'em. Why can't everyone just afford our 'all-inclusive' packages and then never need to be anywhere? haha.
...We didn't want to miss THIS shot, at the beach at sunset! (Same setup- bare SB800. I wish I had MORE SB800's, and more TIME, cause we could have rocked a fill and kicker light for this one, even without umbrellas!)
I dig that shot (and when I get a chance, try to do something like it myself), but find it to be overdone a lot in the recent years since off-camera wireless has become so easy. I still do it but I'm trying to find ways to make it stand out from the crowd of 'stand there, face me, I light you with my new tech, it'll be cool' ...
I wish I would have dropped another stand camera right on this one to light HIS face... but I wasn't sure how to do it without lighting her shawl like a mad-man and losing the ripples and shadows in the veil. Thoughts?
(though I am happy that the placement as-is highlights the veil exactly way I wanted (contrasty with ambient being heavier in the balance as you move to the end, to emphasize the flowiness and length of the veil) - it was passed down to her and very important)
But I'm trying new things.... they don't always work (this shot was done in windy, 15 degree weather while snowing and I had about 2 minutes to make some images...) I got the 2-3 'money' shots (this not being one of them) while on this beach and then tried some less-standard angles and such.
Practice and experimentation... I'll get there eventually. Thanks for sharing your knowledge...
Oh come on, cut me some slack! It was a rat's nest behind her! Hahaha okay I'll try harder next time. Like I said, it's ALWAYS going to be a process! (But hey, I like a little Boba Fett antenna every now and then, ya know?)
Awesome questions, man! This is how we get down to the bottom of things; by *truly* getting to the bottom of how something was done...
You're correct, we were in full shade, the building curved around us. Also, it was about 30-60 minutes before sunset... (Can you get the time of day from the EXIF?)
And yes, I did a very faint "orton effect" (google it) on that 2nd photo, since i don't have the best DOF separation when shooting that wide on DX. Some day I'll shoot FX and Nikon will have a new 24mm or 28m f/1.4 lens that I can rock out with, and then I won't need PS to help me with my BG separation!
The lighting was just a bare SB800. I probably zoomed it all the way in to 105mm, and just had someone spotlight it (from camera right) right at her face. If you look VERY closely, you can see that the light is actually NOT that soft, the shadow of her chin is rather sharp. But it doesn't stick out to you because it's just *barely* affecting the photo.
I wish I had the time to use a shoot-through, trust me! But I was assisting another photographer actually, AND we were on a VERY tight schedule...
...We didn't want to miss THIS shot, at the beach at sunset! (Same setup- bare SB800. I wish I had MORE SB800's, and more TIME, cause we could have rocked a fill and kicker light for this one, even without umbrellas!)
Not to be a pain in the side, but wouldn't this shot be better if you flash was a little lower and on your right as apposed to your high left?
Anyways im learning a lot through all of your comments and examples. Keep them coming.
Explain why the lighting from the other side would have been better....
(I do agree on your centering comments)
Lighting from the left is fine, but it seems to be from too high.....and the fall off is quite noticable along the length of her body. The shadows created look almost as if a shoe mounted flash were used without a bracket....except for the down angle. Less flash power and allowing for more of the ambient light to register in the exposure could have killed that "flashy" snapshot look....and of course....getting a bit more light evenly across her length. Admittedly this would have been very tough to do while shooting directly into a setting sun, but a slight angle change to avoid the sun could have helped....and still captured the colors at the horizon.
Most of us would be happy to have taken that shot.....but.....most any photograph can be improved. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.....right?
To quote a good explanation of photographic lighting....."good lighting should be transparent and not call attention to itself" (Monte Zucker)
Comments
The background was added as a layer on both shots. On the second one I opened both of your scenic shots and cut from one and added to the other. Even if you don't like how it turned out save the idea because you may need it in the future. By burning I meant using the (burn tool) to darken the clouds. When cutting and pasting you willusually wind up with too sharp of a deliniation at the edges. Either way when working close to edges work at large magnifications and work small areas at a time.
I did like a couple of your pictures though!
Matt, how DID you light these, in particular, the second.
I see blue sky with some clouds in the second shot. This tells me you either got very lucky by shooting while a cloud was overhead... or this entire courtyard is in shade via a building behind you. The light on the building in the top corner makes me think the latter.
The fact your exposure is about 2-3 stops low for full-sun, yet the sunlit part of the building isn't blown, I'd suspect later in the afternoon... meaning ambient was probably that colder-feeling shadows you get from golden-hour shadow. A warm-than-ambient flash gives this a great feel. Is that a soft-light guassian blurred layer I detect (at least) on the foilage?)
Not being a person that gets much more fancy than shoot-through umbrellas... and the reason for this post: I'm curious how you lit the bride so smoftly, yet didn't have ANY spill, anywhere. Did you have a huge softbox and simply burned the foreground a little in post? I like it, but can't quite figure out how I'd replicate. (and given that it's the middle of winter, I can't got experiement... grrr...)
