I don't do weddings...

Bend The Light

...but a friend convinced me to do one for friends of his. It was done as a favour, no payment, and had I not been there they would have not had any photos at all (barring the mobile phone shots by some of the guests). So, here we go...

The groom

2-8-2012 Phil - Groom by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr

The Bride

2-8-2012 Carol - Bride v2 by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr

The registry office (which was TINY!)

2-8-2012 Just wed with bridesmaids, best man, and usher by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr

Best Man (and bride's son)

2-8-2012 Ben the Best Man by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr

A small group (with other son looking at a mobile phone camera!)

2-8-2012 BandG, BM, U, BM, FG by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr

The Happy Couple

2-8-2012 Just married v2 by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr

So, honest critique. Bear in mind that I will NOT be setting myself up as a budget wedding tog any time soon, but I would be interested in how you think I did with what I had.

Cheers

Ed911

Are you really serious about the first image...get rid of it...as soon as possible. No joke. It's disgusting and for sure he's going to be embarrassed by it.

Your job as a wedding photographers is to take flattering images...if at all possible. You just never show stuff like that to the bride and groom...or to the public.

Bend The Light

Ed911 wrote: »

Are you really serious about the first image...get rid of it...as soon as possible. No joke. It's disgusting and for sure he's going to be embarrassed by it.

Your job as a wedding photographers is to take flattering images...if at all possible. You just never show stuff like that to the bride and groom...or to the public.

Why would he be? He was flashing his smile around all day...I don't think he has a problem with it at all. And neither does his new wife, given that she married him for better or for worse on that day.

But thanks for your disgust.

And thanks for the in-depth critique.

red_zone

I think the groom's face is very expressive in the first photo, despite his lack of teeth! It looks like he's used to smiling. His later pictures with his mouth closed he doesn't look as good in my opinion. However, he's in the left third of the frame, and he's looking out the left side of the frame. Usually you'd like to leave empty space where your subject is looking instead of where they aren't. At least, as a viewer and not a portrait photographer, that would be my opinion. Also, the flash is a little harsh, like you were standing too close?

The bride indoors really looks like more of a snapshot - I'd ditch that one because her mouth is open like she's talking, which shows her very distracting filling, and the background is not only ugly, but it has a lot of stuff going on and everything is cut off, and the flash makes everything look a little flat.

Registry office is fine, just sort of tilted, and the proximity of the subjects to the wall, combined with the on-camera flash makes some stark shadows. If you have Photoshop you can fix the perspective so the angles aren't so sharp, maybe put the edge of the desk horizontal.

I like the best man shot, good pose, good background, and the lighting doesn't seem as harsh.

The other shots are alright but the groom is squeezing his eyes shut! My wife does the same thing every time a flash goes off... but there are flash modes that help alleviate that... like a shutter delay shooting mode or strobed flashes. Also, it seems like you're standing off to the side of the group for each shot. The subjects don't have to be all facing the camera (better if not, sometimes) but having the end people an even distance would make the pictures seem less out of balance.

Overall, it's better than camera phone pictures, I took photos of my cousin's wedding with my kit dslr and on-camera flash, and got a lot of pictures like this... but the trick I used for better shots was shooting a lot of pictures, moving around a lot, and asking people to stop for a picture. That and some post-work. I don't have photoshop, just picasa.

I hope this was helpful!

Bend The Light

red_zone wrote: »

I think the groom's face is very expressive in the first photo, despite his lack of teeth! It looks like he's used to smiling. His later pictures with his mouth closed he doesn't look as good in my opinion. However, he's in the left third of the frame, and he's looking out the left side of the frame. Usually you'd like to leave empty space where your subject is looking instead of where they aren't. At least, as a viewer and not a portrait photographer, that would be my opinion. Also, the flash is a little harsh, like you were standing too close?

One of the first shots I took, and one of the first with the flash (340EX). He is used to smiling, despite his teeth...and the flash was direct, and harsh, and close.
I understand about the framing, and looking out of the frame, but at this point I was a complete unknown to him (no pre-wedding meetings like a pro wedding tog )


The bride indoors really looks like more of a snapshot - I'd ditch that one because her mouth is open like she's talking, which shows her very distracting filling, and the background is not only ugly, but it has a lot of stuff going on and everything is cut off, and the flash makes everything look a little flat.

That's no filling...it's a piercing.
Was a grab shot as she walked into the ceremony room. Background out of my control, light was difficult, and the place was quite small so other people in the background was unavoidable. Like you say, anyone who does this professionally would ditch the shot.

Registry office is fine, just sort of tilted, and the proximity of the subjects to the wall, combined with the on-camera flash makes some stark shadows. If you have Photoshop you can fix the perspective so the angles aren't so sharp, maybe put the edge of the desk horizontal.

How small was that room! The angle is, I think, due to my position. There were triffids in plant pots everywhere which meant I had to move around just to frame them without losing the people on the edges to the giant pot-plants! ha ha. But yes, I saw the slanting bricks in post, but seemed too drastic to change them.

I like the best man shot, good pose, good background, and the lighting doesn't seem as harsh.

Yes, i like this one. He was puting on a "swagger" at this point. I'd just asked him if he was the Best Man, and he said something like "With these looks, of course I am the best man!" and then started sort of posing. Hence this shot.

The other shots are alright but the groom is squeezing his eyes shut! My wife does the same thing every time a flash goes off... but there are flash modes that help alleviate that... like a shutter delay shooting mode or strobed flashes. Also, it seems like you're standing off to the side of the group for each shot. The subjects don't have to be all facing the camera (better if not, sometimes) but having the end people an even distance would make the pictures seem less out of balance.

He half-closed his eyes in so many. He was like that BEFORE any flash went off, pre-flash or otherwise. I mentioned it a feqw times, but he didn't change it. I am a little to the side, but was trying to avoid a "straight on" view of them. Obviously, as this was my first (and possibly last) wedding, my posing and instruction to the subjects was not so good. I am better in the studio at directing a subject or two.

Overall, it's better than camera phone pictures, I took photos of my cousin's wedding with my kit dslr and on-camera flash, and got a lot of pictures like this... but the trick I used for better shots was shooting a lot of pictures, moving around a lot, and asking people to stop for a picture. That and some post-work. I don't have photoshop, just picasa.

Well that was the point, I think. As I said, it was a freebie for them. They were told quite plainly that I am not responsible, even if all the photos were terrible. I knew they wouldn't be TERRIBLE, but I also knew they would not match up to the pro photographers out there. I do believe the customer will be over the moon with them, as they are better than anything their family got, and better than nothing at all.

I hope this was helpful!

It was. Thanks.

73Rocks

I am in the same boat as you . . . I’m not a wedding photographer per say but every summer I end up doing one or two for just to keep a little money coming in before the high school sports season starts.

To me your images are quality images.

The only thing that I will really touch on is something that you already point out that I’ve learned from doing weddings. I used to think that it was very obnoxious for wedding photographers to demand that no other cameras be present when they were shooting their formal shots. Your next to last image (small group shot with two in the group not looking at the camera) bears this out. It is not that they were afraid of the competition from others shooting their group shots, it’s because that in a lot of the shots there will always be someone looking at another camera rather than the main photographer’s camera. Even though I will shoot at least 3 shots of each group, I will find that in 1 or 2 of the shots someone will be looking at some other camera.

What I do when I am shooting formal shots is request that everyone with cameras refrain from even raising their cameras until after I have taken all my shots. Either that or demand that nobody present have cameras when shooting your shots.

Matthew Saville

Less flash, more understanding of light in general. That is a universally useful skill, even for someone who may choose to never shoot another wedding again.

Bottom line- The shots are good from the standpoint of technical consistency etc. However the use of flash makes them a little bit snapshot-y in my opinion. Which is why I say less flash, more use of natural light.

=Matt=

Stu Scully

Only comments I would give are watch the background and gel or use a Stofen or other softener for on camera flash.

Selection of backgrounds is one way to separate a random picture taker from a paid photographer. Some of the posted pictures have good backgrounds, others don't. A couple you probably couldn't do much about but there are a few (2,5, and 6) in which having the subjects rotate a bit could have gotten that tree from behind them. You won't always be able to get the best background composition (fast moving candid shots during the reception or ceremony for example) all the time but you should strive for it whenever possible.

And as mentioned previously, the bright "cool" (color temperature wise) flash look changes the photos from being artistic to "commonplace". Try to gel or somehow soften so that you avoid the blatant naked on-camera flash firing directly at someone. It just has a "negative" stigma of being a picture that anyone could have taken (which if you're being paid to take them can be viewed negatively). Or you could put a bracket assembly on the camera so the flash is at least not on-axis with the lens. And as Matt said, unless you're in a really dark place if you have natural lighting always make it a priority to use it over an on camera flash. I would prioritize light as follows.

Natural > off camera > on camera.

Just a few thoughts...

Demian

Bend The Light wrote: »

But thanks for your disgust.

And thanks for the in-depth critique.

You definitely made the right choice including this shot. Yeah, his teeth suck, but if he's comfortable with them in public then chances are he's going to be comfortable in print.

And the alternative is much worse: If you got only closed-mouth smiles, it would be a pretty muted wedding set (and poorly reflect his actual personality).

Worst case, he could always reject them. But he certainly deserves the option... I think it's rude (and unprofessional) to automatically assume clients are ashamed of their bodies and that they need to be fixed.

EDIT: Oh yeah, other pics! They were pretty good. I can definitely see what Matthew says about the flash. Also, skin color looks a bit off on the bride in the second pic... a little too blue. But they're good pics, and I think the family will be ecstatic

72Sandeen

I doesn't know if this is the right thread for my concern. My wedding is fast approaching and we have to do our pre-nuptial wedding photos. We own a Canon 600D, so we are planning to take photos our own because its more cheap. is it reasonable to do that?

r3t1awr3yd

72Sandeen wrote: »

I doesn't know if this is the right thread for my concern. My wedding is fast approaching and we have to do our pre-nuptial wedding photos. We own a Canon 600D, so we are planning to take photos our own because its more cheap. is it reasonable to do that?

Yaflyyadie

Respecting all the opinions and most af all the ones of the proven skilled wedding protographers that have chipped in, I just say:

You did a good thing, they have now some pictures of their event, if they like them, your purpose was achieved.
Some light issues, closed eyes, stance, it happens, they are very common, you are not a wedding photographer, or intend to be, but you did your best in this case.
Listen to the replies and apply the ones that really teach you something.
JMHO
Carlos

babowc

I have to agree with Matt on the lighting.
Flash seems too direct, were you using the built-in flash?
Subject/background separation exists by the overpowering flash, maybe lower aperture and less flash?
I think you could also work on composition, #2/3.. distracting background/foreground/elements.