Wedding feedback

[stigmundfreud]

Couple of weeks ago I did my first real attempt at some wedding photography. Having previously said I wouldnt we myself out to do them as it is a real art that I believe takes some bloody good skills I didnt want to be another one of those blokes that just picks up a camera and trundles off into the big bad world taking buiness from established good togs.

But I'm a we and money called, its also a friend of a friend and needed someone short notice. I did shoot one a few years back and vowed never again, that was for a friend too. But you know how it is £££ talk so I did the wedding blind. No research, no swpp browsing just turned up and shot off in a reportage style.

What I am after is some genuine criticism to see how/what I could do better and to also ask if it had been your wedding would you have been happy. You see I have a few more coming up, I am doing the research for them but if I am already on a good line I'll follow that.

The original plan for this wedding was for the Spitfire to be on the lawn outside the hotel but due to rain the day before that wasnt possible so ended up down the bottom of the car park. What is hard is the fact that unlike portraits where you can control light here its vastly changing constantly changing light which is part of the skill those established wedding photographers obviously have. Moreso the problem for me is the self critical stuff and forgetting that this isnt a dedicated look its the best you can achieve in a small time so shots I'd normally throw now have to be kept.

To compound things for you guys that may take the critique challenge the shoot is only available in a video of about 8 minutes in length so I thank you now if you do take the time. Ignore the music taste thats objective, I'm after the shot and style critque. It started off following the bride getting ready for the day, alas the groom was 10 miles away so single man = hard to cover both so I only got him during his hangover recovery...

The video is here http://www.clicketyclicks.co.uk/?p=gallery#/conten... (if that dont work just do www.clicketyclicks.co.uk the click videos/wedding). Its only in 320x240 to try and keep the file size as low as possible....

thanks in advance

[stigmundfreud]

the aim was to follow the day up until the end of ceremony hopefully its documented in such a way

[andy-xr]

You lost me at Florence, GnR abomination was bad enough

Liked the style of them, seeing as I'm no wedding photographer either I thought I'd point out that the res on the video and the size of it on screen was a bit low. Appreciate if it's to help retain IP, and it gives you enough of an idea of whats going on

There's a few places where colours jar in the ceremony build up - have you wiped them with a LR template? Or changing colours fooled Auto? I'll go look at the rest when I work out how to turn my speakers off

[stigmundfreud]

florence rocks!

Dont have light room or any such tools as ever when you have 3 light sources, tungsten, flourescent and sun it can get a bit weird. I might get light room if it makes life easier but I've stood by the canon tools for years now! One thing I always do is aim for a warmer light source which can some times go too far to the high k range

[Muska]

I started watching the video, but I paused it to reply to another thread and when I came back clicked on the screen to resume and it started again, I couldn't see a way to get back to the half way point again...

I know you asked about the photography, but I feel it's worth mentioning that personally I don't feel the slideshow progresses fast enough. By half way it was just coming to the ceremony, you've used alot of similar shots and I think you could reduce this. And correct me if i'm wrong but I saw no detail shots, shoes, jewellery, dress... things from my experience I think the bride may look for (perhaps you didn't use them for the slideshow) I'm guilty of making long slideshows (13mins for one!) but it's my aim this year to make them more concise as I think the story moves forward better then.

I'll continue and come back with more.

ps, lightroom rocks.

Edited by Muska on Saturday 10th April 11:13

[stigmundfreud]

thanks! Appreciate it moves slowly and used a lot of similar shots I'll whittle them down for a final cut and speed the process up a bit. It was just a case of drop the lot into movie maker and let it do its work so on the video length I undersand what you mean.

