Two from a recent wedding

PhotoLasVegas

Honest, picky, constructive criticism is greatly appreciated on these 2 shots... PLEASE don't just look and not comment!

These aren't our favorites, and not the "Best" of the group - but I wanted some feedback on these two specifically... reasons below:

#1 A natural-light shot of the bride. She had not-so-great complexion so we softened and did a little bit with it - but didn't want to over-process.. thoughts on the shot overall? I know her head needed to be a couple more degrees towards the camera to see the back-side eye a little more, right?



#2 This is a shot we've been working on for a while... it's taken PURPOSELY at high ISO (ISO1200 on this one), and purposefully under-exposed... natural light only. The idea is to get the grainy look the "real" way (like with old film) - not by putting it into PS and adding grain. So, does this work? The main issue I have with this is that our "style" is bright and warm - and this shot is dark and old... so I'm not sure it fits in our style - but I wondered in general if the shot works? I also wonder if I should clone out the light in the ceiling..



Thanks in advance!

mmmatt

OK plv,
My $.02

1st one I like. Her face does appear a little softend but not overdone or out of place. I might think different if I saw it larger, but I don't think so. I agree that a little more of the far side eye would be better even if only to get a better angle on her nose and not highlight the bridge with her lashes. Maybe a scooche brighter? I think it is a great shot though, that all is me being picky.

second one is OK. The low angle doesn't do much for either chin, and I'm not crazy about the level/hard lighting that shadowed the front of her dress. The processing is great and between their look, and the surroundings, you have a very vintage looking image. His crew cut really sells it! The expressions are great and so a wonderful catch if for that reason only. I'm all good with the ceiling light. Kinda looks like a bare bulb and adds to the vintage. The frame though... a frame is an insult to that image, but then again I'm not a frame guy really.

Again my .02, don't take it as gospel.

Matt

PhotoLasVegas

Cool, thanks for the comments... 80+ views and only 1 comment is a bit disappointing, but from what I know, that's usually because the images are "fine".. not horrible and not amazing... and to be honest with these 2 I didn't expect "AWESOME" or "HORRIBLE' either way...

I actually agree with all your comments, and yeah with the frames - we just built a brand new editing computer and switched over to 64-bit LR... using the LR Mogrify program to add the frame and logo but lost all our old custom frames and had to create new settings - I don't like these frames either, and the client NEVER sees the image with frame or logo, we just do it when we post on forums, and this frame will be changed very soon

Thanks for the comments, I hope we can get more comments even if mediocre...

PhotoLasVegas

Oh and I was also laughing a bit about the top picture.. recently the "rules" of portraiture were posted and one was to never have an exposed shoulder leading the photo. But the funny thing is that at the end of the article the author said that once you know the rules, it's ok to break them. I never understood that - I mean who really knows that you broke the rule "on purpose" and if you can break the rule then why is there a rule in the first place

Sam

I am commenting before reading any of the other posts. Want to post my first impressions.

#1 I think this is a nice concept. I played with it a little and by increasing brightness, little adding some contrast, tweaking the white balance, and selectively sharpening the eye and beads on the dress think it's a stronger image.

#2 The subjects are too dark for me.

As you know I am trying to do more wedding second shooting and am beating my self to death over my efforts so take this with a grain fo salt.

Sam

mmmatt

PhotoLasVegas wrote: »

Cool, thanks for the comments... 80+ views and only 1 comment is a bit disappointing,

Well it is wedding season, and we are all busy. To do a full critique it takes some time. Personally I often cut/paste images into PS and try a few tweeks before I am sure to recommend them. Even my little post took over 30 minutes, so don't be offended if people don't want to spend the time giving you suggestions. "Please be picky" translates to "please spend some time".

For every post like this that I take the time to comment on, I let 10 go by without a peep. I think as a group, the regulars here try to make sure everyone gets some input, but we don't all jump on every thread. Again though, we are all really busy right now. I was only on dgrin Friday night looking over some images for inspirational for yesterdays wedding, and saw your thread in need of some love.

