Need to guage my photo quality

Weisel

#1) This is Rona, an already married bride who I used for a model.
<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">

#2) Here's a crop I made from a formerly vertical shot.


#3) Shoes


Hi folks.
These are a few of my better shots I have so far. I've done 2 weddings as a second shooter. The #1 photo was from a bridal shoot I did for a local Army girl.

I'm trying to get opinions on my quality, as a wedding noob (and still a noob photographer to some degree) I don't expect to hear praises where they are not due, but I honestly want to know if I am getting close to any kind of pro quality yet. Critique away! I can handle it.

</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Blurmore

1. That chandelier flared you in rather interesting fashion. I notice that my 85 f1.8 flares like this off of candles and other small points of light especially at large aperture. I like this shot, but it could be better technically. It looks like it is all ambient or maybe a little fill from the right, and maybe shot at too slow a shutter speed, it is soft. Using this idea....I'd meter the chandelier but shoot a little under the ambient, and add more fill flash from the right maybe with a grid spot to keep the drama but give dimension.

2. I don't know if this is something going on with your lens or something in post, but parts of this that shouldn't look soft, look soft. The composition is kinda out in no mans land, not tight enough for a closeup of the hands, lose enough that what she is doing with her arm makes her look crippled. It is an ok shot.

3. This is a nice shoe shot, with very cool shoes.

Weisel

Well, Jason, it just so happens that she IS crippled, and she is very sensitive to that hand..and .....just kidding! Thanks for taking the time to give me some words on the pics. And thanks in advance to future critiquers. PS--all shots were taken with my Canon 50mm at 1.4 or 1.6 (#1 was at 1.6). And I shoot with....yes, a Rebel. But I have the battery grip on it, so it can almost pass for a 1D now, at a quick glance, if you are drunk. lol

urbanaries

personally I have real trouble getting sharp shots with that lens wide open, even with a 5D.

There also appears to be some rasterization in your JPG conversions which makes it tough for us to make "image quality" evaluations. Note the red tie area in 2, the model's right side of face in 1.

All that said, I think you're on the right track.

...and, you'd have to be more than drunk to mistake a teensy Rebel for a xD series I have giant hands so it always felt small to me. i used to have one as a backup.

craig_d

The reflected lights in #1 make me think you had a cheap filter on your lens. If so, try it again without the filter.

zoomer

To give them a letter grade I would say these are a D.
Photos are pretty dull. Everyone has to start somewhere. Keep at it, if you put in the time and effort you will get there.

Weisel

craig_d wrote:

The reflected lights in #1 make me think you had a cheap filter on your lens. If so, try it again without the filter.

Does my Hoya UV filter count as a cheap filter? Should I shoot without that? Seriously, I'm just asking. That's what's always on there. Mistake?

As for the reflected lights in #1, the general public, or viewing audiences LOVE that reflection, and call it "magical". Well, the photo in itself has been called that. This brings me to another question, but I don't want to hijack my own thread. .....but....is it a good thing when the viewers are happy, but technically, it's a "oops"? No need to reply to that .

Any more honest crituques? It just makes me better!

craig_d

Weisel wrote:

Does my Hoya UV filter count as a cheap filter? Should I shoot without that? Seriously, I'm just asking. That's what's always on there. Mistake?

I suggest you set up a similar shot (just with regard to having some bright lights in the frame off-center, like #1) and shoot it with and without the filter. That will tell you whether the filter is causing the reflections.

Hoya makes some very good filters and some cheaper ones. I don't know which you have. I recommend always buying multi-coated filters to minimize issues with ghosting and flare.

Weisel wrote:

As for the reflected lights in #1, the general public, or viewing audiences LOVE that reflection, and call it "magical". Well, the photo in itself has been called that. This brings me to another question, but I don't want to hijack my own thread. .....but....is it a good thing when the viewers are happy, but technically, it's a "oops"? No need to reply to that.

That's okay, I'll reply to it anyway. It all depends what you want to have associated with your name. If you're happy with the picture and your customers are happy, then you can call it a "style" instead of a "mistake." The important thing, though, is whether you can control it -- whether you can make it happen when you want it to, without having it happen when you don't intend it.

mmmatt

Hey there!

I agree with most of what's been said here... I don't like the brides expression on the first shot and I don't like where you cropped. I don't care for the processing though I do like the flare. I think that IS magical!

The 2nd one just isn't very good. I really don't get anything out of it to be honest. I think the shoe shot is nice, but alas its only a shoe shot!

As others have said you need to keep practicing and working on it. I would study composition especially. IMO, if you can't see and feel good composition you will never be much of a photographer. Especially true in weddings where things just jump out at you and you have to react quickly. It can be inspired I think, but not necessarily learned. There are a lot of good shooters here and a lot of amazing images through this part of the forum. Look and see how things are done by others, determine what YOU like to see and then go out and try to replicate it. If it doesn't click after some practicing it probably won't...


My $.02
Matt

Weisel

craig_d wrote:

The important thing, though, is whether you can control it -- whether you can make it happen when you want it to, without having it happen when you don't intend it.

Bravo! Excellent point. I wouldn't want this flare happening to me every time I shot near a chandalier or other lights. In fact, this one here will probably satisfy me for the next 10 years until I want to do it again.

aaronbrown

Weisel wrote:

Does my Hoya UV filter count as a cheap filter? Should I shoot without that? Seriously, I'm just asking. That's what's always on there. Mistake?

It's "filter ghosting," if that's a term... happens a lot more often than you'd think. I've had it happen with my nifty fifty and with different uv filters. Sometimes it adds to the scene, but many times it does not.