Reid and Melissa..here goes

Qarik · June 25, 2009

This was my 1st solo wedding. I had informally shot as 2nd in my sister in laws wedding. To preface..this wedding was free for a cousin in vancouver but I prepped my butt off for this shoot. Months of practing at other events and getting my nikkor 24-70mm and UWA tokina for the shoot. It was so hectic but gratifying and fun as well. This is my *LAST* freebee!

But I wanted to get baseline for my level of skill/talent to see if I am in line for what I should be charging. I have my own assessment but I want to see if it is line with others thoughts.

Forgive me for asking but if you could give me "grade" for the shoot I would be grateful. Kind of commentary I am looking for is comparative..average for pro, below average pro, good ameteur, etc. Overall type comments are appreciated rather then comments on particular photos, poses, etc.

So I will post a few here and I will post a link to the set as well. For the set I have done something little different..I broke the set into subcategories like "ceremony", "getting ready", etc. I thought this invites the viewer to browse a bit more instaed of having to log through 20 pages in one set. Does it do this?

Lastly..be brutally honest. :clap

http://www.danielkimphotography.com/Weddings/818913

1.

rings
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

mmmatt · June 25, 2009

Alright Daniel... I'll play! I think you did a pretty good job, and for what you charged it is the deal of the century for this couple.

On the positive end your fill-flash work on the outdoor shots is very good. Almost completely transparent and that is what most people are going for. I see the catch lights so I know it is there (presumably on-camera) but no other real telltale signs other than nice even lighting. Real good job there imo.

In terms of the basics, these images are all nice and sharp. Good control over DOF and even on the stair shots where you shot up the stairs you did a great job of keeping your flash in check and maintaining even focus across the group which can be tough to do. Exposures were for the most part very good with only a couple exceptions.

On the down side, some of your comps are not good. 10 and 11 are good examples of what I mean. You have feet chopped off, and in others you had flowers cut off and things like that. Many images were just cropped too close! You are shooting quality gear that will allow you to crop down in post if you need to. Either way they get cropped for the average print buyer who wants an 8x10 and a little breathing room helps there too. You could have used the backgrounds a little better in some cases. It would have been nice to see a little more "between poses" stuff, but I like a lot of that and it isn't for everyone. Your tilts were pretty good and not an over abundace of them, but I would also like to see more images utilizing the negative space and not so centered. Not terrible but not "seasoned pro" imo.

Processing is OK, but many images were way to contrasty, especially in the wedding party gallery. The dance shots, like 8, are not complimentary to her skin tone. She has beautiful skin in many of the other shots and it is dull and greyish in these. Many from the reception are like that. I don't know if this is a processing style you are going for but in my opinion it doesn't work well at all.

#1 would have been a bit better if the text was ligned up with the image or even better heading into the lower right of the frame. also too contrasty for my taste.

#2 Is this a great images to share with us? You had many nicer images in the gallery so I'm not sure why you think a guy shaving is among the top 11 from the day. Piggy back with the flask, smiling while doing his collar, or one of the hockey jersey shots would have been better imo.

#3 Same as above. There are better shots of her getting ready. she looks a little tense and that isn't a favorable emotion to show. Eyes closed in this case only makes it worse imo.

#4 this is a guy with a microphone. Where is he in the room? How are people reacting? He doesn't show great emotion. He looks kinda serious and I'm sure he is saying something meaninful to his daughter and new SIL, but this would be a better shot if you used the rest of the scene to tell a little more of the story. Shadows on his face are kinda nice but a little heavy. Processing and exposure are pretty good but still a little to contrasty imo.

#5 Love the comp. Nice dof for this kind of thing. Contrasty though

#6 interesting face on the old guy. My taste would lean toward getting him interacting and not just smiling at the table. Nothing wrong with this shot just not a "wow" shot imo. Many better old guy pictures in the gallery.

#7 Is that the cake? This would be a good time to tilt the camera and give me one of the upper corners of the cake in the corner of the frame. That way my mind will fill in the gaps and I focus on the flowers but see a beautiful cake.

#8 is OK... not a show stopper. Is she dancing? What story is this telling us? Could have used a bit more flash and a bit less ambient. For an image to be really good without showing a face it has to tell a story. Again there are many better images of her in your gallery. The close crop of the b&g at the cake cutting comes to mind, as do some of her sitting with the window light hitting her face.

#9 Great expressions, comp is OK, tilt is good, processing is not attactive to my eye at all.

#10 & 11 are good images but not good comps because of missing feet. 10 is a perfect example of when to tilt IMO. You folowed the line of the two heads and the flowers, so to me that works really well, but it really needs to be wider. The focal length is very good but you should be back further so you don't get a big wide angle effect like you did in 11. 11 is very nice because of the wide angle effect, but it is missing feet. Could use a little more detail in the dress on 10 maybe, so a burn on that and on her left arm would make it better. 11 is a bit flashey but a quick burn in the center of the frame would probably fix that right up.

Alright my friend, there you go. I hope this is the kind of feedback you were looking for. All are MY opeinions and not meant to be read as the bible on wedding photography I don't do all of these things right all the time either and I kick myself when I am home thinking about what I should have done. I hope I always feel that way though... I don't ever really want to be satisfied for fear that I will get bored with all of this. As for a rating... not a rockstar pro and not just some guy with a dslr. How is that?!

Matt

and I just reread your post and noticed now you said not to go image by image, but since I already did it I will leave it.

Qarik · June 25, 2009

wow Matt thanks for the detailed response.

I agree with most your points. Coupl eof followups..

Did you like the way the galleries were setup..getting ready, ceremony, etc?