Matt

Blurmore

1. I've seen this low contrast combined with softening before and I think this is a good example. Low contrast and softening are cooperative, the color process? well I don't dislike it, but I think her skin tone would be helped more with warmth rather than cool. Cool accentuates the blush and gives that china doll kind of feel, I think it could be helped overall by a little MORE grain. So far as the pose...yes definitely more of the back eye. My general rule of profiles is that only children should be shot in true profile and you are in that danger zone between no eye and not enough eye. Camera ANGLE is good, but her cheekiness could be helped by getting farther back, compressing with a longer zoom and slightly higher camera angle. as-is I think it is a good shot.

2.
I don't like the noise or processing in this B&W this is where low contrast does NOT work for me. Low angle is a chin multiplier and the chin is muddy because of the high ISO. I know what your going for here, but I don't think you really got it. You need to bump the reds and oranges and give this a plus-x/Tri-X kind of feel, as-is it is a little too t-max, unfortunately I'm not sure even if that will help because the light is a little flat (from behind the groom direct on her). Looks like you were using the video guy's light, thats not a bad idea, but for this shot I'd either saddle up next to him or shoot into his light for a good rim.

Hope that rambling made SOME sense...

Qarik

The 1st one doesn't grab me in anyway and I don't like the processing. I think the BW film looks works best with extreme iso and very "poor" and moody lighting. I think the light is almost too good in that shot. I hope you don't mind but here is an example of mine. This was with a d200 (not so good at hi iso) at 1600 and pushed in post quite bit. The crappier the light sometimes the better the shot imo.

WillCAD

I love #1, but #2 doesn't really grab me.

I think #2 would achieve the antique look better in sepia rather than straight b&w.

smurfy

I tried playing with the first one in photoshop, and it definitely looked better to me in black and white, but her upper left arm looked so distorted and deformed, much too skinny in the shoulder area. The angle created a weird optical illusion that didn't work. Her arm needed to be less of a right angle and more like a 45 degree angle leading to her eyes, or cloned out completely with shadows. And I personally think a higher camera position would have been more flattering for this bride. She has the beginnings of a double chin in this position, and the nose is too prominent, as already mentioned.

As far as the complexion issues you mentioned...You're male, aren't you? It seems there is a vast difference in how male and female wedding photographers handle complexion issues. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems most male wp's deal with complexion issues very delicately, thinking a bride will mind having perfect ("overcorrected") skin. Females who are good wedding photogs seem to deliver skin they know the bride wishes she had, not the reality. Because most of us have been there, and know that of all days, we want to imagine that we had perfect skin on our wedding day. Every single bride I have ever shot who knew they had skin airbrusing done in post when they saw their photos has thanked me profusely, and one even shouted, "I Love You!!..You fixed my skin!"

But I love the lighting. You probably got some beautiful pictures at this window that we haven't seen!

PhotoLasVegas

Smurfy: Actually the photog is a female but I (male) did the PP... in honesty all that's done is a reduction in clarity in Lightroom... we can and have done more "fixing" than this, matter of fact I'll probably bust out the Pro Retouch from Totally Rad Actions to completely fix it... I do totally agree with your comments on male/female treatment of photos. For us, usually, I think I have a very good sense of what the brides are looking for and what they'll like/dislike (probably comes from editing over 300 full weddings in the last 2 years, and meeting personally with almost every bride to show them the pics!).

And yeah as I said originally, these aren't the "best" of the bunch, the first one is an attempt at a little different PP than normal but there's a dozen or so others that are composed differently, or farther away, etc. that IMO are much better photos to begin with.

I know this sounds a bit like a cop-out but 1 reason I posted this one was because I KNEW it wasn't perfect and I was hoping to get everyone else thinking about what could have been done differently.


Some other random comments to answer other posters questions/comments...

