What should I have done?

[CateUK]

Ok this is not a great picture, made worst by the vast grey sky.

What could I have done / should I do in the future? I find formals hard, this couple didn't want them, but all of them look 'dull'. BTW There wasn't anywhere else to photograph them as the backgrounds were very busy.

It just seems very flat, grey and dull. Any tips for the future?

Settings 400, 1/160 F/18 (AV Mode)

[SuzyView]

What wide angle lens did you use?

[CateUK]

It was 18 - 55 lens at 39mm

[Banbert]

I am newbie, but personally I would crop it tightly and remove the green tree growing out of the brides head .... not the best positioning the world eh ? but then I can laugh because thats the sort of thing I do too :)

[Gerry@Rick]

1st. If they didn't want them why did you take them if you knew they werent going to be good?:confused:

2nd. There's too much background so that if it's bad there's more of it to emphasise that it's bad. Get much closer on a tighter lens to reduce the negative impact of the background.

3rd. Get a warm coloured reflector to make them look better.

4th. Recce the place beforehand and find alternative uncluttered backgrounds.

5th. Move indoors with lighting.

6th. If all else fails set up a studio backdrop kind of situation.

[SuzyView]

That answered my question. The kit lens doesn't give sharp colors. Okay, don't anyone argue with me, I have the kit lens and the 17-40L. Maybe if you had a polarizer on the lens it would have been better. Some lenses are not great for color and contrast. Also, get closer to the subjects for wedding group shots. If the surroundings are interesting and have a lot of character then you can move away. When I look at that picture I focus on the surroundings more than the group. Crop it, saturate it, give it more USM about 120% .3 radius. See if that will sharpen it out. Did you shoot in RAW? If you have PS, give them more red, or take away blue. That will give them a tan.

[CateUK]

Thank you for the quick replys. I chose a particularly bad one - I know this isn't a good photo and not one to show the couple but thought to give the most info of the location etc would get best responses:)

1st. If they didn't want them why did you take them if you knew they werent going to be good?:confused:
What I meant was the B&G didn't want them but their parents did so they agreed to a few to appease the parents, they said no to pix in the car or kissing they only wanted natural shots. For example when grouping the B&G with one set of parents I wanted to swap the mum and dad over but they said 'No this is fine' so the line up is dad, G,B, mum - it just doesn't look right!

That answered my question. The kit lens doesn't give sharp colors. Okay, don't anyone argue with me, I have the kit lens and the 17-40L. Maybe if you had a polarizer on the lens it would have been better. Some lenses are not great for color and contrast. Also, get closer to the subjects for wedding group shots. If the surroundings are interesting and have a lot of character then you can move away. When I look at that picture I focus on the surroundings more than the group. Crop it, saturate it, give it more USM about 120% .3 radius. See if that will sharpen it out. Did you shoot in RAW? If you have PS, give them more red, or take away blue. That will give them a tan. Thank you Suzy for the advice I will try the fixes. I had a feeling it might also have something to do with the lens - I'm saving for the 17-55! Oh and yes I shot RAW

[picturecrazy]

What I like to do when light is very flat is add my own light to bring out shape and volume. This is why I always carry a slave flash with me. On camera flash makes the dull even duller... Having any kind of directional light will really help.

scanning through my current online pics.. I have these which may illustrate...
This was the lighting... sun behind clouds... very flat and dull:
http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/mattdana/engage/img_1194.jpg

Here is the same people, same lighting conditions, taken 20 minutes later, but with a slave flash. It just adds so much more...
http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/mattdana/engage/img_1283.jpg


That is one solution of many possible.

As for dealing with the pictures you already have....
hmmm... I would be inclined to do a lot of BW conversions using the red channel. At least with the red filter, you will get a different tonal look than a normal, flat picture. This is your pic, BW converted using red channel, add a touch of glow, and add a tinting layer to make it look old or antique. I've attached an attempt to 'bring some depth' to a flat image... don't know if it quite works or not... I'd maybe even add a vignette around the edges to take it a step further.

No they won't be in colour, but you can give them both versions and let them choose which ones they like.... and explain to them how flat the ambient lighting was.

[Permagrin]

I just played with it a bit...tried to crop out the back ground, soften what I couldn't crop and used a pro-contrast filter.

edit: And this is just to attempt to quick fix it....I know the faces are soft...if it was mine, I'd clone out the tree and the light pole. As for when you are actually shooting, even in a boring backdrop, try to get close up (to cut out most of it), perhaps use a ND grad filter or a CP to bring some color into the sky. Shoot in RAW so that you might be able to bring out some color in PP. And of course, post processing using various effect filters, if nothing else works.

[SuzyView]

Yes, it would be difficult to zoom that much in and clone out, but may be worth it.

[tim]

Thoughts:
- If there's any texture to the clouds expose for the background and use fill flash. Make sure the flash is powerful enough, stay below 1/250th if you can so the flash sync speed isn't an issue. Off camera flash is great if you can manage it.
- Stay square on with your background, and beware of things growing out of/near heads.
- Place hands to minimise their size. ie may side on, just not full on to the camera.

[tonycortes]

if you go with color, use the first image attached. It has the tree and pole gone, bit more red, some contrast, edge burn, and cropped. The sky still looks horrible but eh.

[tonycortes]

or this

[Saralonde]

Very nice job, Tony.

[Toogy]

Also curious why you shot this at F18? I would have kept it to F5.6 or 6.3 at the max. Not only will everything in the background be in focus at F18 (not something I would want), but you also have to worry about lens refraction problems being that closed down.

[tonycortes]

Very nice job, Tony. thanks

[kona77]

Hows this?

[tonycortes]

nice touch on adding the blue, I tried the same thing, but it doesnt look natural. maybe it should be at a lighter degree. great touch. KONA77

[kona77]

Thanks, I had to tweek it a bit. But it would not look good unless you had removed the tree and pole.:)

[CateUK]

Thank you Tony and Kona I like your conversions!

Thanks everyone, lots of great ideas and advice, I can only do better next time.

[tim]

Kona, nice work but a bit fake looking. Tone it down a bit and it'll be great :)

[newgenphoto]

Also curious why you shot this at F18?

Thats the very first thing I thought to myself too.

[agosling]

Given what you had to work with, I would have gone to 55mm got in alot closer and taken the ISO down to 100 and gone below F8. I would probably have tried underexposing the background just a little and using a bit of fill flash to fill in the faces.

[woffles]

Looks like Tony and I think along similar lines. I tend to like a classy look.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b194/woffles/317_IMG.jpg

[Gerry@Rick]

I find formals hard

1. Take comfort from the fact that if you look at all the variations other members have shown here emphasise that this grouping is not so bad as you think and there are remedies. You are, like most of us, your own worst critic but you'll learn from what you regard as your failures. Were the parents satisfied?

2. To help with the formals take out a subscription to one of the 'Society Magazines' look at those groupings and backgrounds. Look at famous paintings, particularly the Impressionists. Carry them in your minds eye and adapt them to your situation.

3. I can't empahsise enough the value of a supportive assistant that you can trust. Someone not afraid to point out potential problems to you (quietly) or who even removes them before they arise. Someone who will help adjust the brides gown, control the people that you don't want in the picture or distracting the people that you're photographing. Someone who organises the people ready for the next goup. Someone who understands the stress you are under and does their best to lighten it. I could go on. It helps if you marry them.:D

[Claire]

My version.

[bpuppy]

Open up your aperture ... I would've used f/4 here to try to blur the background. That's the most important thing to me ... blurred backgrounds. That would have made this a nice shot.

Here's my take PP wise. Some Velvia Vision, some vignetting added, and a Warming filter with the sky 'gradient masked' in.

[tim]

F4 wouldn't be much DOF for a group photo in two rows.

[D.E.P]

or change the background, to make it looks like spring to bring more colours to the image. :D
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k64/dep_pro/spring.jpg

[kona77]

Kona, nice work but a bit fake looking. Tone it down a bit and it'll be great :) Yes, you are correct. Thanks for your input.:)

[Stan43]

I would crop more tightly, remove the tree( as someone has done very well), and added a graduated blu filter from FX.