Hello! My first post in Weddings

Dmanning

I just posted over in the portrait forum for the first real time. So now on to the wedding stuff! I have been shooting with a professional mindset for a little over 3 years now. Until recently I have been focused on portraits and now I realize how much I love weddings...

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.

Agnieszka

Very pretty! Share some more :eat

Qarik

pretty decent stuff here. if you are shooting PJ style then a lot of these are spot on imo. You really capture some moments.

Dmanning

Thanks guys! I really appreciate the encouragement. I shoot a majority of PJ. I definitely need work on posing for formals and then lighting for the formals. I feel in these shot I didn't really accomplish what I wanted. Also the church was incredibly dark and I didn't want to shoot formal at a high iso. So there I just accepted the fact that the background was much darker than the foreground. I look forward to getting to know you guys.

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.

Matthew Saville

Alright, just off the top of my head:

1.

Shoot from a higher angle. This bride is thin and pretty so you're almost okay, and in a candid situation sometimes you just gotta click the moment, but in general for a *formal* portrait this is something you should think about and take care of: shooting DOWN towards your subject is 100x more flattering than shooting up towards them. Not to be sexist, but shoot up for heroic, manly shots. Shoot down for elegant, graceful bridal shots. (Hey, you can shoot women heroically too, I do it here and there, it just has to be the right situation...)

2.


3.

The light is pretty soft and the skin tones are great, but you've got a candle growing out of the bridesmaid's shoulder, and depth is shockingly deep for such a shot. What aperture and focal length was this made at? The depth makes it look like it was taken at f/11, or on a P&S camera.

I would also say that the image is a touch over-exposed. True, it doesn't look like you blew anything out, but I still would have toned it down a bit...



4.

See comment on photo #1. I understand that you did this to compose the background, and I do this from time to time as well, but even if you capture this shot, ALSO capture another shot that flatters a bit more.

Also, the light is a bit harsh on her face, I would have posed her facing in the other direction, since the broad side of her face makes it at least appear as if there's softer light in that direction. Whatever that overhead light is, I would have used it as a hair light only, and made sure not to let it hit skin. Like so:




5.
Shallow depth does not instantly make something artistic. This isn't the worst example I've seen, but it still doesn't have a strong focal point. Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE shallow depth and creamy blur. But you gotta do it tastefully, and the rules of subject / composition still apply. I certainly might have captured this exact shot, so don't feel like I'm saying it's no good, but I would have ALSO captured more distant shots that let you see more of the subject, and give you more compositional options.

And, by the way, I will freely admit that I'd be envious to have done work like this within MY first 3 years!

=Matt=

Dmanning

Matthew,
Great critique, thanks for taking time out to do that for me. I definitely let myself get rushed at times and let things like badly placed candles take away from the shot. For the formals I pretty much stuck to f9 and used a 24mm-70mm range. This will definitely be taken to heart. Thanks again!

Matthew Saville

Dmanning wrote: »

Matthew,
Great critique, thanks for taking time out to do that for me. I definitely let myself get rushed at times and let things like badly placed candles take away from the shot. For the formals I pretty much stuck to f9 and used a 24mm-70mm range. This will definitely be taken to heart. Thanks again!

Call me NUTS, but if there's just two or three people in a formal, I have no problem shooting that sucker at f/2 or f/2.8. Heck, I've shot formals at f/2 and 2.8 with even more people, sometimes... It's all about directing them properly so that they're all in the same plane of focus...


(Shot at 35mm on full frame, f/2 which was stopped down 1 stop on the 35 L. Nice and sharp, but still got background separation.)


(Either 1.4 or 2.0, at 85mm on crop. So yeah, I was really far away. But the shot was still easy, because there was a line for them all to stand on, so they were all in the right focal plane...)

Dmanning

Matthew,
Both of those images are natural light right? They look great. I suppose I was paranoid about not having people in focus since I still find focusing for 1.4-2.0 a little hit and miss. Even with a split focus screen I feel I miss too much in that range. Practice, practice, practice, right?

Qarik

I find f/4 is pretty safe for 2 people side by side with some wiggle room and still get some bokeh. f/9 is waaay overboard.

Dmanning

Qarik wrote: »

I find f/4 is pretty safe for 2 people side by side with some wiggle room and still get some bokeh. f/9 is waaay overboard.

I worked with a photographer who shot weddings in film for 30 years. He encouraged me to shoot at f/9 or f/11. I guess it's time for me to take in some other experience. Thanks for the input.

Matthew Saville

Qarik wrote: »

I find f/4 is pretty safe for 2 people side by side with some wiggle room and still get some bokeh. f/9 is waaay overboard.

F/4 and paying close attention to your background is certainly a great tactic. if you can find an opportunity to frame subjects against a clean, un-distracting background, stopping down is awesome.

Matthew Saville

Dmanning wrote: »

I worked with a photographer who shot weddings in film for 30 years. He encouraged me to shoot at f/9 or f/11. I guess it's time for me to take in some other experience. Thanks for the input.

Judging by the equipment available 10-30 years ago, and the types of images that need to be taken at a wedding, I bet that was 30 years of moderately boring photographs. Sorry to be harsh, but yep, it's time for you to open your eyes to, well, the REASON people pay $1,000 or $2,000+ for f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4-1.2 primes.

Of course let me caveat this all by saying that shallow depth is certainly a popular trend these days. And plenty of people abuse shallow depth, thinking it can mask poor artistic vision and creativity. So don't just go buy a fast lens and shoot everything wide open. All that creamy bokeh can make a viewer want to puke if there's no real substance to the image. And now it sounds like we're talking about food, haha...

=Matt=

Dmanning

Matthew Saville wrote: »

....I bet that was 30 years of moderately boring photographs. Sorry to be harsh, but yep, it's time for you to open your eyes to, well, the REASON people pay $1,000 or $2,000+ for f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4-1.2 primes....

=Matt=

No harm done. I have a long way to go and I realize it more and more everyday. Now I am even more excited for my next wedding. I feel like I have been given at least a few golden nuggets already. God knows I can't fathom reading another book about technique! It's time to shoot!