Here is a wedding website I created for a customer as a value-add. Comments appreciated.
Founding member of The Professional Photography Forum as well.
Awesome questions, man! This is how we get down to the bottom of things; by *truly* getting to the bottom of how something was done...
You're correct, we were in full shade, the building curved around us. Also, it was about 30-60 minutes before sunset... (Can you get the time of day from the EXIF?)
And yes, I did a very faint "orton effect" (google it) on that 2nd photo, since i don't have the best DOF separation when shooting that wide on DX. Some day I'll shoot FX and Nikon will have a new 24mm or 28m f/1.4 lens that I can rock out with, and then I won't need PS to help me with my BG separation!
The lighting was just a bare SB800. I probably zoomed it all the way in to 105mm, and just had someone spotlight it (from camera right) right at her face. If you look VERY closely, you can see that the light is actually NOT that soft, the shadow of her chin is rather sharp. But it doesn't stick out to you because it's just *barely* affecting the photo.
I wish I had the time to use a shoot-through, trust me! But I was assisting another photographer actually, AND we were on a VERY tight schedule...
...We didn't want to miss THIS shot, at the beach at sunset! (Same setup- bare SB800. I wish I had MORE SB800's, and more TIME, cause we could have rocked a fill and kicker light for this one, even without umbrellas!)
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Overall, it's a very nice shot, although I'm wondering why you made it as vertically high as you did and included all the trees, etc. in the shot as opposed to cutting image off below that dogleg'd branch over her head.
I suppose I can... haha. I totally forgot that when I was peeking exposure info.
Sigh... I used to own the 28 f/1.4 ... but I had to sell to pay for my own wedding photographer.
I'm actually not a fan of the Orton effect as shown by most online tutorials... I find it blurs and kills an image. I'm much more of a fan of processing the image slightly dull and then guassian blurring a soft-light blended layer... gives the effect AND brings back the pop from the dull processing. Either way I think the effect works great here - any image with foliage, really works, imho.
GAH! I should have seen that! I was looking for spillage and info on spots other than her and was so convinced the light was soft... Good call.
In this situation, I've also found that a movie light or something similar (like a mag light with parchment paper over the end) works really well too... when just need a 'kiss' of light to brighten it up. Good work on this image, I really like it. Did you use anything special for the 1st image you posted?
Schedules... hate 'em. Why can't everyone just afford our 'all-inclusive' packages and then never need to be anywhere? haha.
I dig that shot (and when I get a chance, try to do something like it myself), but find it to be overdone a lot in the recent years since off-camera wireless has become so easy. I still do it but I'm trying to find ways to make it stand out from the crowd of 'stand there, face me, I light you with my new tech, it'll be cool' ...
I wish I would have dropped another stand camera right on this one to light HIS face... but I wasn't sure how to do it without lighting her shawl like a mad-man and losing the ripples and shadows in the veil. Thoughts?
(though I am happy that the placement as-is highlights the veil exactly way I wanted (contrasty with ambient being heavier in the balance as you move to the end, to emphasize the flowiness and length of the veil) - it was passed down to her and very important)
But I'm trying new things.... they don't always work (this shot was done in windy, 15 degree weather while snowing and I had about 2 minutes to make some images...) I got the 2-3 'money' shots (this not being one of them) while on this beach and then tried some less-standard angles and such.
Practice and experimentation... I'll get there eventually. Thanks for sharing your knowledge...
Here is a wedding website I created for a customer as a value-add. Comments appreciated.
Founding member of The Professional Photography Forum as well.
Not to be a pain in the side, but wouldn't this shot be better if you flash was a little lower and on your right as apposed to your high left?
Anyways im learning a lot through all of your comments and examples. Keep them coming.
I agree.....and also would add that the composition itself is very centered...as are the other two examples.
Good eye!
Jeff
-Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
-My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture
Explain why the lighting from the other side would have been better....
(I do agree on your centering comments)
Here is a wedding website I created for a customer as a value-add. Comments appreciated.
Founding member of The Professional Photography Forum as well.
Lighting from the left is fine, but it seems to be from too high.....and the fall off is quite noticable along the length of her body. The shadows created look almost as if a shoe mounted flash were used without a bracket....except for the down angle. Less flash power and allowing for more of the ambient light to register in the exposure could have killed that "flashy" snapshot look....and of course....getting a bit more light evenly across her length. Admittedly this would have been very tough to do while shooting directly into a setting sun, but a slight angle change to avoid the sun could have helped....and still captured the colors at the horizon.
Most of us would be happy to have taken that shot.....but.....most any photograph can be improved. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.....right?
To quote a good explanation of photographic lighting....."good lighting should be transparent and not call attention to itself" (Monte Zucker)
Jeff
-Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
-My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture