A Texas wedding....

ShannonHeat

Here a a few from a wedding June 4th. It was extremely overcast, so I did the best I could with the little bit of light I had. C/C is welcomed and encouraged.

1)


2)

RogersDA

I'm no expert on wedding photography, but I think that photoshoping out the tan lines on her shoulder would help. The glaring light on her forehead in the second is not good either.

Others will most certainly have more to offer:D

ShannonHeat

Ok guys, seriously, don't just look. I need your input, I feel something is a little off on my color, but can't quite seem to correct it. All suggestions are welcome. Like I said, a storm was about to blow in (15 minutes after these were shot) and it was extremely dark and overcast.

Thanks in advance!

quark

For #1 I think you should process out the lights in the upper right part of the image. I can't figure out if it is a distant building or something but it looks odd.

The both look a little flash struck. Do you have a pocket bouncer? Not sure if it would have helped much in your lighting but it is a cheap accessory to pick up.

urbanaries

Shannon, what a cute couple and I really love the pose, you could shoot from different angles and it still works. They're obviously comfortable with you and you elicited some warm, natural expressions from them....well done!

I have learned so much from these forums, and my work has improved mostly due to the kindness of strangers on this forum, so I hope you take the following in the spirit it's intended...to help others the way I've been helped! (why just a week or so ago, I called Scott Quier in a panic, and he helped talk me through a perplexing exposure situation before a wedding).

With only two images here, its hard to give strong critique, but I'll go with what's here. You're using a kit lens outdoors, which forces you to shoot at small apertures and everything's in focus. You might try the 50mm 1.8 just to give you some freedom in these situations, it's pretty cheap and if you focus manually, it does pretty well.

Also, check out slow sync in the 430 ex manual. That would enable the flash to illuminate the subjects, while leaving the shutter open long enough to expose the background, (but not quite enough for motion blur) giving a more even lightfall and diminishing the flash shadows you're seeing.

I've not had great luck with diffusers outdoors, but I also haven't tried them in very dark situations such as this.

Even if you can't slow synch, I would use flash exposure compensation to underexpose the subjects just slightly, so they're not so bright white in the dark.

Other than that, I think you did a great job. I'll leave other experts to evaluate skin tones...I need a lot of work in that area myself! A word of caution about the tan lines...I encountered this a lot recently and I figure a girl looks in the mirror, she sees they're there and chooses to go strapless anyway. It takes a while to blend skin believeably, and if she doesn't ask, then I wouldn't bother. Otherwise, you may get stuck Psing an entire wedding's worth of tan lines. Self tanner is a lot cheaper!

Let's see some more!

ShannonHeat

I re-did this a little. Am I heading in the right direction?

quark wrote:

For #1 I think you should process out the lights in the upper right part of the image. I can't figure out if it is a distant building or something but it looks odd.

The both look a little flash struck. Do you have a pocket bouncer? Not sure if it would have helped much in your lighting but it is a cheap accessory to pick up.

wesleyt

Shannon,

Yes, that one looks much better to me.

Excellent work!

- Wes

ShannonHeat

Thank you, it looks better to me too:D . It's getting there..hehe.

wesleyt wrote:

Shannon,

Yes, that one looks much better to me.

Excellent work!

- Wes

ShannonHeat

Here's another. Any idea on how to get that car out of the background?

ShannonHeat

Thank you so much for your input:D . They were the best I've worked with yet. I'm working towards a better lens. It's a little difficult to scrape together that cash, but I've got my eye on one. I think it will make my life a little easier, especially in post. However for now, I work with what I've got, and try my hardest. BTW, you are right on about those tan lines. She even remarked how funny it was when she was getting dressed!

urbanaries wrote:

Shannon, what a cute couple and I really love the pose, you could shoot from different angles and it still works. They're obviously comfortable with you and you elicited some warm, natural expressions from them....well done!

I have learned so much from these forums, and my work has improved mostly due to the kindness of strangers on this forum, so I hope you take the following in the spirit it's intended...to help others the way I've been helped! (why just a week or so ago, I called Scott Quier in a panic, and he helped talk me through a perplexing exposure situation before a wedding).

With only two images here, its hard to give strong critique, but I'll go with what's here. You're using a kit lens outdoors, which forces you to shoot at small apertures and everything's in focus. You might try the 50mm 1.8 just to give you some freedom in these situations, it's pretty cheap and if you focus manually, it does pretty well.

Also, check out slow sync in the 430 ex manual. That would enable the flash to illuminate the subjects, while leaving the shutter open long enough to expose the background, (but not quite enough for motion blur) giving a more even lightfall and diminishing the flash shadows you're seeing.

I've not had great luck with diffusers outdoors, but I also haven't tried them in very dark situations such as this.

