First Engagement Photos - As a Favor

esc2476

My wife graduated from business school this past May and one of her classmates (who also moved to the DC area) got engaged. We are friends with the couple and are invited to the wedding in October. They are financing their wedding and because they are just starting out, have a very limited budget for anything.

So, they asked me to take some engagement photos for them. I agreed to do it no charge, however they insisted in taking my wife and I out for dinner. They told me they would not have hired a photographer to take engagement photos otherwise and understood my limitations.

I would appreciate C+C-I have no illusions that these are anything grand. I am just hoping they are serviceable enough. I haven't processed all of the photos, but her is a sampling so far. They have been very happy with what they have seen thus far.

The setting was the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


#9


#10


#11


Two quick notes-I do look at the weddings section of dgrin a lot and tried to borrow some poses. I would never do weddings (even with the proper experience/equipment) because it is just too much pressure (and I am a litigation attorney), so I very much appreciate what you all accomplish.

Also, I am new to the world of post-processing/RAW shooting. I know I have a tendency to over-saturate and I was fighting myself with it. I was more successful than other times and am working on it.

Darren Troy C

Of the group, really like #8. Nice job and you said it yourself....THEY'RE happy with them. I would prefer much more interaction/candidness with the couple (not looking at camera, not posed, etc.) but definitely a decent job on these. I'm not speaking technically, cosmetically, or any of the other big words that end with -ly, just saying a nice job on your first set.

esc2476

Darren Troy C wrote: »

Of the group, really like #8. Nice job and you said it yourself....THEY'RE happy with them. I would prefer much more interaction/candidness with the couple (not looking at camera, not posed, etc.) but definitely a decent job on these. I'm not speaking technically, cosmetically, or any of the other big words that end with -ly, just saying a nice job on your first set.

Darren, I appreciate the feedback. It is funny, because Shaun was always looking at the camera and we had to prod him to look at her. It wasn't that he does not like looking at her, it was that he said he is just used to looking at the camera when he is having his picture taken. If I ever do one of these again, I will certainly keep that in mind while shooting. I know I have a bunch where they interact with each other - I am going to try and process and post those after work tonight.

Thanks again.

esc2476

richy wrote: »

if you find that happening, move them to a new location, mutter something about the light, tell them you need to dial in the camera to this new difficult light and tell them to have some fun while you take some test shots. They start messing around, you start shooting and you just don't tell them you started taking shots for real I have no idea where I read this, its probably as old as the hills, but the technique works.
As for the shots, theyre fun, theyre way better than uncle bob efforts, I'm sure they will love them. I've seen far far worse from supposed pros. 2,4 and 6 stand out for me as the stronger shots.
Thanks for sharing.

Richy, thanks for the kind words. I love the tip-if I do this again, I will certainly keep it in mind.

My recent foray into the world of post-processing has really added some excitement into my photography world. I have only started to regularly shoot in RAW in the last few months. However, for select shots in the past (mostly on vacation), I have shot an occasional RAW shot for possible future use. When I am done processing these and a few other sets (of family visits), I am going to go back in time and play with those.

esc2476

I've added some here - C+C appreciated and welcome. Here are additional samples:

#12


#13


#14


#15


#16

Debashis_A_ghosh

I like 1,4,7,12,16. These are not like shots I see wedding pros deliver but I find most of these shots quite appealing. Since the very people who have requested for your services are happy I think it is a job well done. In some of the shots you have cropped or framed the shot in such a way that the joints are cut off.


For instance in image 14 you could have obtained the right hand of the groom in entirety by sacrificing some of the room above his head. In number 15 th bride to be looks very appealing however the groom is slouchy. If it were possible I would ask him to straighten his shoulders and tuck in the paunch. make him look a little more like a knight courting his lady love :-)

esc2476

Debashis_A_ghosh wrote: »

I like 1,4,7,12,16. These are not like shots I see wedding pros deliver but I find most of these shots quite appealing. Since the very people who have requested for your services are happy I think it is a job well done. In some of the shots you have cropped or framed the shot in such a way that the joints are cut off.


For instance in image 14 you could have obtained the right hand of the groom in entirety by sacrificing some of the room above his head. In number 15 th bride to be looks very appealing however the groom is slouchy. If it were possible I would ask him to straighten his shoulders and tuck in the paunch. make him look a little more like a knight courting his lady love :-)

Thanks for your C+C - much appreciated. I agree with all of your comments. When I was shooting, I was trying to be as cognizant as I could about the joints, but I did forget in a few instances.

My ultimate goal was to try and deliver photos as close to a pro level as possible (with knowing realistically that I could not do that on my first - and maybe only - try).

