Some wedding pics
Discussion
Wasn't my gig this one, I was just an evening guest at a friend's wedding, but needless to say a load of camera gear found it's way into the boot of my car...checked with their tog (a mate) and the bride and got the ok for 5 mins of shots. It's funny she said "I don't really want any posed shots" I said "they won't be posed posed, just slightly posed".
1 Have now learnt the lens distortion filter in PS so this is gonna get sorted out. Funny how I've never yet needed it.
2 Similar shot but different pose
3 Not convinced about this one, fancied shooting through some foliage - does it work?
4 Ok, I confess, I really like this one
5 Erm, and this one
6 Some off camera flash for the first dance, quite pleased with the composition of the ceiling, floor, guests and B&G in these despite not being able to put my flashes where I wanted them due to the band being in the way.
7
1 Have now learnt the lens distortion filter in PS so this is gonna get sorted out. Funny how I've never yet needed it.
2 Similar shot but different pose
3 Not convinced about this one, fancied shooting through some foliage - does it work?
4 Ok, I confess, I really like this one
5 Erm, and this one
6 Some off camera flash for the first dance, quite pleased with the composition of the ceiling, floor, guests and B&G in these despite not being able to put my flashes where I wanted them due to the band being in the way.
7
bramley said:
4 Ok, I confess, I really like this one
The thing I don't like about this one is the "story" doesn't add up for me. It needs a building at the top of the steps/path, or the happy couple walking in the opposite direction...ETA: or possibly cropped so that the path disappears off the top of the image
ETAA: on the whole, great shots!
Edited by Stevenj214 on Friday 9th July 22:50
Edited by Stevenj214 on Friday 9th July 22:52
Simpo: thanks. All B&Ws in this set are done using a Jeff Ascough action in PS, called Jeff's Main Squeeze. It whizzes through some stuff then gives me an adjustable contrast layer where I just drag to the right to increase the opacity as required. I like quite high contrast stuff generally but this action does blow the highlights if you're not careful. I think it uses a gradient map but not sure.
ETA: the B&Ws all have a vignette, some subtle some less so.
Steven: thanks for commenting, very interesting point. A lot of B&G shots are posed, but like many togs I try and hide the fact they're posed. I see what you mean, but I'm not too bothered about it because it's still a nice image, however the idea of adding some realism to the shot is an interesting one and something I'll bear in mind for the future. It never really occurred to me that they had no need to walk down there thereby making the shot a bit more false.
Steve: Thanks - bloody musicians, no consideration eh?
I got away with it, but I'd have liked more light on the B&G rather than it all being behind them.
ETA: the B&Ws all have a vignette, some subtle some less so.
Steven: thanks for commenting, very interesting point. A lot of B&G shots are posed, but like many togs I try and hide the fact they're posed. I see what you mean, but I'm not too bothered about it because it's still a nice image, however the idea of adding some realism to the shot is an interesting one and something I'll bear in mind for the future. It never really occurred to me that they had no need to walk down there thereby making the shot a bit more false.
Steve: Thanks - bloody musicians, no consideration eh?
I got away with it, but I'd have liked more light on the B&G rather than it all being behind them. Edited by bramley on Friday 9th July 23:22
Edited by bramley on Friday 9th July 23:24
I like 1 and 2 subject to the treatment (or cropping) of the top horizontal. Your "slightly posed" approach works nicely IMO.
3 - Like the idea but I don't think it quite comes off as it is. Either needs more DoF to bring in the foreground or, just maybe, darken the foreground foliage a little to make it stronger as a frame. Not sure that would work though. It may work better un-web-crushed.
4 - as posted .... on my screen the darks are a little dark and the lights a little light. The steps and general background can't seem to make the images either formal or informal. Maybe a little judicious localised use of a perspective correction tool would fix things. Of course it may not be a problem other than when web posted. I do like the intention and the overall concept.
5 - on the screen I am viewing through the detail in the dress is lost in what seems to be over exposure but is probably just a tad soo much B&W contrast. It probably works well as a print. Nice moment.
6 + 7 - How many cameras were there it the room? You were lucky to avoid an incoming papparazzi flash - or did your lights simply overwhelm the others? A pleasant enough record of the moment as they stand but do they work better with the clutter at the sides cropped out? If so you get a 2 for the price of one benefit.
I'm glad you posted them - it reminds me how tricky it can be to shoot at weddings and why, for many years, I have avoided the (very) few requests I have had to do them even as a favour. I'll happily float around shooting a few candids in the background but the formal stuff ... no thanks.
That said I have met a few people who have, seemingly, developed quite busy second businesses as weekend wedding photographers generating some decent revenue. It seems to be one of the more bouyant areas of photography at the moment, though no doubt has its own economic pressures. I'm always impressed by people who take on the task!
ETA: Just seen your comments above - now understand the high contrast result. I see what you are aiming at - it just seems a little strong to me. Probably a personal preference thing.
3 - Like the idea but I don't think it quite comes off as it is. Either needs more DoF to bring in the foreground or, just maybe, darken the foreground foliage a little to make it stronger as a frame. Not sure that would work though. It may work better un-web-crushed.
4 - as posted .... on my screen the darks are a little dark and the lights a little light. The steps and general background can't seem to make the images either formal or informal. Maybe a little judicious localised use of a perspective correction tool would fix things. Of course it may not be a problem other than when web posted. I do like the intention and the overall concept.
