Crystal and Jesse Wedding

Scott293

I shot the wedding Saturday and got some of the pics on my site. Here are a few that I like so please let me know what you think and thank you in advance for viewing my work.

1)


2)


3)


4)


5)

6)


7)


8)


9)


10)


11)


12)


13)


Sorry so many and I dont even have them all finished yet.

Matthew Saville

Dust spec at one 'oclock! Other than that, great stuff!

=Matt=

chrisdg

Beautiful locations!

Although, the vignetting is a bit heavy on a few of them, in my opinion. I prefer that vignetting not be totally obvious...but more of a subtle technique to brighten the central subject matter. When you stand back and look at a vignetted photograph on the wall, it even becomes more noticeable. I'm talking about 1, 10, and 12 in particular.

Also, i think the sky and background in some of them (#10 especially) should be brighter. She looks very artificially lit as a result. It should more closely match the sparkling ambient lighting in 8, 11 and 13...particularly since wedding photos are often viewed as a series and should look like the same day, same weather, etc for continuity.

8, 11 and 13 say "bright and happy future",
whereas 9, 10, and 12 say "gloom in the distance"

Scott293

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Dust spec at one 'oclock! Other than that, great stuff!

=Matt=

Thank you and yes that dust spot will be gone that drives me crazy, I just had the censor cleaned two gays before the wedding. Thanks again!!

Scott293

chrisdg wrote: »

Beautiful locations!

Although, the vignetting is a bit heavy on a few of them, in my opinion. I prefer that vignetting not be totally obvious...but more of a subtle technique to brighten the central subject matter. When you stand back and look at a vignetted photograph on the wall, it even becomes more noticeable. I'm talking about 1, 10, and 12 in particular.

Also, i think the sky and background in some of them (#10 especially) should be brighter. She looks very artificially lit as a result. It should more closely match the sparkling ambient lighting in 8, 11 and 13...particularly since wedding photos are often viewed as a series and should look like the same day, same weather, etc for continuity.

8, 11 and 13 say "bright and happy future",
whereas 9, 10, and 12 say "gloom in the distance"

I appreciate your opinion but how can you make all the pics the same weather sky when the shoot starts at 1:00 until about 9:00. On #10 she is the spot light thats the look I was going for. Thanks for taking your time to view.

Ed911

chrisdg wrote: »

Beautiful locations!

Although, the vignetting is a bit heavy on a few of them, in my opinion. I prefer that vignetting not be totally obvious...but more of a subtle technique to brighten the central subject matter. When you stand back and look at a vignetted photograph on the wall, it even becomes more noticeable. I'm talking about 1, 10, and 12 in particular.

Also, i think the sky and background in some of them (#10 especially) should be brighter. She looks very artificially lit as a result. It should more closely match the sparkling ambient lighting in 8, 11 and 13...particularly since wedding photos are often viewed as a series and should look like the same day, same weather, etc for continuity.

8, 11 and 13 say "bright and happy future",
whereas 9, 10, and 12 say "gloom in the distance";)

I agree...good critique...

Matthew Saville

Scott293 wrote: »

I appreciate your opinion but how can you make all the pics the same weather sky when the shoot starts at 1:00 until about 9:00. On #10 she is the spot light thats the look I was going for. Thanks for taking your time to view.

In image number ten, the contrast levels simply do not match. The background has low, muted contrast while the subject has bright, punch contrast.

If you want the background sky to be nice and dark, at least keep it punchy. Although in general, when you process an image with such a dramatic difference in the brightness, you usually end up with the background looking like it's a staged / photoshopped background, because it looks so surreal. One way to combat this is to get the lighting further off-camera, say for example use side lighting, or add a kicker or something... Anything to help the subject blend more naturally with the background...

=Matt=

Scott293

Matthew Saville wrote: »

In image number ten, the contrast levels simply do not match. The background has low, muted contrast while the subject has bright, punch contrast.

If you want the background sky to be nice and dark, at least keep it punchy. Although in general, when you process an image with such a dramatic difference in the brightness, you usually end up with the background looking like it's a staged / photoshopped background, because it looks so surreal. One way to combat this is to get the lighting further off-camera, say for example use side lighting, or add a kicker or something... Anything to help the subject blend more naturally with the background...

=Matt=

I completely understand and the lighting I use is a Allenbee 1600 w/24x36 soft box. The contrast was completely me not the shot or how it was shot I think you might like it more this way. And thanks again all critiques are welcome from everyone as I will never stop learning:D

Ed911

You've lost a lot of detail in the dress in the one above. In Photoshop, select the dress and then adjust either the exposure, or the brightness. I usually find the brightness to be more of what I'm looking for over an exposure adjustment. Don't forget to feather your selection before adjusting the light.

Once you adjust the dress, you should see some detail come back. You'll need the RAW for editing purposes. And, it may be that you can't bring back the detail. I'd look in to using the adjustments brush to paint back in some of the detail...

chrisdg

Scott293 wrote: »

I appreciate your opinion but how can you make all the pics the same weather sky when the shoot starts at 1:00 until about 9:00. On #10 she is the spot light thats the look I was going for. Thanks for taking your time to view.

The natural arc of the sun over the course of a long wedding day is not what I am referring to. In fact, that's a major plus... early light for the "preparations" and eventually into the evening hours during the reception celebration.

Rather, what I am referring to is a relative consistency of ambient outdoor light for that particular segment of the day. It seems fairly intuitive that #10 and #11 (and all the beautiful dock scenes) were likely taken moments apart and therefore should, in my opinion, show some consistency in lighting. 10 and 11 would make a nice pair on either side of a photo album spread or on the wall, but the big difference in background levels would detract.

It's similar to an actual ceremony (particularly if it's outdoors) - we'd typically want the relative ambient/background/skies to remain rather consistent throughout that series, otherwise certain images looked obviously "treated".

chrisdg

Scott293 wrote: »

I appreciate your opinion but how can you make all the pics the same weather sky when the shoot starts at 1:00 until about 9:00. On #10 she is the spot light thats the look I was going for. Thanks for taking your time to view.

Scott293 wrote: »

I completely understand and the lighting I use is a Allenbee 1600 w/24x36 soft box. The contrast was completely me not the shot or how it was shot I think you might like it more this way. And thanks again all critiques are welcome from everyone as I will never stop learning:D

Yes, i think this is much better (except for the loss of dress detail that Ed points out, which can be fixed). She still stands out and looks beautiful, but now it's also a gorgeous day outside on her wedding day!

Scott293

chrisdg wrote: »

Yes, i think this is much better (except for the loss of dress detail that Ed points out, which can be fixed). She still stands out and looks beautiful, but now it's also a gorgeous day outside on her wedding day!

Thank you !!!!

smurfy

I would have loved to have seen their reflections in the water in number 12.

Scott293

smurfy wrote: »

I would have loved to have seen their reflections in the water in number 12.

I shot #12 with my 300 2.8 and there was a good breeze making ripples so the reflection imo wasn't very clear, on a calm day I would have. Thanks for your comment and taking the time to view and post.

Matthew Saville

Ed911 wrote: »

You've lost a lot of detail in the dress in the one above. In Photoshop, select the dress and then adjust either the exposure, or the brightness. I usually find the brightness to be more of what I'm looking for over an exposure adjustment. Don't forget to feather your selection before adjusting the light.

Once you adjust the dress, you should see some detail come back. You'll need the RAW for editing purposes. And, it may be that you can't bring back the detail. I'd look in to using the adjustments brush to paint back in some of the detail...

I'm surprised that people are talking about a loss of detail; it seems to me to just be a high-key image. For those with an IPS display, (preferably a 178 degree vertical viewing angle) ...you should be able to see detail in the dress without bobbing your head up and down. If you're on a laptop though, yeah...

I too would prefer to see the dress a little less bright, though. It may not be blown but it's too close to being blown for most practical purposes.

I would also opine that the lighting direction on the subject should match the lighting on the background, for the best visual blending. You've done a great job of re-processing the sky etc. to match the same "pop", but for next time something to remember is to vaguely match the direction of the sun altogether. From what I can tell, it looks like I would have placed the light much more to my left, so that it side-lights the bride a little more.

=Matt=

Scott293

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I'm surprised that people are talking about a loss of detail; it seems to me to just be a high-key image. For those with an IPS display, (preferably a 178 degree vertical viewing angle) ...you should be able to see detail in the dress without bobbing your head up and down. If you're on a laptop though, yeah...

I too would prefer to see the dress a little less bright, though. It may not be blown but it's too close to being blown for most practical purposes.

I would also opine that the lighting direction on the subject should match the lighting on the background, for the best visual blending. You've done a great job of re-processing the sky etc. to match the same "pop", but for next time something to remember is to vaguely match the direction of the sun altogether. From what I can tell, it looks like I would have placed the light much more to my left, so that it side-lights the bride a little more.

=Matt=

Matt,

You make some great points and I think your right about the light should have been more to the left. Thanks again for all your time!!

Jamesbjenkins

Overall, this set is pretty average from what I see on dgrin. How would you describe yourself? How many weddings have you shot? Here's my basic C&C at first glance:

- 4,5,6 are underexposed, and not in an artistic, intentional way.
- 9,10,12 are just bad shots, not a good concept, not well composed
- Your flash shots need to be much better balanced with the ambient light. Get your softbox further off-axis and not so close to the subjects. It's totally possible to overpower direct sunlight without blowing out your formals.

Overall, other than #3, these don't show much polish at all. They are great snapshots, but they don't have that "pro" look or feel.

Maybe your other shots from this wedding are more polished! Let's see some more.