From your overall impression of the set..would you say it is average pro work or above or below?

Thanks,
Daniel

mmmatt · June 25, 2009

Qarik wrote:

wow Matt thanks for the detailed response. I agree with most your points. Coupl eof followups..

Did you like the way the galleries were setup..getting ready, ceremony, etc?

From your overall impression of the set..would you say it is average pro work or above or below?

Thanks,
Daniel

sorry... yes I like the way you split the galleries and I have been thinking about doing that myself. I think I will!

"Pro work" can mean a lot of things. Exposure, DOF, fill flash, focus are all pro quality IMO. I would say that from a technical standpoint and operation of your camera you are doing very well. Processing, composition and presentation are amateur. Where does that put you compared to people out there who make their living this way? I don't know, but not at the top of the list and not at the bottom.

Look at Zoomer's work... his images are all technically sound, and he poses very well. Every time he shoots he delivers. He has a look that is identifiable and he manufactures breathtaking images and (assumably-hopefully) gets paid very well for doing it. Look at Alexandreus's work and I doubt he poses at all. He finds moments that are there and turns fractions of seconds into beautiful elaborate stories. He is also technically sound, consistant in his processing, has an idetifiable style, and he has this amazing eye for detail.

This isn't the quality of work that either of them produce, but thoes guys (and many others around here) are good and maybe even exceptional photographers. Are you better than the guy on craigslist who charges $500 per wedding? Probably so, but not at the point where you can dance in the upper levels of pricing for wedding photographers... yet! You (we) have a lot of work to do before we can assume rockstar status in this business and shooting more is going to be the key to finding out if that is ever going to come about. Some pros suck even though they make a living this way. You don't suck, but obviously aren't a seasoned pro.

Matt

Qarik · June 25, 2009

mmmatt wrote:

sorry... yes I like the way you split the galleries and I have been thinking about doing that myself. I think I will!

"Pro work" can mean a lot of things. Exposure, DOF, fill flash, focus are all pro quality IMO. I would say that from a technical standpoint and operation of your camera you are doing very well. Processing, composition and presentation are amateur. Where does that put you compared to people out there who make their living this way? I don't know, but not at the top of the list and not at the bottom.

Look at Zoomer's work... his images are all technically sound, and he poses very well. Every time he shoots he delivers. He has a look that is identifiable and he manufactures breathtaking images and (assumably-hopefully) gets paid very well for doing it. Look at Alexandreus's work and I doubt he poses at all. He finds moments that are there and turns fractions of seconds into beautiful elaborate stories. He is also technically sound, consistant in his processing, has an idetifiable style, and he has this amazing eye for detail.

This isn't the quality of work that either of them produce, but thoes guys (and many others around here) are good and maybe even exceptional photographers. Are you better than the guy on craigslist who charges $500 per wedding? Probably so, but not at the point where you can dance in the upper levels of pricing for wedding photographers... yet! You (we) have a lot of work to do before we can assume rockstar status in this business and shooting more is going to be the key to finding out if that is ever going to come about. Some pros suck even though they make a living this way. You don't suck, but obviously aren't a seasoned pro.

Matt

It's a fair critique..thank you.

sweet caroline · June 25, 2009

Wow, you've received some thorough critique. I'll just add that I think you can continue to shoot weddings, charge money, and make some people happy. You are off to a good start:)

Caroline

Qarik · June 25, 2009

sweet caroline wrote:

Wow, you've received some thorough critique. I'll just add that I think you can continue to shoot weddings, charge money, and make some people happy. You are off to a good start:)

Caroline

Thanks Caroline.

MA-FOTO · June 25, 2009

Qurik,
i'll jump in except we are at the same level - roughly......

overall - nice flash work - as previously mentioned.

I went to the web site .... remember only show photos that you want people to see. Every photo represents you.

example ... in the getting ready section - you have the lady doing the hair looks like she recently had a baby and is still breast feeding because the font of her shirt looks wet around the breast.

I would suggest working on pp work. In the editors choice section - we should see tact sharp eyes, smooth skin, great color 'pop', good composition (no background lines fighting for attention), what ever pp it should be the best possible.

Next step: in head shots is to move the subject out of the center.
I'm working on this...

Agree w/ what Matt said.
Can you make money - yes. are you better than craiglister - yes.

Keep on going ... it will be fun to see where you are at in 6 months.

It would be fun to shoot a wedding w/ you. If you need a second for a wedding - lets talk....

Later,
_Mark

schmoo · June 25, 2009

Wow Daniel, I have to say that I at least am impressed! :ivar

I think that your processing and white balance are great for these, as well as the ability to have captured some great moments. I don't see any that are unflattering or awkward, and that's a tough thing to do. Seeing a lot of wedding/event shots on a daily basis, I'd say these are very much above the vast majority of that work.

I'm not a seasoned pro myself but there are a couple in this set (4, 8) where I wished there was some fill flash. I think you're really on the right track here. Go get 'em!

zoomer · June 26, 2009

I was going to give you a B until I got the reception, those fell off quite a bit in quality.
So overall I would say a C.
In my opinion you are ready start charging at the low end of the whatever the scale is for your area, based on this one wedding example.
I would say the quality is average for less experienced wedding photographers.
Quite a bit below the standard set by most good experienced wedding photographers, but we all have to start somewhere, and you are starting higher up than most. Keep at it, you will do fine.

Qarik · June 26, 2009

Thanks all for the critique..my honest assessment of myself is about in tune with what I gathered here: just below par for a decent pro. I need to work on better posing and composition though I feel my focus and exposure are there. I do enjoy detail shots like rings, cakes, etc.

Reid and Melissa..here goes

Comments