meg & sam, first digital wedding

[julierenee]

hi everyone,

i'm very new at this. hoping to get some feedback from you guys...I did my 3rd wedding (first w/ digital) a couple of weeks ago with my new 40D. I did a few VERY quick changes in iPhoto to about 20 jpegs to post on smugmug....

http://jewelpix.smugmug.com/

Maybe I can get some feedback on Meg & Sam's wedding, good or bad:) I am still learning the new software (DPP and PS), so i have yet to do anything with my RAW files. It is super time consuming when you are a beginner! I am just giving the couple a disk w/ the photos, but i would like all of them to be edited properly, as I could use a good reference.

I will post pics in the thread as soon as i start the PP.

thanks again for any help!

[Vetteography]

The pics where you were not fighting with the sun light turned out great!

Unfortunately, some of those outdoor ones appear to be suffering from blown highlights.

Having said that, I have to say that I have NEVER done a wedding so take that with a grain of salt or three.

[eddarr]

I think they all turned out well. The vignetting is much to strong though for my taste.

[SuzyView]

I agree with the above, the vignetting is too strong, only use if it flatters and focuses on the subjects. Less is more, as I've seen in many books out there on wedding photography. But there are some pictures that are under and some over exposed. In PP, look at the histograms for what will print well. But you've got some great shots there, keep working!

[julierenee]

I think they all turned out well. The vignetting is much to strong though for my taste.

oh, i totally agree....but iPhoto doesn't allow you to soften the vignetting. when i do the "real" editing, it will definitely not be so harsh.

[LuckyStar08]

Very nice.

[julierenee]

thanks!

I've been working on the underexposed pics in DPP, and I am thinking I can fix the blown highlights after i get them into photoshop (still in the RAW stage right now).

[howzitboy]

nice, pretty shots but the soft edges filter is used way too many times. just once or hmm once is good enough. u did great job! guess digital likes u!

[collierportraits]

Um, good luck with "fixing" blown highlights. Digital is exactly the opposite of film. If you blow out the highlights or OVERexpose, it's gone and you really can't retrieve much of it. Unlike film, where if you UNDERexpose it, it was gone. I've had digital shots where the flash didn't fire, maybe 3-4 stops underexposed and was able to bring it back. Of course, not great, but certainly very usable. In fact, I have my camera set to purposely underexpose slightly, just as I used to purposely overexpose slightly when using film. (Maybe 1/2 stop or so...) This gives you some 'insurance' room on your exposures.

As to iPhoto, I have it and it's a really cool program for your family shots, but not something I would use for your wedding images. If you don't want to spring for the full version of Photoshop, try Photoshop Elements ($80ish), it's really good and has most of what you'd use anyway. I think the newer versions of Elements also allow batch processing which is hugely helpful on a wedding. And, yes, you can soften and control the amount of vignetting. Hope this helps.

[victorov90]

You need some more PP on these pictures, just to bring back life to them. Most of them look flat for lack of contrast. Make those colors POP, just try to add a little more contrast and see how it changes the picture. Also blurred frame looks kind of dated to me and as has been said above, too much vignetting. All these problems are very easy to fix though, so don't let my words to put you down, just trying to be helpful!;) Great pictures over all!

[julierenee]

Um, good luck with "fixing" blown highlights. Digital is exactly the opposite of film. If you blow out the highlights or OVERexpose, it's gone and you really can't retrieve much of it. Unlike film, where if you UNDERexpose it, it was gone. I've had digital shots where the flash didn't fire, maybe 3-4 stops underexposed and was able to bring it back. Of course, not great, but certainly very usable. In fact, I have my camera set to purposely underexpose slightly, just as I used to purposely overexpose slightly when using film. (Maybe 1/2 stop or so...) This gives you some 'insurance' room on your exposures.

As to iPhoto, I have it and it's a really cool program for your family shots, but not something I would use for your wedding images. If you don't want to spring for the full version of Photoshop, try Photoshop Elements ($80ish), it's really good and has most of what you'd use anyway. I think the newer versions of Elements also allow batch processing which is hugely helpful on a wedding. And, yes, you can soften and control the amount of vignetting. Hope this helps.

yeah, i noticed that overexposure is GONE w/ digital. Now I know... slight underexposure is very fixable, esp. w/ RAW. thanks!

p.s. i do have CS3...i just threw those in iPhoto to get them on the web because some potential clients wanted to see my work...i'm going to swap them w/ the final versions after some greatly needed PP (it's time consuming for a newbe!!) ;)

[collierportraits]

lol. :D It's time consuming for a veteran! That's what digital has done to us. Make us make all the corrections rather than looking to the lab to fix things. Makes it even more important to "get it right on the film", so to speak. Then PP is much less of a hassle. It's fun to make a good photo great! Not so fun to make a sorry photo ok...

yeah, i noticed that overexposure is GONE w/ digital. Now I know... slight underexposure is very fixable, esp. w/ RAW. thanks!

p.s. i do have CS3...i just threw those in iPhoto to get them on the web because some potential clients wanted to see my work...i'm going to swap them w/ the final versions after some greatly needed PP (it's time consuming for a newbe!!) ;)