yeah I know the shot is not tack sharp...I am going to try and sharpen it a bit but are you saying the glasses don't bother you in the first shot?
You did a nice job removing the glare from their glasses, but the bigger problems are the gal's sweater, which is totally blown out, and the lack of balance between their illumination and the background, which makes it look as if they are under a spotlight. I like the pose, expressions, and composition, but the lighting isn't complementary. Jmho.
I would agree:
There are some nice colors in those trees that would compliment nicely but apparently the time of day these were taken led you to use flash which didnt illuminate the background ( light falloff) and left us with an imbalance in illumination from subject to background.
Fill flash setting would have worked better. If they would like to use that photo as an invitation then some white text in that darkened area would stand out well and get some use from an otherwise diminished quality of image.
Nice positioning - maybe just a bit more room on the right edge.
You did a nice job removing the glare from their glasses, but the bigger problems are the gal's sweater, which is totally blown out, and the lack of balance between their illumination and the background, which makes it look as if they are under a spotlight. I like the pose, expressions, and composition, but the lighting isn't complementary. Jmho.
I would agree:
There are some nice colors in those trees that would compliment nicely but apparently the time of day these were taken led you to use flash which didnt illuminate the background ( light falloff) and left us with an imbalance in illumination from subject to background.
Fill flash setting would have worked better. If they would like to use that photo as an invitation then some white text in that darkened area would stand out well and get some use from an otherwise diminished quality of image.
Nice positioning - maybe just a bit more room on the right edge.
Yeah, the pictures were taken pretty close to dusk in a heavily shaded area. The couple was more than an hour and a half late and we lost most of our natural light at least in that spot. I have a couple of other shots with more of a fill flash but they didn't turn out that great.
Note, I'm not a paid professional, so your opinion is likely better than mine, but I wonder if you wouldn't have been better off rescheduling the shoot at that point.
Clients always think professional photos cost too much (no matter what you charge) and putting yourself at a severe disadvantage with the lighting has the potential of having dissatisfied clients and no amount of post-processing can fix it. Next time it might be better to say, "I'm sorry, but we've lost all of our good light. We're going to have to reschedule to get good results."
Just a thought....
Wade Williams
Nikon D300, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 70-300/4.5-5.6, SB800
Yeah, the pictures were taken pretty close to dusk in a heavily shaded area. The couple was more than an hour and a half late and we lost most of our natural light at least in that spot. I have a couple of other shots with more of a fill flash but they didn't turn out that great.
What are you going to do in a dark church?
Canon Gear: 5D MkII, 30D, 85 1.2 L, 70-200 2.8 IS L, 17-40mm f4 L, 50 1.4, 580EX, 2x 580EXII, Canon 1.4x TC, 300 f4 IS L, 100mm 2.8 Macro, 100-400 IS L Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
Tried to take some of the glare off of their glasses?
You did pretty well Mpriest, But next time open up in photoshop and select each len's on both pairs of glasses, Use the unsharpen mask and play around with the settings, You will find a better result!
Learning to be a responsible shooter
Learning to be a responsible shooter includes paying attention to all the detail of the image - glasses angled to avoid glare, jewelry positioned with pendants straight and no clasps showing; wrinkles in clothing not there; lighting correct so that detail is visible; white is white; learning to use light so when they are early/late you as a professional get the professional result you are paid for; Charging the appropriate amount to make a profit; And being a real business having backup gear, insurance and a set of books to do taxes with...and learning to shoot a good photo without always needing to correct it in photoshop
.:soapbox
Learning to be a responsible shooter includes paying attention to all the detail of the image - glasses angled to avoid glare, jewelry positioned with pendants straight and no clasps showing; wrinkles in clothing not there; lighting correct so that detail is visible; white is white; learning to use light so when they are early/late you as a professional get the professional result you are paid for; Charging the appropriate amount to make a profit; And being a real business having backup gear, insurance and a set of books to do taxes with...and learning to shoot a good photo without always needing to correct it in photoshop
.:soapbox
Agree, but you have to admit there are times when you miss something and need photoshop to help you out. That was all I was asking...if the photo looked fake. If you are good enough that you never need photoshop to make any kind of corrections than I guess you are probably one of a kind. Not all of the photos from this session had glare on her glasses. This one did and I tried to fix it because I like the expressions on their faces.
