Thirds Set from recent wedding

mjoshi123 · January 21, 2012

Okay here is third set from my recent wedding shoot - Thanks for your comments and critics on first 2 sets, this one was bit more tuff in edit due to all the lights during reception - specifically red lights caused lot more problems in clarity as well as during edits. Here is my attempt, please tell me what can be improved in edits and how - my primary editing tool is LR3 and I shoot in RAW.

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

I'm still editing thru Reception pictures so please feel free to provide any tips on editing that which could be helpful in my current edits.

Thanks

GoofBckt · January 22, 2012

I would just like to know what flash set-up you were using. I think these are fabulous.

mjoshi123 · January 23, 2012

GoofBckt wrote: »

I would just like to know what flash set-up you were using. I think these are fabulous.

Thanks for your comments - I was using 580EX II mounted on flash bracket and set in ETTL (newbie setting). Everything was shot using 60D + 40D combo & Sigma 30mm F1.4 + Sigma 17-50F2.8, I shot everything in Manual with shutter speed ranging from 100-160, ISO 1600-3200 & F3.2-f4.0, Looking back at some of pictures I think F2.8 would have done more justice on my Sigma30mm - probably next time.

ZBlack · January 24, 2012

All of them are fantastic. Number 1 and 9 are my fav's. The focusing and such on 9, was some of that done post? Either way, that's probably my favorite.

bobcool · January 24, 2012

Very nice candid reception shots! Number 9 is a nice shot, but I suggest you go back and re-edit it. I can tell you used blur to imitate bokeh in the background of the picture, because you missed some spots around the bride and elsewhere. Tighten that up and it will look more natural. 3 & 4 are my favorites! Number 6 not so much, as the focus is on the wine glass and not on the bride and groom's faces. It's very hard to keep the focus where you want it in event-style photography - just keep moving that focus point around and use the AF-ON button so the shutter doesn't re-focus when pressed.

BlueSkyPhotos · January 24, 2012

Very nice as others said. To me it seems like you applied bit too much noise reduction and many of them look too refined. I am guilty of doing the same thing at times though:) On many of them direction of the light could have been better, especially on #8. It seems like the light was coming from camera left and you needed more from the right. Matt described the technique of how to use the on camera flash with bounce on your other light related post.
Overall it's a good set that your client should be happy with.

mjoshi123 · January 24, 2012

ZBlack wrote: »

All of them are fantastic. Number 1 and 9 are my fav's. The focusing and such on 9, was some of that done post? Either way, that's probably my favorite.

Thanks for your comments, You are right #9 is my screwup and I'm retouching it. I over-did fake focusing and now when I see picture for more time I clearly see it lot more than when I was editing it. Thanks for pointing that one out.

mjoshi123 · January 24, 2012

BlueSkyPhotos wrote: »

Very nice as others said. To me it seems like you applied bit too much noise reduction and many of them look too refined. I am guilty of doing the same thing at times though:) On many of them direction of the light could have been better, especially on #8. It seems like the light was coming from camera left and you needed more from the right. Matt described the technique of how to use the on camera flash with bounce on your other light related post.
Overall it's a good set that your client should be happy with.

Thanks - yes I'm learning how to use camera flash, itching for Matt's feedback on this one

. You correctly pointed out overdoing of edits. Unfortunately when I was editing I didnot feel like that but now as I watch pictures for couple of days only thing I see is over-edit

. My friend was very happy with this shoot, this was my first wedding shoot (as primary or secondary whatever you call it

) and being a friends wedding it was lot more fun and relaxed.

mjoshi123 · January 24, 2012

bobcool wrote: »

Very nice candid reception shots! Number 9 is a nice shot, but I suggest you go back and re-edit it. I can tell you used blur to imitate bokeh in the background of the picture, because you missed some spots around the bride and elsewhere. Tighten that up and it will look more natural. 3 & 4 are my favorites! Number 6 not so much, as the focus is on the wine glass and not on the bride and groom's faces. It's very hard to keep the focus where you want it in event-style photography - just keep moving that focus point around and use the AF-ON button so the shutter doesn't re-focus when pressed.