[Simpo Two]

I'm off in a bit to do, well a wedding! - but I'd rather see stills that I can see and appraise immediately rather than have to watch 8 minutes of 2D DVEs that I can't judge objectively. Assuming you started off with a quantity of decent still images, you seem to have spent much extra time mashing them into a video! I turned the sound off and got bored halfway through the opening shot of some bottles... Just the stills please

Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 10th April 11:17

[stigmundfreud]

I'll dip into my deep pockets for light room too but for the detail shots you are right we never really did them. They like the shots which is what ultimately counts - I'll go back to that video and shorten it.... a lot! Originally they did not want the traditional group shots but ended up on the day going for it. Time was really tight too, bride was 20 to 30 minutes late for ceremony which meant I had about 10 minutes for the group stuff then a few minutes for cake, few minutes for individual shots of the two. What should have been 1.5 hours was condensed into about 30 minutes

[stigmundfreud]

Simpo Two said:

I'm off in a bit to do, well a wedding! - but I'd rather see stills that I can see and appraise immediately rather than have to watch 8 minutes of 2D DVEs that I can't judge objectively. Assuming you started off with a quantity of decent still images, you seem to have spent much extra time mashing them into a video! Just the stills please

will do simpo, the video actually is just drag drop click auto et voila so 2 minutes of uncreative editing

[Simpo Two]

stigmundfreud said:

They like the shots which is what ultimately counts

Yes indeed, it is!

stigmundfreud said:

Originally they did not want the traditional group shots but ended up on the day going for it.

They do that...

[stigmundfreud]

Simpo Two said:

stigmundfreud said:

They like the shots which is what ultimately counts

Yes indeed, it is!

and its that that is hard to comprehend. Portraits I release the shots only if happy with them - I came away from the day really depressed with the work I had done and spent a few good days nervously waiting for them to come back from their honeymoon worrying they hated them.

Its a totally different mindset to be in and with such short time constraits too. The next one should be stretched out a lot longer in a very nice location but if it rains.....

[LongQ]

stigmundfreud said:

I'll dip into my deep pockets for light room too but for the detail shots you are right we never really did them. They like the shots which is what ultimately counts - I'll go back to that video and shorten it.... a lot! Originally they did not want the traditional group shots but ended up on the day going for it. Time was really tight too, bride was 20 to 30 minutes late for ceremony which meant I had about 10 minutes for the group stuff then a few minutes for cake, few minutes for individual shots of the two. What should have been 1.5 hours was condensed into about 30 minutes

For much the same reasons as you I don't have any inclinations to do weddings. However you mentioned different light sources and the problems of getting a colour balance. Assuming you don't have to battle the nightmare that is Mercury Vapour lighting (but, then again, even if you do ....) one of the best approaches I know about is a product called LightZone which allows you to very easily make changes to the white balance of selected areas of the image, RAW, TIFF, DNG or jpg.

It's quite intuitive software but with a lot of depth to it if required. 30 day fully functioning free trial available. It countinues to work after the 30 days as well if you have not been convinced but are still testing - just puts a grid on the image until the product is licenced. It may not be the product for you but it's worth a look at $99 for a licence to use on two machines. It can also be used as a plugin for Adobe products when using TIFF, DNG or JPG files.

Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with the developers other than being a great fan of the product.

[Simpo Two]

Right, just back from a four-venue wedding in Norwich. Couldn't work out why my ambient light efforts in a darkish basement were giving me exposures so long I had to turn the camera off midway - until I realised I'd left the EV on +5 from some earlier fill-flash work, doh. (There is always an answer, you just have to figure it out...)

stigmundfreud said:

and its that that is hard to comprehend. Portraits I release the shots only if happy with them - I came away from the day really depressed with the work I had done and spent a few good days nervously waiting for them to come back from their honeymoon worrying they hated them.

If your standards are higher than your clients' then you've got things the right way round

[stigmundfreud]

+5 EV?!? what are you shooting on, bloody canon better pull the stops out on the next releases as 2ev is really restrictive (yes I know can do it manually but still...)

[Simpo Two]

stigmundfreud said:

+5 EV?!? what are you shooting on, bloody canon better pull the stops out on the next releases as 2ev is really restrictive (yes I know can do it manually but still...)

D200. I was in a rather darkish basement (first dance) so if I left the settings at default I got blitzed foreground subjects and a black b/g. Too dark for ambient. Dialling the flash down to -3 and camera up to +5 eventually gave a result that worked... As you found, it is very different from a studio!