At this point in my "career" I am doing only (mostly) outdoor weddings until I can get a little better gear. (D80 does pretty lousy in high iso situations) I will not get myself in a situation where I cannot deliver reasonably good photos. I am not charging very much, just trying to get some experience. My "clients" know exactly what they are getting.
At this point in my "career" I am doing only (mostly) outdoor weddings until I can get a little better gear. (D80 does pretty lousy in high iso situations) I will not get myself in a situation where I cannot deliver reasonably good photos. I am not charging very much, just trying to get some experience. My "clients" know exactly what they are getting.
Sorry, but, I started shooting film a long long time ago. No Photoshop needed. My take on photography since I started with Digital 7 years ago has always been to take photos that needed little to no photoshop to create an acceptable image. My standards are very high for what comes out of my camera.
I think that each of us has tolerance for what is acceptable to them as photographers. While we all need experience, my personal opinion is that main shooting a wedding until you can nail your photography is not where to learn. For me, no glare is acceptable in an image. I learned that when I did a great portrait shoot and while it all looked good the glare was small enough to obsure the eyes. I learned to create photos without any glare.
Sorry, but, I started shooting film a long long time ago. No Photoshop needed. My take on photography since I started with Digital 7 years ago has always been to take photos that needed little to no photoshop to create an acceptable image. My standards are very high for what comes out of my camera.
I think that each of us has tolerance for what is acceptable to them as photographers. While we all need experience, my personal opinion is that main shooting a wedding until you can nail your photography is not where to learn. For me, no glare is acceptable in an image. I learned that when I did a great portrait shoot and while it all looked good the glare was small enough to obsure the eyes. I learned to create photos without any glare.
Well good for you. I didn't ask to hear your personal history in photography. I took a picture that had some glare on it (sue me) and I came to this forum for some help. I guess we are all not as good as you are. I thought this was a place to get some advice and learn...not get lectured.
Help?
You asked for help. You got it from a professional photographer who is telling you to learn to excel. If you want to be mediocre, it's your choice! I'll bow out now. You don't want to learn in my opinion - you want approval and you aren't getting the answer you wanted.
Well good for you. I didn't ask to hear your personal history in photography. I took a picture that had some glare on it (sue me) and I came to this forum for some help. I guess we are all not as good as you are. I thought this was a place to get some advice and learn...not get lectured.
If you keep your attitude up as you are right now, There will be a lot of people who will not reply to you because they will feel that you will jump down their throats. Trust me, I was quick to jump like you are in this thread a long time ago on another forum and they didn't like it and I got banned for it.
But now I take everything with a grain of salt and listen to everyone's 2 cent's
Trust me on this one, It will bite you if your not careful. And now I have respect for several of the guys on here, For an example I respect Andy for his comments, I respect Scott Art for his wisdom.
But any way's I say it doesn't look fake and it looks ok.
Could always try a polarize lens filter, That lens filter will keep the glare away from your eye glasses.
You asked for help. You got it from a professional photographer who is telling you to learn to excel. If you want to be mediocre, it's your choice! I'll bow out now. You don't want to learn in my opinion - you want approval and you aren't getting the answer you wanted.
Actually I generally love the advice I get on these forums. I have learned a lot. Most people on here are not as full of themselves as you are and have the understanding that some people are here to learn...thanks for bowing out.
Actually I generally love the advice I get on these forums. I have learned a lot. Most people on here are not as full of themselves as you are and have the understanding that some people are here to learn...thanks for bowing out.
I am actually very down to earth. You don't know me at all. I have spent years working on my photography to learn every thing I can learn and it continues. The day I stop learning about photography is the day I should put my camera down.
I am actually very down to earth. You don't know me at all. I have spent years working on my photography to learn every thing I can learn and it continues. The day I stop learning about photography is the day I should put my camera down.
I am actually very down to earth. You don't know me at all. I have spent years working on my photography to learn every thing I can learn and it continues. The day I stop learning about photography is the day I should put my camera down.