Debashis_A_ghosh

esc2476 wrote: »

Thanks for your C+C - much appreciated. I agree with all of your comments. When I was shooting, I was trying to be as cognizant as I could about the joints, but I did forget in a few instances.

My ultimate goal was to try and deliver photos as close to a pro level as possible (with knowing realistically that I could not do that on my first - and maybe only - try).

I do not think that this will be your only session. I thnk if you have a workable business model and leverage your networking skills you will be working quite often on similar assignments.

I wish you all the best.

Agnieszka

Darren Troy C wrote: »

Of the group, really like #8. Nice job and you said it yourself....THEY'RE happy with them. I would prefer much more interaction/candidness with the couple (not looking at camera, not posed, etc.) but definitely a decent job on these. I'm not speaking technically, cosmetically, or any of the other big words that end with -ly, just saying a nice job on your first set.

Totally agree

1: Hmmmm sunglasses, no-go for me
2: Love it
3: If it were more candid, it would have been awesome
4: Nice one. I think it bothers me that HER right arm is missing, but it's nice photo
5/6: "okay" I think the skin tones are a bit pink/orange + I would have asked him to put his hands in his pockets in #5, but they're nice photos
7: Nice photo .... sunglasses again (I know it was bright ...). How about playing with a lower F stop + adding a bit of a vignette so one's eye focuses more on the couple?
8: Same like 7 minus sun glasses
9: Wish it were more candid again, but hey crop it so the column isn't all that cricked
10: very pretty spot!! Again, lower f stop + vignette and it will be an awesome photo
12: Pretty. I'd maybe brighten up his face a bit
13: Nice one ... lower f stop + I'd crop it so you cant see her feet (>> looks awfully uncomfortable to me )
14: I'd either brighten up their faces + darken the path ot crop it vertically. Like this the eye is drawn to the bright spot (>path/shirt) and the couple gets lost in the image
15: cute
16: you cut his foot

Ok, now having said all this I do think you did well, haha ..... Those comments are obviously just me being picky & telling you what I'd think you could improve next time

Thanks fo posting, and hope to see more from you

Oh and one more thing ..... try to get them out of the sun, otherwise you end up with nasty shadows on their faces

Katherine-Alane

Great work. I can see why the are very happy with what they've seen thus far.

k~

esc2476

Agnieszka wrote: »

Totally agree

1: Hmmmm sunglasses, no-go for me
2: Love it
3: If it were more candid, it would have been awesome
4: Nice one. I think it bothers me that HER right arm is missing, but it's nice photo
5/6: "okay" I think the skin tones are a bit pink/orange + I would have asked him to put his hands in his pockets in #5, but they're nice photos
7: Nice photo .... sunglasses again (I know it was bright ...). How about playing with a lower F stop + adding a bit of a vignette so one's eye focuses more on the couple?
8: Same like 7 minus sun glasses
9: Wish it were more candid again, but hey crop it so the column isn't all that cricked
10: very pretty spot!! Again, lower f stop + vignette and it will be an awesome photo
12: Pretty. I'd maybe brighten up his face a bit
13: Nice one ... lower f stop + I'd crop it so you cant see her feet (>> looks awfully uncomfortable to me )
14: I'd either brighten up their faces + darken the path ot crop it vertically. Like this the eye is drawn to the bright spot (>path/shirt) and the couple gets lost in the image
15: cute
16: you cut his foot

Ok, now having said all this I do think you did well, haha ..... Those comments are obviously just me being picky & telling you what I'd think you could improve next time

Thanks fo posting, and hope to see more from you

Oh and one more thing ..... try to get them out of the sun, otherwise you end up with nasty shadows on their faces

Thank you for your detailed comments-very much appreciated! They were extremely helpful - especially for a n00b like me

esc2476

Katherine-Alane wrote: »

Great work. I can see why the are very happy with what they've seen thus far.

k~

Thank you so much-appreciate it.....especially for your first post.

Matthew Saville

I am NOT going to say that shallow depth is an end-all solution, because I certainly hate "shallow just for the sake of shallow"...

HOWEVER, you definitely gotta find a way to get more emphasis on your subjects. Pretty much every shot has a distracting background. Either because there is clutter in the background that should be blurred, or because the composition is just framing them wrong.

One good example is the shot with the glass walls and elevators- Both of them are framed very well against a background of a different color and brightness, so their heads stand out and attract the viewer's eye. Look at the other shots and see how lines, textures or brightness just melt into their faces and heads, and make it a lot harder for the viewer to focus in on their expression etc.

So, either shoot shallow with a fast lens and make the background distractions fade a little, or compose your shots VERY carefully so that they are framed against cleaner backgrounds, of a different brightness...