Even if you can't slow synch, I would use flash exposure compensation to underexpose the subjects just slightly, so they're not so bright white in the dark.

Other than that, I think you did a great job. I'll leave other experts to evaluate skin tones...I need a lot of work in that area myself! A word of caution about the tan lines...I encountered this a lot recently and I figure a girl looks in the mirror, she sees they're there and chooses to go strapless anyway. It takes a while to blend skin believeably, and if she doesn't ask, then I wouldn't bother. Otherwise, you may get stuck Psing an entire wedding's worth of tan lines. Self tanner is a lot cheaper!

Let's see some more!

evoryware

I tried a lil. Hope you don't mind. Just a little levels adjustment in zoombrowser. Maybe could use a smidge more red or something.
Love the boots!

FOr the other one, I would clone the plant life up over the car.

urbanaries

I tried my hand at copying pieces of the fence from the right hand side, then burning in some shadows to distract from the light coming through the gate, and then a tighter crop overall. see what you think!!! Love this shot!

ShannonHeat

evoryware

Here's second
just wondering if you shot RAW. forgot to crop out the top.

HiSPL

It's hard to fully critic without the exif data.

Overall the backgrounds are too dark. A longer shutter speed is called for in both shots. The flash is way too strong for my tastes also, although it would probably be a great flash exposure if the background was about 1.5 stops lighter. You still have lots of detail in the dress and thats great!

The poses are nice and the faces look quite natural, so they must have been very comfortable with you. Good Job on that!


On the second one your inflating their heads with a too-close wide angle shot. Back up a little more and zoom in and the image won't distort so much. This is a little nit-picky though, because some folks like this effect as long as it's not used too much, and others still don't even notice it.

I second the canon 50/1.8. You really cannot beat this lens anywhere for under a 100 bucks. If you look they pop up here in the flea market for 50 or 60 dollars all the time. Even for 80 bucks new is dirt cheap for this lens. You simply cannot be without a fast 50 mm lens if you want to do natural light portraits. That wide aperture will let you blur the background also. Just be careful to get the eyes in focus and let everything else fall away.
In other words, get this lens! You won't regret it!

Also go here, and start reading; http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/ Your location portraits will thank you for it!

And if you decide against doing off camera flash, then definately look into a flash bracket. It will get rid of the shadows behind your subjects...

Good luck!
-=Tim=-

ShannonHeat

If anyone is interested, I can email the originals to you with the larger format. I use picasa as a gallery, and my images lose a lot of their data when I upload. Just a thought. You can pm me with your email address, if you'd like. Thanks guys!

photogmomma

I think you've gotten some great advice so I won't add....

But what I will add is that the lens that Lynne is talking about is less than $100 and is worth literally every penny. Until I upgraded it, it was truly my favorite lens - and one I recommend to everyone. You can get some amazing shallow DOF shots with very little light - and it is just so light and easy to use! Definitely check it out. (I think I got one for about $80, but it's been a while.)

Great job! Keep it up.... Can't wait to see more!

Desmond

Well I finally got broadband and can now start looking at other peoples pictures too ! With all due respect you had a very difficult situation with low light and different skin tones . It's not easy getting the right exposure for a black suit and a white dress - two extremes - especially when flash is involved . I would really agree about a faster lens . I thought my nikon 18-200 was just the greatest until I got a 17-50 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 and the difference is amazing . Just a bit of maths , f 2.8 lets in 4 times as much light as f 5.6 . f1.8 lets in 10X as much light as f5.6 ! I have the 50mm f1.8 but wouldn't mind something a bit wider with that aperture for more versatility ....

ShannonHeat

Thanks all, I live in the middle of nowhere, in between cornfields...lol, so it's pretty difficult to run around the corner and grab a lens. I have another wedding this weekend, so I think a trip into Austin is much needed . You all seem pretty fond of the 50mm 1.8, so I think I'll go for that. I am working on a 70-200 f2.8L but no is. I should have the money for it sometime this week, hopefully (wish me luck).

photogmomma wrote:

I think you've gotten some great advice so I won't add....

But what I will add is that the lens that Lynne is talking about is less than $100 and is worth literally every penny. Until I upgraded it, it was truly my favorite lens - and one I recommend to everyone. You can get some amazing shallow DOF shots with very little light - and it is just so light and easy to use! Definitely check it out. (I think I got one for about $80, but it's been a while.)

Great job! Keep it up.... Can't wait to see more!

HiSPL

That 70-200 is almost a must have for weddings as well. It will floor you with it's quality!

You will be selling your kit lens as fast as possible once you go with an L!

I also have the 17-40 F4L and would recomend that one to anyone as well. It is cheap as far as L glass goes, and gives you about the same coverage as your kit lens with alot more quality and a constant f4.