Sam: Weird you'd mention contrast cuz it's turned way up on this one. You are right though that I lost some detail in the dress. For the 2nd photo I agree, we tend to like "bright and warm" and this is the complete opposite!

mmmatt: Understood, we both appreciate any time that people spend on C&C... it's just a sore point that we tend to at least comment on 3 of 5 that we look at... if only to just say, "yeah I like 2 and 4, nice set!"

blurmore: weird, I guess I better invest in a more reliable calibation system cuz yours is the 2nd comment about contrast, and on this screen #1 looks very contrast-y... as for #2, what's really funny is that the b/w conversion I used was from Presetopia and is called "Tri-X"....

WillCAD: Hmm, maybe I'll try a dark or even a light sepia and see how that loooks..

Glort: While I appreciate the honest opinion, I have always thought that the easiest "complaint" someone can give is "flat". I swear it's a comment made on almost every C&C thread I've ever seen. In this case I'd have to completely disagree with you, IMO the image is not flat at all.. unless you are defining "flat" different than I do... I mean there's almost too much of a shadow on the left side of her face and arms.. heck as was mentioned, the back arm is TOO shadowed. I dunno, I just think "flat" is a cop-out. Sorry. Same thing for the b/w photo...the shot was taken at f1.8 at 50mm, the DOF is extremely shallow and other than her hair blending in color-wise, I'm seeing a ton of depth in that picture.

And that said, I know this is going to sound petty and "I told you so", but when I met with the bride she loved both shots... and this bride was fairly picky and NOT shy about telling us if she didn't like a photo.

I do still appreciate the C&C and am able to "take it" when called out on a bad photo or an amateur mistake... so please all dont' let my blunt comments to Glort turn you away

nicoleshilliday

nice lighting on the first one.

IMO people don't want their photos to look like film anymore. They want crystal clear images with sharp focus. I would bag the last one, unless they were requesting that kind of processing?

A little side story. My brother in law married a into a very wealthy family. And spent major, major, major bucks (at least 8k) on the photos for their wedding. At the wedding I noticed that their 3 photogs were shooting in film. After I picked my chin up off the floor, i asked her why. She said bc her dad was old fashion and thought that important events should be shot in a traditional way. OK, what ever...

Anyway, 8 months later when they actually got the proof book of photos (no online proofing) She was wondering why her photos looked so grainy and in her words "like crap". She was comparing them to my site and she started getting really upset. To make matters worse two of the three photogs were shooting in just black and white. Which she didn't know. Plus to make her albums they had to make all the prints digital anyway and clean them up.

Anyway, the moral of the story is...people really aren't into grainy, film looking photos. But, that's just my two cents.

nicoleshilliday

PS. Yes, I would clone out the light in the second shot.

Blurmore

Not to take sides at all, I've been previously accused of not being able to take certain types of criticism, I think what was given here was honest critique. "Flat" I will go in for not being a good critique word as it can mean different things.

Flat- Lacking contrast.

Flat lit- Having flash only from camera position.

Flat- Lacking pop or pizazz or imagination.

The third one is what gets people's panties in a bunch. I assume here that Glort meant "flat" as in lacking contrast as the light is certainly not "flat". The OP may have taking "flat" as the third instance, and taken the critique as criticism.

PhotoLasVegas

Nope, I didn't "take it" any of those ways, because #1 there is a BOATLOAD of contrast in that picture.. #2 the lighting is not flat by any stretch of the imagination, and #3 never occurred to me.

"Contrast": the difference in subject tones from the lightest to the darkest

Well, hmmm... her hair is nearly black, her dress is perfectly white, and a look at the side of her face shows a nice range of contrast as well. How can this lack contrast, or be "flat"?


My statement stands, most times "flat" is used as a comment on a photo, it's a complete cop-out, and this thread proves it - somehow, by some stretch, he thinks it's "flat" and by every definition, it's not flat. But hey, he sticks with his opinion, even though he fails to read the posts that precedes his, and never really does give a real definition of "flat". It's just flat, that's all there is to it.

And Glort if you'd have actually read the thread, you'll see that I, myself, say it's not the greatest photo - that's actually one of the reasons I posted it. You'll also see that I never "soaked up the positives", other than a "thank you". Matter of fact I agreed with every single other "negative" comment and put those comments into my brain for future reference. So for you to say that I don't accept negative feedback is asinine and ignorant.