ETA: As for the various light sources, I quite like the contrast (usually daylight vs tungsten) but much of this is countered by fill/bounce-flash. If I had a shot that really bothered me, I'd make multiple versions at different colour temps and blend in PS.

Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 11th April 00:04

[Mobile Chicane]

Not wanting to piss on your chips, however I'd say that your rapport with / direction of subjects needs a lot more work.

What bride wants to be caught at an angle 'with chins'? Professional models know how to pose and stand, the rest of us don't.

I hated my wedding photographs since I'm round-shouldered in most of them: bad habits creep in from slouching in front of a PC all day. A good wedding photographer (imho) should correct poor posture and choose the most flattering angles.

[Penny-lope]

Right I know nothing on this subject, plus I've never been married so haven't had to go through the whole 'smile for the birdie'

In some ways MC is right, a bride wants to remember herself as a 'princess'....but in most of those photos she just looks damn happy...and so what if she's got a double chin here and there

I really love the outdoor pics next to the plane....the light is great.

My friend choose this style of photography for her wedding day, and it has to be said what he produced was fantastic....and like yours 'natural'

(btw is it bad, or just plain sad that I was wet eyed after the first min or so?

bugger thought I'd found their wedding pics to show you, but sadly not

Edited by Penny-lope on Sunday 11th April 00:33

[Simpo Two]

Mobile Chicane said:

Not wanting to piss on your chips, however I'd say that your rapport with / direction of subjects needs a lot more work.... Professional models know how to pose and stand, the rest of us don't... A good wedding photographer (imho) should correct poor posture and choose the most flattering angles.

I'd agree with flattering angles, but (and this is nothing to do with the OP) many couples want to have a relaxed day and not be told to pose and smile. They want a tog who will be blend in and be invisible on the day, not poke them with a stick. They know they are not professional models and don't wish to pretend that they are. It's a wedding, a party, a day of fun with friends, not a photoshoot. The last couple also said 'no black and white, and don't tip it on an angle' (a good way to cover up a shot that's technically wrong). I guess there's a market for both, but reportage is very popular - albeit not your thing.

Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 11th April 09:09

[stigmundfreud]

Mobile Chicane said:

Not wanting to piss on your chips, however I'd say that your rapport with / direction of subjects needs a lot more work.

What bride wants to be caught at an angle 'with chins'? Professional models know how to pose and stand, the rest of us don't.

I hated my wedding photographs since I'm round-shouldered in most of them: bad habits creep in from slouching in front of a PC all day. A good wedding photographer (imho) should correct poor posture and choose the most flattering angles.

I'm more than aware of what angles work and dont work but for chins you cant magic them away. I could spend all day taking tow down shots but they wanted a documentary of the day which is what they got. Yes I know some angles aer not the most flattering but then I could spend a few hours in photoshop and edit them away which again would defeat the object. The brides very happy with the shots and as Simpo will say when it comes to weddings it is very different than studio. In studio or on location portraits I'd use short light, top down angle of view the works to get the most flattering of angles so in this case whilst I appreciate what you are saying I dont follow the argument in this case. If in every shot I was to tell them, sit up, head back etc it would not have been natural

[stigmundfreud]

Simpo Two said:

Mobile Chicane said:

Not wanting to piss on your chips, however I'd say that your rapport with / direction of subjects needs a lot more work.... Professional models know how to pose and stand, the rest of us don't... A good wedding photographer (imho) should correct poor posture and choose the most flattering angles.

I'd agree with flattering angles, but (and this is nothing to do with the OP) many couples want to have a relaxed day and not be told to pose and smile. They want a tog who will be blend in and be invisible on the day, not poke them with a stick. They know they are not professional models and don't wish to pretend that they are. It's a wedding, a party, a day of fun with friends, not a photoshoot. The last couple also said 'no black and white, and don't tip it on an angle' (a good way to cover up a shot that's technically wrong). I guess there's a market for both, but reportage is very popular - albeit not your thing.

Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 11th April 09:09

exactly!