Also Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina make some fine glass as well. They are also very affordable with their best zooms in the 300-400 dollar range.

Your profile says "Throndale" but I assume that's Thorndale, right? You are not too far away from me here in College Station. Have you looked into a photographers guild? We have a pretty big one here in the Brazos Valley and have monthly meetings with a seminar at each meeting. Last month Doug Box took everyone out to his studio in Caldwell and taught his outdoor portrait light techniques....

-=Tim=-

evoryware

I'd suggest you don't let a wedding be the first place you test the 50 1.8. Mine likes to hunt a tad and you may want to practice with it because of that and the fixed focal length. Also I suggest the lens hood. On a sunny day or near a bright window it may help so you don't end up with pictures like this:

1. w/o hood


2. w/

Scott_Quier

ShannonHeat wrote:

Thanks all, I live in the middle of nowhere, in between cornfields...lol, so it's pretty difficult to run around the corner and grab a lens. I have another wedding this weekend, so I think a trip into Austin is much needed . You all seem pretty fond of the 50mm 1.8, so I think I'll go for that. I am working on a 70-200 f2.8L but no is. I should have the money for it sometime this week, hopefully (wish me luck).

If I may suggest, I believe you will kick youself if you don't save just a little longer and get the 70-200 IS version. If you are doing this as a business, you might consider a little financial leveraging to get the lens now rather than later. The lens won't make the photograph, but it can make the photograph POSSIBLE. There are just some photographs that you will find difficult to get without the IS, unless you are mounting the camera/lens on a tripod.

The IS is a life saver when you are shooting in low light and your action isn't moving too much. IS doesn't stop action, but it does a good job of stopping camera motion from showing in the photo. They say you get 2 or 3 stops of advantage with the IS. Based on my experience, I believe it.

ShannonHeat

Thanks guys! I wish I had a few more pennies to rub together , but who doesn't. I guess I should make do with what I've got for now, and go from there. I feel like an artist who's run out of paint:cry . Anyway, I really do appreciate everyone's responses, thank you.

Scott_Quier wrote:

If I may suggest, I believe you will kick youself if you don't save just a little longer and get the 70-200 IS version. If you are doing this as a business, you might consider a little financial leveraging to get the lens now rather than later. The lens won't make the photograph, but it can make the photograph POSSIBLE. There are just some photographs that you will find difficult to get without the IS, unless you are mounting the camera/lens on a tripod.

The IS is a life saver when you are shooting in low light and your action isn't moving too much. IS doesn't stop action, but it does a good job of stopping camera motion from showing in the photo. They say you get 2 or 3 stops of advantage with the IS. Based on my experience, I believe it.

ShannonHeat

Hey! You're right, I am in Thorndale (guess I should have checked my spelling) I go through Caldwell quite often. Keep me posted.

HiSPL wrote:

That 70-200 is almost a must have for weddings as well. It will floor you with it's quality!

You will be selling your kit lens as fast as possible once you go with an L!

I also have the 17-40 F4L and would recomend that one to anyone as well. It is cheap as far as L glass goes, and gives you about the same coverage as your kit lens with alot more quality and a constant f4.

Also Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina make some fine glass as well. They are also very affordable with their best zooms in the 300-400 dollar range.

Your profile says "Throndale" but I assume that's Thorndale, right? You are not too far away from me here in College Station. Have you looked into a photographers guild? We have a pretty big one here in the Brazos Valley and have monthly meetings with a seminar at each meeting. Last month Doug Box took everyone out to his studio in Caldwell and taught his outdoor portrait light techniques....

-=Tim=-

Seneca

Yep that's the way a bride should be (wearing boots) to her wedding. I did! Hahaha! But then I'm a Texas gal!

ShannonHeat

Haha, I think it's great!

Seneca wrote:

Yep that's the way a bride should be (wearing boots) to her wedding. I did! Hahaha! But then I'm a Texas gal!

ShannonHeat

Another from the wedding...
I know it's "blown", but I think the look works well for this shot. It's a little mysterious. Am I nuts?

Rhuarc

I really like the look of the second blown one from behind. I think the first one would work also if only her cheek wasn't blown out. But kudos to you for going for some non-traditional type of shots!!

Nice work!

ShannonHeat

Thank you:D . I was thinking about trying to fix that 1st shot, but I do like the second as well. Good to know there are others who appreciate a different approach.

Rhuarc wrote:

I really like the look of the second blown one from behind. I think the first one would work also if only her cheek wasn't blown out. But kudos to you for going for some non-traditional type of shots!!

Nice work!

Scott_Quier

The blown cheek is worrisome, otherwise I really like the shots. I might suggest that you de-saturate the flowers in the first photo just a bit - they are very centered and detract attention from the primary focus of the photo, the bride.

Elaine

I really like your 2nd B&W!