A California outdoor wedding

Erbeman

A few weeks ago I had the priveledge of shooting a small intimate wedding just outside of Sacramento. I hope you enjoy the pics and of course you can comment and critique all you want.




1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



7.



8.



9.



10.



11.



12.



13.



14.



15.



16.



17.



18.



19.



20.

NeilL

Weird to see b&g in shades!

## 13, 20 - though I don't usually like the slurpy intimates!

Unpretentious wedding, I like!

Neil

Qarik

wow..these are outstanding! such great colros and compositions! you have really transitioned into a very good wedding guy... but let me ask you something..how do the tilts (3,6,8,12) add to the shot? I can go for tilts on some shots that require an odd angles or if the comp begs for it or if it is dance shot for instance..but take #3, it is completly static shot..what does the tilt add?

Erbeman

Thanks for the props guys. As far as the tilts go, on 12, I wasn't tilted at all. The ground under them is sloping towards the pond. I was out on a pier type thing over the water. As for 8, I was not trying to tilt, I was shooting in between the groom and "pastor" while trying to get a clear shot over the head of another photog that the B&G let shoot for her portfolio. For the ring shot and the table shot, I added tilt because I felt they were boring, but necessary shots. I did however, shoot both of those without any tilt as well. So the B&G can have a choice if they like horizontals, right or left tilts. I just picked those tilts to throw on here.

mmmatt

Hey Russ. Good stuff here but I'm going to agree with Quaik on some of the tilts. Some people are more sensitive to that and he and I are more than most I think.More importantly though, I would like to see you expand your comps in some of these and think through your primary subject. What the heck do I mean by that, right? Well, the first one is cool with the sign and wind blowing the balloons, but it is missing something... a road, a house, a walking path... right now it is a good picture of a sign but you could have used that sign to tell a story. Same with the mason jars. they are cool but they lead to the alter right? Overall things are very centered and one dimensional to me. If you allow your mind to wander away from your primary subject and see them as just a component of image and not the whole image I think you will find yourself presented with an entirely new world.

For the most part your skin tones and exposures and the technical work is great except the hand in 13 seems like it was too hot in camera. 15 is wonderful and I like 20 a lot also. Regardless of my comments I'm sure that the b&g will be happy with these. You did a good job for them, and I'm seeing you getting better and better.

Matt

Bakko

Really great shots in my opinion.
I really like #16, do you happen to remember your sunset settings?

Erbeman

mmmatt wrote: »

Hey Russ. Good stuff here but I'm going to agree with Quaik on some of the tilts. Some people are more sensitive to that and he and I are more than most I think.More importantly though, I would like to see you expand your comps in some of these and think through your primary subject. What the heck do I mean by that, right? Well, the first one is cool with the sign and wind blowing the balloons, but it is missing something... a road, a house, a walking path... right now it is a good picture of a sign but you could have used that sign to tell a story. Same with the mason jars. they are cool but they lead to the alter right? Overall things are very centered and one dimensional to me. If you allow your mind to wander away from your primary subject and see them as just a component of image and not the whole image I think you will find yourself presented with an entirely new world.

For the most part your skin tones and exposures and the technical work is great except the hand in 13 seems like it was too hot in camera. 15 is wonderful and I like 20 a lot also. Regardless of my comments I'm sure that the b&g will be happy with these. You did a good job for them, and I'm seeing you getting better and better.

Matt

You know it's funny that you bring that up because I have been thinking that I want to get a wide lens to broaden my style. I use my 70-200 for everything. I'm in love with that lens. A nice 14-24 lens would force me to open up. I'm sure I shoot the way I do because I'm coming from a sports photography background, where 90% of your shots are very tight with all the excess cropped away. A wide angle wouldn't allow me to shoot tight. You hit the nail on the head and I appreciate the feedback. Now, anybody wanna send me $2,000 for that lens? Haha

Erbeman

Bakko wrote: »

Really great shots in my opinion.
I really like #16, do you happen to remember your sunset settings?

Thanks brother. For that particular shot I was at F/3.5,1/320 ss, iso 200. I was firing my flash into an unbrella to light them. If I had it to do over again, I probably would have shot it around F/5.6, 1/500 ss, with prob iso 600 to try and bring the mountain in sun a little less blown out and more in focus.

mmmatt

Erbeman wrote: »

You know it's funny that you bring that up because I have been thinking that I want to get a wide lens to broaden my style. I use my 70-200 for everything. I'm in love with that lens. A nice 14-24 lens would force me to open up. I'm sure I shoot the way I do because I'm coming from a sports photography background, where 90% of your shots are very tight with all the excess cropped away. A wide angle wouldn't allow me to shoot tight. You hit the nail on the head and I appreciate the feedback. Now, anybody wanna send me $2,000 for that lens? Haha

Be careful with ultra wide lenses because that is not really what I am talking about. Wide angle distortion is a great effect but not bread and butter imho. If you shoot a crop body 14-20 maybe isn't too wide, but for a ff body that is an effect lens, or shooting a wide group in the hallway lens. I like my 24-70 (on a FF 5d/mkii), because if I want a wide angle distortion effect I can pull my subject way into the corner of the lens and get it or I can square up my lens with the subject and not get a distorted effect. You can shoot wide with a 70 too... just stand back! In the case of your balloon sign, you could have both moved back and to your left to get what I am talking about. Well assuming that something was just accross the street. You squared up on the sign and you didn't need to. Actually there is something special about a wide shot with a telephoto because of the compression of the space between the foreground/background and the subject. Wide angle will increase the apparent distance between the two and make the dof larger. With a wide lens you get the appearance of your secondary subject being smaller and further away than it is, and telephoto of course makes it seem larger and closer. The normal range makes it more true to life and turns the focus more to the subject(s) imo, but any lens can certainly produce a good result. You are doing great Russ, don't let any of my comments make you think otherwise!
Matt

ian408

Looks a bit like the Sloughouse area. Beautiful place for a wedding too.

Mark1616

Looking like a great series! I agree with the tilts, just too much to start with and too similar. I'm a tilter and go through phases but mix up the direction when you do tilt etc. #13 is my fave but there are many lovely shots!

Erbeman

Haha, my name is Russ and I'm a tilter. I need help and that's why I'm at this meeting. haha

Mark1616

Erbeman wrote: »

Haha, my name is Russ and I'm a tilter. I need help and that's why I'm at this meeting. haha

, can I join too?

Erbeman

Sure, I'll start a support group and MMMatt and Qarik can be our leaders to show us to the light! Haha

Bryans12v

I like the tilts. I think it helps keep the attention of the fact that its dead center of the frame. Tilting allows that. Great job, Russ. Lovely set!