Thanks bobcool for your comments, I'm rediting number 9 - wanted to get some separation between b&g and background and I liked their pose. Most of them were done in candid manner without asking anyone to pose for it. I'm still learning and feel candids offer me best chance to capture natural expressions so trying to play to my strength. Other thing is people are nervous when posed and that do reflect in pictures. Everything here was shot using my 60D + Sigma 30mm F1.4 & Sigma 17-50 F2.8. I think I should have gone down to F2.0 or F2.8 with my 30mm instead of sticking to F3.2-F4.0 range. Probably next time

.

mjoshi123 · January 24, 2012

okay based upon comments I was editing few more pictures (will be rediting #9 soon) and here are 2 that I converted to B&W as color version was over noisy being at ISO3200 and bit under exposed. What do you guys thing of this one ? There is no skin retouching done on this pictures. Only exposure adjustement in LR3, applied clarity on cloth at roughly 40 and pushed it to CS5, converted to b&W and applied USM and pushed it back to LR3 and exported. Do you guys think this is better edit compared to previous or it is bad ?

This second one was not worth in color as most of background was in heavy red light (which reflects on guys waiting in back)

mjoshi123 · January 24, 2012

okay as promised here is reworked version on #9
Please tell me if this looks better or I still need to tweak it more.
this is how orignial looks

this is how retweaked version looks

or B&W version ?

GoofBckt · January 24, 2012

Personally, I like the "untweaked" version the best.

mjoshi123 wrote: »

okay as promised here is reworked version on #9
Please tell me if this looks better or I still need to tweak it more.
this is how orignial looks

this is how retweaked version looks

or B&W version ?

babowc · January 25, 2012

On picture 9, you missed a few parts to blur the background behind the bride's head.\
I like the "re-tweaked" version better.. it's a bit confusing because the "re-tweaked" version seems to have the correct DoF.

Is the "re-tweaked" version just a tighter crop?

mjoshi123 · January 25, 2012

babowc wrote: »

On picture 9, you missed a few parts to blur the background behind the bride's head.\
I like the "re-tweaked" version better.. it's a bit confusing because the "re-tweaked" version seems to have the correct DoF.

Is the "re-tweaked" version just a tighter crop?

On retweaked version I took out the painting of background blur as well as noise reduction of 25 that I had in original version is reduced down to 10. There is person dancing behind bride whose head is coming out in wierd fashion and that becomes more prominent in retweaked version as the background blur is totally gone.

Quincy T · January 27, 2012

I'm no expert, but for a lot of these, I really do like the composition, but to me that much processing is moving barely outside of the edge of reality.

JAMoore · January 28, 2012

The shots have potential but you must back down on the editing. The over-smoothed skin, NR, and fake blurs are all completely unnecessary. Real waste of time IMO. Get it right in camera, and if that's not possible in low light situations like this, then you need to rethink your reception strategy with the equipment you have.

Matthew Saville · January 28, 2012

mjoshi123 wrote: »

On retweaked version I took out the painting of background blur as well as noise reduction of 25 that I had in original version is reduced down to 10. There is person dancing behind bride whose head is coming out in wierd fashion and that becomes more prominent in retweaked version as the background blur is totally gone.

Really, the best thing you can strive for to improve your options in this type of situation is, (and this RARELY happens!) ...get more equipment. Yes that's right, you're at the point where "it's the photographer, not the camera" has hit the edge of the envelope. At this point, your creative vision and technical skill could use a little something called f/1.4 on full-frame. In my humble opinion, that is. Maybe you already have that option available to you and you simply choose not to use it, but I would definitely go down that road. When you're having to fake-blur the background of images to add emphasis to your subjects, it's time to step things up in general.

