*Wedding Shots* C&C Please

stephiewilliams

Agreed to be a secondary at a friends wedding. I am a sports shooter but thought it might be fun to think outside the box and build a portfolio. Make myself a bit more marketable. Here are a few shots I liked. The rest of the gallery can be found here http://stephaniewilliams.smugmug.com/gallery/1854948 . Comments and critiques are always appreciated. I am aware of the shadows in the photos as well as my poor choice of shooting from below on some of them...old sports habits die hard lol!

Scott_Quier

Aside from the C&C you have already provided, here's what I see:

B&W photos are fantastic. Very good conversion, good compo, interesting.

Photo #2, seem more than just a mite warm to me. Especially after I compared skin tone and gown color with that in #4.

#3, crop it just a bit on the right to get rid of that orphaned shoulder. The eyes over her head add a lot of interest at least they do for me.

The group shot is a really tough one. To get any of the blacks, you blew out some of the gown. Don't know how that could have been done differently. Maybe Shay has some ideas on that one.

I really like the last one as well. If a re-shoot were possible, I would see about dimming down the bright spot on his forehead. But, no re-shoots of these sorts of shots allowed at a wedding.

photofreak

I love #1...more candid appeal to me. The spot on her cuff distracts me...maybe clone it out.
# 2 is great...the hangers in the background take away from it. I'm a composition freak!
#3 Absolutely LOVE...maybe a little darker...is that a cross on her wrist...a tatoo? love it
#4 is classic, timeless...maybe a b/w conversion...whats that in the background against the building...again, it's my neurotic behavior concerning comp and background
#5...yea looking up her nose isn't so good lol
the group shot...flowers look like a hat on her...
last on is nice..maybe a bit bright.
You did a great job, here! Aren't weddings exhausting!?!

stephiewilliams

Scott - I was having trouble with photo 2, seemed a bit warm to me as well but hard with her hair, skin and the wood being so close...Thanks for the comments Everyone is so nice here!

Mandi - Yeah those hangers are awful, wish I knew ps a bit better I would clone them out. Hard with the wood grain though. Weddings are tiring but I like how personal the photos are when you are done. I do sports mainly and this is nothing like that Thanks for the useful critique being my first one its helpful because it trains me to pay more attention.

Scott_Quier

stephiewilliams wrote:

Everyone is so nice here!

I was so wrapped up in looking at your photos I failed to notice that you are new here. So WELCOME!! to the club. Really hope to see more or your shots!

stephiewilliams

Thanks Scott, I post over on Dpreview.com as well but I like how this is tied through smugmug, lets me branch out a little. Always worried when you show your work in a new forum that people will be overly critical...glad it is not so here.

Owen

stephiewilliams wrote:

This image is exceptional in your series. I know this is posed, but I find some of your other images are quite out of context and a bit "snap-shot-ish." A wider angle view I think would do justice to the dancing images. Some of them appear really flashed out.

stephiewilliams

Owen - thanks for your comments. That is the photojournalist coming out in me, the watchful observer. You know I had extreme trouble with my flash during the reception. Most of the shots are cropped tightly because the backgrounds are murky, dark and they just generally look as if they were dancing in a cave hehe. I was trying to capture a different perspective than their primary photographer who seemed to pose most of his shots. I guess it just depends on if you like the photojournalistic style or now. Again thanks for the comments, that is my favorite as well.

Antonio Correia

I think that the photos where you used flash are very hard.
The flash is too present.
I would bounce the flash.
Some people here has a discussion here about the use of the flash, etc, etc.
May be you will find that interesting ... :
Mind you: I am no expert, oh no.

Regards

stephiewilliams

Thanks for the comment, actually beleive it or not every single photo in the series was shot using flash, even the outdoor scenes. The day was so dreary it was like a scottish marsh outside. The ones where the flash is really harsh was due to vaulted ceilings where I had extreme trouble bouncing and had to resort to direct aim. I have heard that lumiquest makes excellent diffusers/bounceheads that may help with this. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction though.

DavidS

Love the group shot.

gluwater

I think just about everything has been said already so great post to start with and welcome aboard .

Shima

The black and whites are very elegant, and the colorful ones are just *so* vibrant, great job, you captured a lot of emotions in these

BigAl

Great first try Stephie! As others have said, the group shot is really nice. As far as the overflashed shots are concerned, to me only the last two have a problem. Using a business card as a bouncer may have helped here as you were pretty close to your subjects.