=Matt=

Matthew Saville

Look at shot #15 and look at the outline of his head against the leafy background immediately behind him, then compare that to the small portion of the top of her head that is contrasted nicely against the light background element. That edge definition is what I'm talking about. My eyes can barely focus on his face at all because his skin and hair are too close in tonality to the textured background. When I look at that photo, I just see white and red and that's it, my eye is done looking at the image at that point.

So, consider spending a LOT of time working on composition and framing.

I hate to hijack threads, but examples have always been really important for MY OWN learning, so here goes-



At first glance the average viewer won't know WHY the image works, but the moment the elements of the photo are pointed out, it is clear- Her light, sunlit hair is starkly contrasted against a dark, clean background.

That alone is why the viewer's eye goes directly to the subject's face and stays there for a few seconds. That's all it is- Edge definition...

=Matt=

esc2476

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I am NOT going to say that shallow depth is an end-all solution, because I certainly hate "shallow just for the sake of shallow"...

HOWEVER, you definitely gotta find a way to get more emphasis on your subjects. Pretty much every shot has a distracting background. Either because there is clutter in the background that should be blurred, or because the composition is just framing them wrong.

One good example is the shot with the glass walls and elevators- Both of them are framed very well against a background of a different color and brightness, so their heads stand out and attract the viewer's eye. Look at the other shots and see how lines, textures or brightness just melt into their faces and heads, and make it a lot harder for the viewer to focus in on their expression etc.

So, either shoot shallow with a fast lens and make the background distractions fade a little, or compose your shots VERY carefully so that they are framed against cleaner backgrounds, of a different brightness...


=Matt=

That's actually a really good point. The sad part is, I have pretty fast lenses: the 24L and the 24-70L, but I didn't shoot fast enough. I was mostly concerned with light (being out of my landscape element) and did not often think to use a larger f/stop. That is something that should have been more at the forefront of my thought process.

Thanks!

esc2476

These are great points Matt-very helpful. I appreciate it!

Matthew Saville

esc2476 wrote: »

That's actually a really good point. The sad part is, I have pretty fast lenses: the 24L and the 24-70L, but I didn't shoot fast enough. I was mostly concerned with light (being out of my landscape element) and did not often think to use a larger f/stop. That is something that should have been more at the forefront of my thought process.

Thanks!

Trust me I can totally relate. I came from an outdoor / adventure photography background too, and I've taken PLENTY of portraits at f/8 in my earlier years.

But the reason you pay $2000 for a lens instead of $200 is the wide-open sharpness, among other things. Honestly with the sharpness that today's lenses provide, if you shot every image at f/8 you could pretty much use any lens on the market and the differences would be negligible except for maybe the extreme corners, which usually get cropped in this line of work anyways.

Get yourself a 50 or 85 prime if you plan on shooting more portraits, and get very comfortable at f/1.4, f/2, or at least f/2.8. Not that I recommend shooting the 24-70 at 2.8, since it is kinda soft wide open. (It's probably going to be replaced by Canon soon, it was great on film and lower megapixels, but 18 and 21 megapixels for example are just going way past the lens' maximum resolution...)

Either that or, if you just can't bear to let go of your f/5.6 and f/8 style, then work on composing shots as perfectly as possible so that people, especially heads / faces, are framed and lit so that there is edge definition against a clean, un-cluttered background. Shallow depth is definitely only ONE way to make a subject stand out, and as a fellow landscape photographer I can totally relate with the desire to compose wider, more dramatic shots that usually necessitate a sharp, deep aperture...

For example I shot the following at f/13, because I was locked at 1/250 for the flash. The shot still works because, once again, there's edge definition. That's really all it is...

Agnieszka

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Uhm, ok that's GORGEOUS!

Tracker

Noob criticism here, so take it all with a large grain of salt. I'm trying to absorb everything I can in this thread as my daughter wants me to shoot her bridal gown pics.

I would do some judicious cropping to bring a little more focus on your couple. Also, I'd be careful where Romeo puts his hands on her, even though they're engaged. Unless her watch was a special gift, I'd ask her to remove it and play up the ring a little more.

specific shot thoughts
#4 Like it a lot.

#12 I'd crop the window edge in the left side of the image.

#13 As said before, she looks to be in an uncomfortable position.

#14. I think a tight crop might help.

#16 I would crop the sides down to just the facing brick and probably crop the bottom just below the ledge since we already lost his foot or maybe viginette them.

shutterbug616

Eric, of course their on a limited budget.. Did you see the rock she has on her finger... Thats a wedding budget in it's self.