When I post a photo, "what I want to hear" is solid, definable items (good OR bad!) that explain why the photo is good or bad. After that, then overall "opinion" is fine too.

But you can't make a definable item ("flat") into an opinion - and that's what you have done.

I'm not invested in the work we put out - I can separate myself easily from being "the photographer" (or in this case, only "the editor") of the photo... step back and see the honest truth... and almost every time I'll agree with solid feedback. Glort, your feedback, and your subsequent cop-out response, was simply off-base.


It's funny, though, because you just created another "typical" critique thread, that goes like this:

Photog: Hey please critique my photo.
Critique: Negative critique with vague and non-definable "reasons".
Photog: I disagree and here's good reasons why.
Critique: Oh I knew I shouldn't have bothered, don't ask for critique if you aren't going to listen, I guess I'll never critique again.

What good has come out of this thread, though, is that hopefully Glort won't be gracing us with his ignorance in the future.

Agnieszka

My goodness you guys!! Where did this thread just go??

First of all it's OK to say your opinion on here, everybody has one.

Second of all:

Photog: Hey please critique my photo.
Critique: Negative critique with vague and non-definable "reasons".
Photog: I disagree and here's good reasons why.
Critique: Oh I knew I shouldn't have bothered, don't ask for critique if you aren't going to listen, I guess I'll never critique again.

You won't always get the critique you want, and you won't always get the help you need. Some people will be able to tell you exactly why this photo is flat, and some won't bother, and will just tell you their opinion, and that's ok too.

Having said that. And I won't make people happy on here. The first image does look very flat to me also. If I see it correctly you changed the levels on that one because it WAS too contrasty, and you wanted to turn it down a notch. The brights look to grey to me, therefore the skintones look off, and IN MY OPINION her skin is way too washed out. It's actually not about the skin, (as everybody knows I'm a big sucker for perfect skin), but about the overall crispiness of the photo. To me it does look over processed, especially because there is not one element that is sharp / in focus (and that might be because of the size of your posted photo, this is just what I observe). I am not a fan of this image, and so be it. Looks like you got some lovers, and some haters on here, a case of different preferences / taste.

And with the 2nd one I totally agree with Quarik. To me it just looks like a photo that was put into black and white .. that has some grain ..., but it has nothing to do with what you described.

Also. There is no reason to be "offended" when you don't get any replies. When I started of posting here, I posted one of my VERY FAVORITE photos and got ZERO replies. NONE. I don't really think there was anything wrong with the photo, sometimes people are just too busy, sometimes they just don't know what sort of critique they should give ....

Swartzy

Processing aside....The first POV is not flattering for her facial features...her nose is enlarged and doesn't show an elegance that beautifies the bride. The 2nd, again, the POV, vantage point doesn't "grab" ones attention. You've captured a fun moment but the angle/crop misses the emotion.

form

I'm not going to get into the middle of this, but I can say that the OP's female photographer has been shooting for several years now as far as wedding work is concerned - although not 20 years by any means. The same for the OP as a photographer and retoucher. I know them personally and have worked for them on several occasions, and I can say this for certain. I doubt they are looking for blind praise, but most people appreciate detailed explanations when photo critique is involved (although it should be accepted by the OP that many people simply don't do this).

I have a very different preference for photography and processing approach, and have since I started a few years ago. I only have two comments: First, in the first photo, the image breaks the rule of not penetrating the far cheek with the nose - and this exaggerates the nose's apparent size. Second, in the first photo again, the angle is very wide and it is detracting from the composition by apparent arm size in foreground vs. background. The line of the far arm is also intersecting the head.

holzphoto

here is the problem w/ posting wedding images online. you can have the most beautiful photo that you are super proud of and people will tear them apart. And some will post an even worse example than what you have, telling you how to do it better.

1st shot is fine.

2nd shot, i am wondering what camera you used to get that much grain at 1200 iso. Personally, I'd rather have a smoother image w/ less noise in b/w.