Scott_Quier

stephiewilliams wrote:

Thanks for the comment, actually beleive it or not every single photo in the series was shot using flash, even the outdoor scenes. The day was so dreary it was like a scottish marsh outside. The ones where the flash is really harsh was due to vaulted ceilings where I had extreme trouble bouncing and had to resort to direct aim. I have heard that lumiquest makes excellent diffusers/bounceheads that may help with this. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction though.

I've done some very informal testing of various methods of using flash:

• Straight aim - as expected, really harsh light, high contrast shadows. Not cool
• Bounce off ceiling (straight up) - better, but lost A LOT of light
• Bounce off ceiling, 45 degree - not good, only part of the subject was lighted and there was this huge hot spot at the top of the frame (8ft ceilings)
• Bounce off ceiling (straight up) with 4x6 card - Shadows better but still pretty strong, light was really cold/blue.
• Straight aim with the Gary Fong Lightsphere - Actually better than all of the above for controlling the shadows - I was amazed.
• Bounce off ceiling (straight up) with the Gary Fong Lightsphere PJ - This was, by far, the best of the lot

I did this in an attempt to lighten my load when I do a wedding and some senior portrait work later this month. Turns out that I'm pretty stuck with the Lightshpere. I "worked" with a photographer at another wedding who was using what looked like an SBM Supreme Flash Diffuser and I was not real happy with his results. We were, obviously, shootingin the same environment and the Lightsphere seemed to do a much better job.

Like you, I've also heard some good things about the LumiQuest bouncer. I've been giving serious consideration to getting the LumiQuest ProMax System and giving it a shot at a place in my bag. When I have $50 buck that have not been promised to some other black hole!

stephiewilliams wrote:

Thanks Scott, I post over on Dpreview.com as well but I like how this is tied through smugmug, lets me branch out a little. Always worried when you show your work in a new forum that people will be overly critical...glad it is not so here.

People here can, sometimes be too nice. I've posted what I think is not much more than high-grade garbage only to have someone tell me that it's great. But, that's one of the reasons I settled here - I'm still just starting out (will that status ever change?) and, so, my pride/ego might be easily damaged. Life is GOOD here!!

stephiewilliams

Its a tough decision...the bouncer from LumiQuest is only 24.00, seems to work pretty well to help bounce in cases where you do not have low ceilings however the Gary Fong Lightsphere clear is just amazing. The shot on his product page with the bride right next to the white wall with no shadow...amazing. I wonder how much light is lost with it though.

vangogh

stephiewilliams wrote:

Mandi - Yeah those hangers are awful, wish I knew ps a bit better I would clone them out. Hard with the wood grain though.

Try this on a copy so you don't mess up the original. Add a layer & select the "soft edged" stamp tool. Make sure "sample all layers" is on, change the opacity & flow of the tool to a lot less than 100. You may need to play around a bit to find the best value. Click on an area of wood that is clear & then start "stamping" over the offending area. Click don't drag. Eventually you should build up enough to cover it.

Or another way is to use the lasso tool with the curved edges, make a selection, (you can soften the selection edge here with the "feather" option), copy it, add a new layer & paste it onto the new layer. You can then move this area over the item to be covered (reduce the layer transparency temporarily so you can see where it is). Add a layer mask with "reveal all". (Change the order of the black & white colour swatches if it doesn't work at first). Make sure you're on the mask & not on the actual art bit & the use a soft brush & reduced opacity & flow with the erase & brush tools to erase & brush in areas on the mask to cover up the item.

Save the file as a psd (native layered photoshop file). From that save out your new edited jpeg

Email me if you need any help : or this isn't clear lol

Scott_Quier

stephiewilliams wrote:

Its a tough decision...the bouncer from LumiQuest is only 24.00, seems to work pretty well to help bounce in cases where you do not have low ceilings however the Gary Fong Lightsphere clear is just amazing. The shot on his product page with the bride right next to the white wall with no shadow...amazing. I wonder how much light is lost with it though.

I have the LumiQuest on my wish list for just that reason.

I have the Lightshpere and love it. I've posted this image in another thread, but thought you might like to see it here. This was taken in a very dark wedding reception hall - they had the lights down for the dancing - but the exposure came out almost perfect. This tupperware (R) bowl is "just amazing."



As to how much light is lost - I have read that you lose about a stop. This would seem to make sense as the LS tosses light just about 360 x 360 (everywhere) and only a portion of that will get back to the subject. But, in a small enough room, even the light the shoots 180 away from the the subject will hit a wall and bounce back. That, I guess, is where a lot of the light loss comes from. The light loss didn't impact me very much here. I was shooting for about 4 hours, almost 500 shots at the reception and only replaced the batteries in my flash once and they were still going strong when I shut down for the night.

dlibrach

Hi Stephie,

I like the images as a whole and I think you have some great potential as a secondary shooter. Also, you have received a lot of great advice from everyone on your individual shots.

I too just started as a second shooter. I've worked about 8 weddings this year with a full-time wedding photog and thought I might pass on what I have learned so far:

- a second shooter is really beneficial in capturing the details and the candid shots of guests/wedding party. At first I was just trying to capture the same photos of the main photog and quickly realized that my shots weren't adding anything.

- try to blend in and not draw too much attention to yourself. This goes for anyone whether the main or second shooter. However most of the people (especially during the formals) are paying attention to the main photographer. Use that time to catch the little things that go on in the background.

- keep an eye on what the main photographer is using for a lense and do the opposite. In other words, when I see him with a wide angle on, I make sure I've got my 70-200 on. When he's shooting long, I pop on my wide angle lense. This is especially useful during formals and group shots. Chances are the main photog is shooting realitvely wide. Now's your opportunity to get some detail shots. Although I like your candid shot of the wedding party, image just a close up of the facial expressions of just the bride and groom.

Those are just my observations in my own shooting take it for what its worth. Thanks for sharing your photos and keep shooting....

Cheers,
Dave

P.S. If interested, here's a link to one of my galleries as a second shooter:
http://davidlibrach.smugmug.com/gallery/1582451/1

B://

The black and whites are GREAT, and I love the one where all of them are laughing, really GOOD thumb
Congrats Stephie


Byron M.

stephiewilliams

scott - that is amazing Just another reason for me to invest. Thanks for the info!


Dave - Sounds like the pro you got on with really lets you have some freedom. I had looked into becoming a secondary...All the gigs I found were about 10 an hour, you could not keep any pictures from the wedding and basically you were just there for filler. I have done some research on wedding photography in my area and it seems it is a split market. You get what you pay for. If you put out the big bucks you get amazing jaw dropping work...if you want to spend say around 750-1500 you get joe schmoe who if often times way worse than us 'second shooter' caliber photographers. I was thinking I would do those on a budget a favor and beef up my portfolio while charging the same as joe schmoe. Ofcourse not until I had the right equipment, and was completely comfortable. Thanks for the tips though

Byron - Thank you for the compliments! I just got addicted to the wedding photographer forum on fredmiranda.com and they have a ton of cool post processing tricks that I may try on them.

dlibrach

stephiewilliams wrote:

Sounds like the pro you got on with really lets you have some freedom. I had looked into becoming a secondary...All the gigs I found were about 10 an hour, you could not keep any pictures from the wedding and basically you were just there for filler.

Hi Stephie,

Yeah, I lucked out pretty good. He is a good friend of mine who I met through a local camera club (great place to meet others and get contacts). One thing that we did immediately was to establish a good working relationship and clarify our roles. This is extremely important. Also, I would strongly discourage working for anyone that does not allow you to retain the images you shot for portfolio purposes! It would make the whole venture useless.

As far as pay, you some times have to take what you can get. This year I wanted to make sure that I learned as much as I could from a seasoned professional, build a portfolio of my own images and get some great contacts going. The amount that I get paid is secondary to what I learn. I would rather get paid $10/hr working for someone who I respect (both as a photographer and as a person) than $25/hr working for some Joe Schmoe who won't let me keep my images and is not interested in showing me some of the tools of the trade. However, bills still have to be paid and some times $ charged = respect in this business so you've gotta make sure not to sell yourself short.

This year really paid off for me. Not only have I agreed to continue working with him next year (the offer of 2x$ didn't hurt ) but he will begin using my name in conjunction with his for marketing purposes. I have also built up a pretty good portfolio and have done a couple of small weddings on my own.

In the end though, your images will eventually speak for themselves and you will be just fine.

Cheers,
Dave

stephiewilliams

dlibrach wrote:

Hi Stephie,

Yeah, I lucked out pretty good. He is a good friend of mine who I met through a local camera club (great place to meet others and get contacts). One thing that we did immediately was to establish a good working relationship and clarify our roles. This is extremely important. Also, I would strongly discourage working for anyone that does not allow you to retain the images you shot for portfolio purposes! It would make the whole venture useless.

As far as pay, you some times have to take what you can get. This year I wanted to make sure that I learned as much as I could from a seasoned professional, build a portfolio of my own images and get some great contacts going. The amount that I get paid is secondary to what I learn. I would rather get paid $10/hr working for someone who I respect (both as a photographer and as a person) than $25/hr working for some Joe Schmoe who won't let me keep my images and is not interested in showing me some of the tools of the trade. However, bills still have to be paid and some times $ charged = respect in this business so you've gotta make sure not to sell yourself short.

This year really paid off for me. Not only have I agreed to continue working with him next year (the offer of 2x$ didn't hurt ) but he will begin using my name in conjunction with his for marketing purposes. I have also built up a pretty good portfolio and have done a couple of small weddings on my own.

In the end though, your images will eventually speak for themselves and you will be just fine.

Cheers,
Dave

That is so true Dave, your images do speak for themselves. Do you do a lot of post processing to your wedding photos? I go back and forth on whether I like it or not. I mean post is always necessary for like USM, curves, b&W conversion etc...but I do not know if I like the selective coloring, vignette or glamour effects...but then sometimes I see them very well done and they add so much!

Whats your opinion?

Steve Cavigliano

Steph,
Really nice work The group shot is awesome. Yeah, there's some technical issues and it may have been "posed". But the wide mouth laugh and all the others smiling is priceless

I also agree with most of the other comments. But I just wanted to let you know that the blown out part of the dress really doesn't detract from the quality of that group shot. At least not to me.

If it bothers you (or your clients), you might want to try the Ctrl-Alt-~ method of reducing the brightest areas of the image.

Press all 3 keys at the same time (Cntl-Alt-~). This will cause those marching ants to outline your bright spots...lol Then enable edit in Quick Mask>Adjustments>Levels and move the lefthand slider about 2/3 of the way to the right and hit OK. Then get out of Quick Mask (Edit in Normal Mode), and hit Cntl-J. This brings up a dup layer. Use Multipy blending and adjust opacity, if you so desire. You can also enable a layer mask if you need to erase the effect in some areas.

Steve

dlibrach

stephiewilliams wrote:

That is so true Dave, your images do speak for themselves. Do you do a lot of post processing to your wedding photos? I go back and forth on whether I like it or not. I mean post is always necessary for like USM, curves, b&W conversion etc...but I do not know if I like the selective coloring, vignette or glamour effects...but then sometimes I see them very well done and they add so much!

Whats your opinion?

Post-processing is one of my main weaknesses. Because the main photographer pp's all of the shots, I don't have to worry about it and hence haven't refined my skills. However, I work off the RAW files for everything that I want to put in my portfolio. This means I just have to go through a few dozen of my favourites and not worry about the rest. For these, I take my time and can be pretty heavy handed with each one as I experiment with different things.

For the couple of weddings that I shot on my own and I had to provide the couple with a couple of hundred of shots, I spent waaaaay too much time working on them. Although I do use actions a lot, I still don't feel comfortable batch processing them as I am too critical and want to work on each shot until either I think it is perfect or I just get bored.

I think like every new digital photographer, at the beginning I went a bit overboard with the processing. Lots of selective colouring, vignetting, gaus blur...etc. I have since learned that less is more and try to make my pictures 'pop' without it looking fake/too processed. With practice and experience, I'm now able to get the composition, dof and lighting that I want when taking the photo so that I have less processing to do afterwards. Still so much to learn....

Cheers,
Dave

OrvSal

Hi Stephanie, nice shots. I agree with the others about "overflashed". It is hard to get the right amount without over powering the scene. Perhaps setting the flash at a higher ISO than what you're camera is set at, to get a reduced amount of flash. The Lumaquest diffusers work very well for wedding shots. I love the group scene. Being the second shooter in a wedding is always the fun place to be cause you get to shoot what the #1 can't, the candids! Good job!

stephiewilliams

Steve - I agree with you on the candids...sometimes they are not technically perfect but I have to remember that the clients don't know everything about our technical requirements lol sometimes the right look on a subject, or in this case a whole hearted head back laugh makes the photo. Thanks so much for the tip on the brightness...sounds like a quick and easy way to do it!

Dave - Yeah I have seen it overdone. You know one place I almost feel like you have to do it though is with objects at the wedding. The cake, the bouquet, details on the back of the dress etc...these things are all so mundane to me. I am a people shooter and I struggle to capture objects creatively.

orvsal - Thanks for the compliment. It definitely is hard, I was missing some key peices of equipment it sounds like. Next time I will be better equipped. I have looked into the lumaquest diffusers and actually they are cheaper than the gary fong lightsphere but I think the lightsphere reduces the shadows a bit more. Second shooter is also the best because you get to practice without the pressure of "what if I miss a shot" lol...thanks for the comments.