Thin groom, large bride pix

[ironsickel]

C&C please. Very limited time for pictures due to circumstances beyond my control. This was my first experience photographing a bride and groom that were such contrasting body types. He's roughly 5'10" 150lbs and I won't even venture a guess about the bride.

First pic is a badly composed shot that I'm only including for reference.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/bridegroombad.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/bridalparty.jpg

[ironsickel]

And a couple more.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/bridegroom2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/bridegroom1.jpg

[ironsickel]

Last ones. I havn't done any touching up or cropping.
Seeking comments on my posing and overall composition. I did my best to photograph the bride in the most flattering manner as possible.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/bride.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/bride3.jpg

[Maureen Souza]

Is this the same couple that showed up late and the organist threw a hissy fit in the church?

[ironsickel]

Is this the same couple that showed up late and the organist threw a hissy fit in the church?

Yes. In the last pic of the bride and her flowers, you can see the tiny bit of shadow of the organist on the stage (far right side of image). Easy to crop out though.

[ironsickel]

Here's a few more of the whole affair. As always, would love critiques and comments.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/wedding008.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/wedding007.jpg




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/wedding006.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/wedding004.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/wedding005.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/wedding003.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/wedding002.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/wedding001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/rings.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/flowergirl.jpg

[mizuno]

Could you give us a rundown on the equipment you used on this gig?

[ironsickel]

Could you give us a rundown on the equipment you used on this gig?

Heh. Depends on what you think of the pix. ;)

Canon Digital rebel 350D. 430ex flash and a couple of slave flashes.
Canon EF 27-135mm IS 72mm lens.

And more filters than I care to count.

[tim]

Given what you had to work with I think the results are acceptable. Beware of color temp.

[PhotoJourno]

Nice job. In some of these photos, I would have diminished the FOV, emphazising the subject/s on the photograph. This is a real wedding, not much like the 8 million dollar Hawaii State, where anyone can make Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts portraits with a disposable camera. I say good job, upgrade your equipment, and post some more wide angle shots.

[ironsickel]

Given what you had to work with I think the results are acceptable. Beware of color temp.

Hey Tim, could you elaborate?

Not a fan of the rebel? And what specifically based on these few samples should I beware of in regard to color temp. I'm still pretty green and have already had to be broken of many bad habits. Thankfully a close relative has been a wedding photographer for 20+ years and has been working with me when time permits...but i'm interested in your expanded comments.

Thanks.

[daclozer]

all of the indoor shots look a little underexposed on my monitor, also a few of them are very soft on the focus. The composition seems fine, considering what you were working with.

[tim]

I'm not talking about equipment, more the people and the location. The photos are fine, but without the co-operation of the couple and attractive people photos often look average. Different lighting may have helped, but honestly this wedding is one that would've been challenging for anyone to shoot.

[PIXI_666]

Iron i think Tim means that what you had to work with (Lighting, Size differences, IRATE organiser?) not the fact that you had a Rebel XT, equipment is an essential part of being a wedding photographer, and it's BEST to have very good equipment, but it's the photographer who knows everything they need to know at the end of the day that makes a great photo - equipment helps immensley but if you know what your doing that is always the first thing that people look at.
Your white ballance is fairly off, again this is what Tim meant, the shots are quite orange inside, if you shoot RAW you can fix these quite easily.
They are a bit out of focus in a few shots too, what settings where you using? For me i would have used an high ISO (1600 in this case - 3200) tripod could have been handy too with slightly longer exposures to get more light in? Bouncing and direct flash could have worked with number 2.
I am sure you did your best to produce some nice shots, and they have worked in some cases, i am sure it was hard to have a very tall slim man and a large short lady to photograph, so given those circumstances you did your best :)

Del

[deadpass]

wow man, I think you made the best of a difficult situation. I'm with daclozer, the indoor pics look underexposed. The saying "you can't polish a turd" comes to mind.

[mizuno]

The saying "you can't polish a turd" comes to mind.

That's a bit harsh, mate.

Just because someone isn't born with model looks doesn't mean they are comparable to feces. :rolleyes:

[PIXI_666]

i was thinking the same thing, in the wedding industry if comments like that get out, you'll spend years and years regretting it! Word of mouth is out best advertiser...

[daclozer]

I don't think he was talking about the people in the photo (but I could be wrong). I hope he was just referring to the situation as a whole. If he was talking about the couple, then he really needs to be careful, as said before not everybody is beautiful. I think it is harder to photograph a couple that is not so attractive though..

[ironsickel]

Thanks all for the critiques. And Tim, thank you for clarifiying. Your original post came immediately after I listed my equipment so I got confused.:rolleyes:

Del, thanks for the opinion. As I said in one of my first posts, I havn't done any touch ups so the color balance can be fixed. I did shoot RAW--learned that lesson the hard way in an earlier wedding. I did shoot the majority indoor shots on ISO 1600, but I played with lots of settings throughout. I shot primarily on aperature priority and shutter priority, but the lighting was difficult.

But my biggest challenge was dealing with all the curve balls of the day, and trying to take 2 hours of formals in 15 minutes (read my post from yesterday for the full details). It also didn't help that there was no wedding rehearsal, so not even the bridal party knew what was going on.

I'll look into the underexposure issue. They don't seem underexposed to my eyes, but thanks for point it out. As for the soft focus, I was using a few filters here and there...maybe that's what you guys are seeing? The bride had a few...complexion issues and I was trying to mask some of that and the filter got used for a few other shots too.

Somebody asked for a few more pics. Here's one more. Feel free to C&C.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/bridalparty2.jpg

Again, thanks all.

[taygull]

This would be a good example to learn to shoot in RAW it is just way to easy to take a bad situation and make it work out. They all seem to be off on the white balance and to be a bit flat...you might downloade the "highpass sharpening" action, I think it would help as well (I can't remember where I got it).

[HrcRacing]

I'm not talking about equipment, more the people and the location. The photos are fine, but without the co-operation of the couple and attractive people photos often look average. Different lighting may have helped, but honestly this wedding is one that would've been challenging for anyone to shoot.

I couldn't agree more. The turd polishing comment was a bit over the top but, really, you didn't have much to work with here. You have a guy missing a tooth dancing with another guy, grandma with a huge growth on the side of her head and a bride that is three times the size of the groom. :shock:
What makes this situation even worse, IMO, is that some of the bridesmaids are quite attractive. All in all, I think you did a good job sans the underdeveloped shots and some lack of sharpness.

PS: I'm not being rude above, just realistic. The phrase "It is, what it is" comes to mind.

[daclozer]

I agree about the bridesmaids, the black girl is absolutely gorgeous !!

[ironsickel]

I agree about the bridesmaids, the black girl is absolutely gorgeous !!

Yes, the Indian matron of honor was stunning, as were several others. And even the other guys in the party, for the most part, were very attractive. With that in mind, (and with all the other crud going on throughout the day...hellish wedding day all around) I took as many pix of the full wedding party I could and got plenty of coverage on the B&G, but in the back of my mind I was thinking "portfolio, portfolio, portfolio" so I made sure to get plenty of great closeups of the "beautiful people" as well.

There were two matrons of honor (both wearing creme colored dresses) and both had wonderful faces. One of the MOH's had a boyfriend who has done some model work, so I did a quickie sequence of them outside the reception hall that turned out pretty good as well, but I was hesitant to spend too much time away from the B&G and the events of the day.

[MariaG]

You had a difficult situation here...that being said...I think they turned out favorably. Some things to consider...in my opinion when you have a "larger" subject always turn on at least 45 degree angles...softens the width and try to keep larger subjects closer to the back(what is closest to the camera looks the largest)...I know this is basic so sorry if it was no help. Look forward to see more pics of B&G of similar sizes in the future.