From reading this thread with no investment in it... unfortunately you do come off as a professional with a chip on your shoulder. As if someone coming for advice dare not post unless they've paid their debt in the photography world by coming up using film. Please note that I am by no means saying you're not skilled at what you do, your photos are wonderful but your first response to him translated into "You suck, get better and how dare you post."
Unfortunately we're not on your side of the monitor to see your smiling face as you offer advice to those who truly love photography and would like to advance... we have text from which we can gauge our opinions. Being a skilled photographer does not make you adept with words. I had a photography professor who was hard on us and made us excel and even he would have thought you came off as someone a bit too full of herself.
You're right we don't know you and from the reponse on this thread I can safely say I wouldn't want to know you. But that's neither here nor there since we don't pay your bills or book you as a photographer.
Thanks for your comment
Sorry that the forum doesn't allow for vocal inflections or actual facial expressions. I apologize if you were offended by the tone of my writing. In response to the original question I passed on what I have been taught. Thank you for your commentary on my work.
If someone interested in learning to do their very best and asks for honest opinions about an image, then I think that they have to be willing to hear what someone else says. My comments were not saying that it sucks. I bascially was saying that my take on photography and being responsible is learning to see all the detail and avoid it.
I am sure that there are other long time photographers here at Dgrin who would agree that you must learn to see everything in your frame and learn how to avoid needing photoshop. Some people will choose to shoot without regard to creating a good SOOC image when that should be a goal with using PS to enhance an image but not to need to correct their image.
yeah I know the shot is not tack sharp...I am going to try and sharpen it a bit but are you saying the glasses don't bother you in the first shot?
Is this a little sharper...
Yes, this is better than the original. The photo does need quite a bit more but that isn't the concern in question. Just a suggestion: if at all possible, create some fill light in the bg, straighten the photo and crop it tighter getting the couple in a more prominent part of the frame. These two corrections will accomplish both eliminating dead space that adds nothing to the photo..and...will make the couple become the main subjects, rather than a toss between underexposed bg and overly lit subjects.
Comments
NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
www.daveswartz.com
Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
yeah I know the shot is not tack sharp...I am going to try and sharpen it a bit but are you saying the glasses don't bother you in the first shot?
Is this a little sharper...
You did a nice job removing the glare from their glasses, but the bigger problems are the gal's sweater, which is totally blown out, and the lack of balance between their illumination and the background, which makes it look as if they are under a spotlight. I like the pose, expressions, and composition, but the lighting isn't complementary. Jmho.
Frank
There are some nice colors in those trees that would compliment nicely but apparently the time of day these were taken led you to use flash which didnt illuminate the background ( light falloff) and left us with an imbalance in illumination from subject to background.
Fill flash setting would have worked better. If they would like to use that photo as an invitation then some white text in that darkened area would stand out well and get some use from an otherwise diminished quality of image.
Nice positioning - maybe just a bit more room on the right edge.
Yeah, the pictures were taken pretty close to dusk in a heavily shaded area. The couple was more than an hour and a half late and we lost most of our natural light at least in that spot. I have a couple of other shots with more of a fill flash but they didn't turn out that great.
just my 2 cents
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
Note, I'm not a paid professional, so your opinion is likely better than mine, but I wonder if you wouldn't have been better off rescheduling the shoot at that point.
Clients always think professional photos cost too much (no matter what you charge) and putting yourself at a severe disadvantage with the lighting has the potential of having dissatisfied clients and no amount of post-processing can fix it. Next time it might be better to say, "I'm sorry, but we've lost all of our good light. We're going to have to reschedule to get good results."
Just a thought....
Nikon D300, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 70-300/4.5-5.6, SB800
What are you going to do in a dark church?
Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
My Web Site
Learning to be a responsible shooter includes paying attention to all the detail of the image - glasses angled to avoid glare, jewelry positioned with pendants straight and no clasps showing; wrinkles in clothing not there; lighting correct so that detail is visible; white is white; learning to use light so when they are early/late you as a professional get the professional result you are paid for; Charging the appropriate amount to make a profit; And being a real business having backup gear, insurance and a set of books to do taxes with...and learning to shoot a good photo without always needing to correct it in photoshop
.:soapbox
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Atlanta, GA USA
my smugmug
Atlanta Modern Wedding Photographer
SheriJohnsonPhotography.com
Agree, but you have to admit there are times when you miss something and need photoshop to help you out. That was all I was asking...if the photo looked fake. If you are good enough that you never need photoshop to make any kind of corrections than I guess you are probably one of a kind. Not all of the photos from this session had glare on her glasses. This one did and I tried to fix it because I like the expressions on their faces.
Honestly I just cloned in out. Very slowly.
At this point in my "career" I am doing only (mostly) outdoor weddings until I can get a little better gear. (D80 does pretty lousy in high iso situations) I will not get myself in a situation where I cannot deliver reasonably good photos. I am not charging very much, just trying to get some experience. My "clients" know exactly what they are getting.
Sorry, but, I started shooting film a long long time ago. No Photoshop needed. My take on photography since I started with Digital 7 years ago has always been to take photos that needed little to no photoshop to create an acceptable image. My standards are very high for what comes out of my camera.
I think that each of us has tolerance for what is acceptable to them as photographers. While we all need experience, my personal opinion is that main shooting a wedding until you can nail your photography is not where to learn. For me, no glare is acceptable in an image. I learned that when I did a great portrait shoot and while it all looked good the glare was small enough to obsure the eyes. I learned to create photos without any glare.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Well good for you. I didn't ask to hear your personal history in photography. I took a picture that had some glare on it (sue me) and I came to this forum for some help. I guess we are all not as good as you are. I thought this was a place to get some advice and learn...not get lectured.
You asked for help. You got it from a professional photographer who is telling you to learn to excel. If you want to be mediocre, it's your choice! I'll bow out now. You don't want to learn in my opinion - you want approval and you aren't getting the answer you wanted.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Trust me on this one, It will bite you if your not careful. And now I have respect for several of the guys on here, For an example I respect Andy for his comments, I respect Scott Art for his wisdom.
Could always try a polarize lens filter, That lens filter will keep the glare away from your eye glasses.
My Web Site
Actually I generally love the advice I get on these forums. I have learned a lot. Most people on here are not as full of themselves as you are and have the understanding that some people are here to learn...thanks for bowing out.
I am actually very down to earth. You don't know me at all. I have spent years working on my photography to learn every thing I can learn and it continues. The day I stop learning about photography is the day I should put my camera down.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
From reading this thread with no investment in it... unfortunately you do come off as a professional with a chip on your shoulder. As if someone coming for advice dare not post unless they've paid their debt in the photography world by coming up using film. Please note that I am by no means saying you're not skilled at what you do, your photos are wonderful but your first response to him translated into "You suck, get better and how dare you post."
Unfortunately we're not on your side of the monitor to see your smiling face as you offer advice to those who truly love photography and would like to advance... we have text from which we can gauge our opinions. Being a skilled photographer does not make you adept with words. I had a photography professor who was hard on us and made us excel and even he would have thought you came off as someone a bit too full of herself.
You're right we don't know you and from the reponse on this thread I can safely say I wouldn't want to know you. But that's neither here nor there since we don't pay your bills or book you as a photographer.
*salute*
Sorry that the forum doesn't allow for vocal inflections or actual facial expressions. I apologize if you were offended by the tone of my writing. In response to the original question I passed on what I have been taught. Thank you for your commentary on my work.
If someone interested in learning to do their very best and asks for honest opinions about an image, then I think that they have to be willing to hear what someone else says. My comments were not saying that it sucks. I bascially was saying that my take on photography and being responsible is learning to see all the detail and avoid it.
I am sure that there are other long time photographers here at Dgrin who would agree that you must learn to see everything in your frame and learn how to avoid needing photoshop. Some people will choose to shoot without regard to creating a good SOOC image when that should be a goal with using PS to enhance an image but not to need to correct their image.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Yes, this is better than the original. The photo does need quite a bit more but that isn't the concern in question. Just a suggestion: if at all possible, create some fill light in the bg, straighten the photo and crop it tighter getting the couple in a more prominent part of the frame. These two corrections will accomplish both eliminating dead space that adds nothing to the photo..and...will make the couple become the main subjects, rather than a toss between underexposed bg and overly lit subjects.
NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
www.daveswartz.com
Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552