Here is the bottom line, our opinions do not matter, that bride's (and possibly her mother's and husband's) are the ones that matter.

PhotoLasVegas

Glort just doesn't "get it"... I never said I was proud of the photo or that it was any good in the first place. If he had any ability to read/comprehend, he'd know that. I pointed out a couple of the things I already knew were wrong with it. He says WE are holier-than-thou, then spouts his "20 years experience"... whoo hoo for you.

Another thing, I'm not "proud" of ANY of our work - we love what we do and we believe we put out a nice product at a competitive (ie. mid-range, not cut-rate) price. We don't claim or believe that ANY of our work is "art". We believe we provide amazing customer service (witnessed by the FIVE NATIONAL AWARDS we've won in the last 3 years), and our clients overwhelmingly LOVE the photos we provide to them. We are fair with our "demos" - we show "typical" work and update it constantly so that our clients don't expect "magazine-cover" work on every photo. We are far from "holier than thou", and as a matter of fact (as proven by Glort), most photographers really don't like us much... which doesn't bother us in the least. We're businesspeople, who happen to take decent photos and provide our brides what they want.

holz is absolutely right, though... the final opinion lies with the client, and she loved this photo - honestly that does surprise me, I too think it's "fine" (not great, not horrible), but she considered it in her top 5%-10%.

Also, holz, it is a 40d, but also shot underexposed. The grain was completely on purpose, the vast majority of our clients like that shot - but of course we shot at least 5-10 more of the first dance, properly exposed and in color (and we b/w a few of those too). It was an experiment, mainly to do the grain the "right" way instead of ALWAYS shooting completely crisp, noiseless images and adding grain in PS.

holzphoto

so why can't you be proud of your accomplishments and your good work?

PhotoLasVegas

When I typed "work", I meant photos. We are VERY proud of our accomplishments and even more proud of the way our photos are received by our clients. But, as I've typed a few times in this thread, I'm not "in love" with any of our photos. Our job is to please our clients, not to "further our art" or "become better artists" or any other of that hooty-falluty crap. If we get better at our JOBS (notice I did not say our "art") then all the better.

holzphoto

I never realized how sensitive of a guy i was until i posted what i thought were awesome wedding and engagement photos. Then these amateur wannabe's w/ horrible photos on their crappy websites would come and tear them apart.

Those photos are like my children, even though I have none.

So when it comes to how i make my living, i'd rather not share.

sharagim1

the first picture of bride isn"t perfect or even good .

PhotoLasVegas

sharagim1 wrote: »

the first picture of bride isn"t perfect or even good .

Wow, thanks for your well thought-out and insightful post. Looks like after 5 whole posts you've established yourself as a valued member of the forum. Welcome!

sharagim1

it is my opinion and could be you and some other don"t like it. anyway thanks.

Qarik

PhotoLasVegas wrote: »

Wow, thanks for your well thought-out and insightful post. Looks like after 5 whole posts you've established yourself as a valued member of the forum. Welcome!

dude lol

What forum(s) did you come from where such a lack of graciousness was ingrained in you? it's okay...take a breath..it's not like that here.

PhotoLasVegas

So I should be gracious when a half-literate newbie posts an unfounded opinion without any reasoning or backup of the opinion? Any half-wit can come onto a photo forum and say "yeah that's not a good photo"... I have no problem at all with constructive criticism... but for cripes sake, if you come on a professional forum and say "it's not even a good photo" (or similar) then give your professional opinion as to WHY you believe that.

Of course I take his post with a grain of salt, because his main question when he saw a photo he liked was "what type of equipment did you use"... because obviously he's under the mistaken impression that equipment is the #1 reason a photo is "good"....

This has nothing to do with my "feelings" or anything - as I have said multiple times, I know the photo isn't great... but it's just COMMON COURTESY that if you're going to offer an opinion to a professional's photo, you need to give a reason as to why you like/dislike it.

Agnieszka

Hi everybody. I really don't like where this post is going ... I hope you don't mind, and I'm not going to offend anybody here, but I'm going to close this thread.

Thanks & sorry.