But that's just me, someone who is deeply rooted in the philosophy that an image should be able to stand on it's own two feet with ZERO or at least minimal editing. Sure, advanced post-production techniques are amazing. However things like composition, and depth of field, are the foundation upon which a great image built. Advanced photoshop techniques should mostly be used to *add* to an image, not *fix* it.

BTW I say this as someone who makes the same mistakes all the time, and aspires to the same goals.

=Matt=

mjoshi123 · January 28, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Really, the best thing you can strive for to improve your options in this type of situation is, (and this RARELY happens!) ...get more equipment. Yes that's right, you're at the point where "it's the photographer, not the camera" has hit the edge of the envelope. At this point, your creative vision and technical skill could use a little something called f/1.4 on full-frame. In my humble opinion, that is. Maybe you already have that option available to you and you simply choose not to use it, but I would definitely go down that road. When you're having to fake-blur the background of images to add emphasis to your subjects, it's time to step things up in general.

But that's just me, someone who is deeply rooted in the philosophy that an image should be able to stand on it's own two feet with ZERO or at least minimal editing. Sure, advanced post-production techniques are amazing. However things like composition, and depth of field, are the foundation upon which a great image built. Advanced photoshop techniques should mostly be used to *add* to an image, not *fix* it.

BTW I say this as someone who makes the same mistakes all the time, and aspires to the same goals.

=Matt=

Thanks Matt, much appreciated. Unfortunately I'm at present using only 60D with Sigma 30mm F1.4 + Canon 85mm F1.8, And as I already mentioned earlier I did some foolishness by not opening up my aperture. But yes I'm learning where things are going wrong and hopefuly will be able to rectify in future shoots and edits. Thanks for your comments, always appreciated.

mjoshi123 · January 28, 2012

JAMoore wrote: »

The shots have potential but you must back down on the editing. The over-smoothed skin, NR, and fake blurs are all completely unnecessary. Real waste of time IMO. Get it right in camera, and if that's not possible in low light situations like this, then you need to rethink your reception strategy with the equipment you have.

Yes I've learnt that and doing it in my next edits. Thanks for your comments.

p27rpy · January 29, 2012

i think these shots COULD be nice, but your editing kills them for me. also, NO ONE should have to shoot at ISO 3200! you're asking for serious noise issues shooting up that high.

a few things i noticed:

your fake blurring and noise reduction is far overdone on nearly all of these photos. having an immediate cutoff from tack sharp to heavily blurred screams "bad photoshop" to me, and your masking on this effect is very sloppy. i don't see a reason for this effect to be applied at all...just let the lens do the work.

alot of these shots could be great on their own in my opinion, but are ruined by the processing. #7 stands out the most to me, with the overly smoothed skin and burned edges around the man, with some extending onto his tux.

i would recommend getting a speedlight so that you don't have to resort to such high ISO. and tone down your processing. you have talent, so let the photos speak for themselves!

mjoshi123 · January 29, 2012

p27rpy wrote: »

i think these shots COULD be nice, but your editing kills them for me. also, NO ONE should have to shoot at ISO 3200! you're asking for serious noise issues shooting up that high.

a few things i noticed:

your fake blurring and noise reduction is far overdone on nearly all of these photos. having an immediate cutoff from tack sharp to heavily blurred screams "bad photoshop" to me, and your masking on this effect is very sloppy. i don't see a reason for this effect to be applied at all...just let the lens do the work.

alot of these shots could be great on their own in my opinion, but are ruined by the processing. #7 stands out the most to me, with the overly smoothed skin and burned edges around the man, with some extending onto his tux.

i would recommend getting a speedlight so that you don't have to resort to such high ISO. and tone down your processing. you have talent, so let the photos speak for themselves!

Thanks for your comments, definitely learnt that from all feedback I've got so far.

Thirds Set from recent wedding

Comments