5 - on the screen I am viewing through the detail in the dress is lost in what seems to be over exposure but is probably just a tad soo much B&W contrast. It probably works well as a print. Nice moment.
6 + 7 - How many cameras were there it the room? You were lucky to avoid an incoming papparazzi flash - or did your lights simply overwhelm the others? A pleasant enough record of the moment as they stand but do they work better with the clutter at the sides cropped out? If so you get a 2 for the price of one benefit.
I'm glad you posted them - it reminds me how tricky it can be to shoot at weddings and why, for many years, I have avoided the (very) few requests I have had to do them even as a favour. I'll happily float around shooting a few candids in the background but the formal stuff ... no thanks.
That said I have met a few people who have, seemingly, developed quite busy second businesses as weekend wedding photographers generating some decent revenue. It seems to be one of the more bouyant areas of photography at the moment, though no doubt has its own economic pressures. I'm always impressed by people who take on the task!
ETA: Just seen your comments above - now understand the high contrast result. I see what you are aiming at - it just seems a little strong to me. Probably a personal preference thing.
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 10th July 00:01
LongQ said:
I like 1 and 2 subject to the treatment (or cropping) of the top horizontal. Your "slightly posed" approach works nicely IMO.
3 - Like the idea but I don't think it quite comes off as it is. Either needs more DoF to bring in the foreground or, just maybe, darken the foreground foliage a little to make it stronger as a frame. Not sure that would work though. It may work better un-web-crushed.
4 - as posted .... on my screen the darks are a little dark and the lights a little light. The steps and general background can't seem to make the images either formal or informal. Maybe a little judicious localised use of a perspective correction tool would fix things. Of course it may not be a problem other than when web posted. I do like the intention and the overall concept.
5 - on the screen I am viewing through the detail in the dress is lost in what seems to be over exposure but is probably just a tad soo much B&W contrast. It probably works well as a print. Nice moment.
6 + 7 - How many cameras were there it the room? You were lucky to avoid an incoming papparazzi flash - or did your lights simply overwhelm the others? A pleasant enough record of the moment as they stand but do they work better with the clutter at the sides cropped out? If so you get a 2 for the price of one benefit.
I'm glad you posted them - it reminds me how tricky it can be to shoot at weddings and why, for many years, I have avoided the (very) few requests I have had to do them even as a favour. I'll happily float around shooting a few candids in the background but the formal stuff ... no thanks.
That said I have met a few people who have, seemingly, developed quite busy second businesses as weekend wedding photographers generating some decent revenue. It seems to be one of the more bouyant areas of photography at the moment, though no doubt has its own economic pressures. I'm always impressed by people who take on the task!
ETA: Just seen your comments above - now understand the high contrast result. I see what you are aiming at - it just seems a little strong to me. Probably a personal preference thing.
Thanks LongQ.3 - Like the idea but I don't think it quite comes off as it is. Either needs more DoF to bring in the foreground or, just maybe, darken the foreground foliage a little to make it stronger as a frame. Not sure that would work though. It may work better un-web-crushed.
4 - as posted .... on my screen the darks are a little dark and the lights a little light. The steps and general background can't seem to make the images either formal or informal. Maybe a little judicious localised use of a perspective correction tool would fix things. Of course it may not be a problem other than when web posted. I do like the intention and the overall concept.
5 - on the screen I am viewing through the detail in the dress is lost in what seems to be over exposure but is probably just a tad soo much B&W contrast. It probably works well as a print. Nice moment.
6 + 7 - How many cameras were there it the room? You were lucky to avoid an incoming papparazzi flash - or did your lights simply overwhelm the others? A pleasant enough record of the moment as they stand but do they work better with the clutter at the sides cropped out? If so you get a 2 for the price of one benefit.
I'm glad you posted them - it reminds me how tricky it can be to shoot at weddings and why, for many years, I have avoided the (very) few requests I have had to do them even as a favour. I'll happily float around shooting a few candids in the background but the formal stuff ... no thanks.
That said I have met a few people who have, seemingly, developed quite busy second businesses as weekend wedding photographers generating some decent revenue. It seems to be one of the more bouyant areas of photography at the moment, though no doubt has its own economic pressures. I'm always impressed by people who take on the task!
ETA: Just seen your comments above - now understand the high contrast result. I see what you are aiming at - it just seems a little strong to me. Probably a personal preference thing.
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 10th July 00:01
Agree with most of your points. If I was doing an album for the B&G I would probably crop the dancefloor shot square, losing the speakers on the RHS like you say.
bramley said:
Thanks LongQ.
Agree with most of your points. If I was doing an album for the B&G I would probably crop the dancefloor shot square, losing the speakers on the RHS like you say.
I was thinking also of losing the papparrazzi on the RHS and the 'wallflowers' on the LHS though there is a good case to be made for considering both cropped and uncropped versions of the shot as being valid as part of the record of the day! Agree with most of your points. If I was doing an album for the B&G I would probably crop the dancefloor shot square, losing the speakers on the RHS like you say.
Hmm. 2 images for the price of 1 ....
To be honest I always think that 'first dance' images are somewhat contrived but these work much better, in any form, than many I have seen.
Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 14th July 01:40
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff