Surprise Wedding Photographer

[jbgeach]

So I went to my Brother's wedding (I was a groomsman) and found that they had they Bride's [Edit] step-Father, not Father-in-Law, as the photographer (He showed up with a fuji point and shoot, tripod and vivitar flash) . So, I did my best to take some quality photos for my Brother and his wife. My wife is very artistic, but not very knowledgeable about the finer points of photography. Anyway, I put the 50 1.8 on and I think the results are respectable.

#1http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2669/3783030077_ba507262bd.jpg

#2http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/3783030617_69e46f9950.jpg

#3http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2468/3783839952_a2817108c3.jpg

#4http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2452/3736705069_977171191b.jpg

#5http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/3783057759_db1c5e62e4.jpg

[GPR1]

Good of you to help out, and I'm sure they'll be happy.

[FamilyJules]

That was nice of you to catch some shots for them (I like 2, 4 and 5), although I would forgo the white vignettes.... It ages the photo and is a bit distracting.

[jbgeach]

Thanks for the info,
I am not a wedding photographer and have turned down several wedding requests and deferred to professionals. However, it was fun for me, but a lot more work than I was expecting.

[texaskev]

"Father in law as the photographer (He showed up with a fuji point and shoot, tripod and vivitar flash) ." lol that cracked me up. Nice shoot, I don't like #1 much but the others are great! Its good that you were there!

[jbgeach]

Like the color one better?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3784104512_0bfe5e4b8e.jpg

[jbgeach]

"Father in law as the photographer (He showed up with a fuji point and shoot, tripod and vivitar flash) ." lol that cracked me up. Nice shoot, I don't like #1 much but the others are great! Its good that you were there!
In all fairness, his pics turned out fine, just not what you can achieve with a DSLR and a prime.

[poppie guy]

Nice 'save'!

[jonwhite]

I don't think the white vignette is adding anything to the shots.

Pic 1 looks way out of focus/motion blurred and I aren't sure any amount of PP is gonna make it look any different. Some people may like it as there is a decent composition behind the blur but for me the blur spoils it.

5 is your classic "uncle bob" shot as the bride and groom look at someone else with a camera rather than you, I guess the father in law?

[Yeoer]

I don't think the white vignette is adding anything to the shots.

Pic 1 looks way out of focus/motion blurred and I aren't sure any amount of PP is gonna make it look any different. Some people may like it as there is a decent composition behind the blur but for me the blur spoils it.

5 is your classic "uncle bob" shot as the bride and groom look at someone else with a camera rather than you, I guess the father in law?


I agree.

No.2 the depth of field is too shallow or the focus point is wrong as she is OOF but yet his shoulder in in focus.

Why put the 50 f1.8 on? surely your 28-135 IS would have been more useful and a whole lot easier to handle with regards to focus and DOF.

[jbgeach]

Thanks for the input everyone. I will try to give my reasoning, hopefully without sounding too defensive, because I am so appreciative of your comments.

I chose the 50 1.8 over the 28-135 or 18-55 mainly due to decreased depth of field and much improved sharpness.

Wow - I didn't know everyone hates the white vignettes. Fortunately they are easy to remove

Number 1 was a purposeful motion blur. I was hoping to capture the emotion of their kiss without all the gory details.

Regarding number 2 it was getting very dark and all I had was my 430 EX on camera, so I had limited options for lighting and I had to use an open aperture.

John - you were spot on on number 5. They were looking at the "real photographer"

[canonrebel]

If you were at your brothers wedding and the brides father in law was the photographer, does that mean your father was the photographer or am i missing something

[rox1e6]

If you were at your brothers wedding and the brides father in law was the photographer, does that mean your father was the photographer or am i missing something

hahaha thats what I've been trying to work out!! :lol:

[jbgeach]

If you were at your brothers wedding and the brides father in law was the photographer, does that mean your father was the photographer or am i missing something
I think you are correct in your reasoning, I am meant step-father. Good catch. I am the brother of the groom

[ariananeal]

I agree with ridding the vignettes, they are very distracting and unneccesary. I think you definitely did well for not having the intent of photographing the wedding. My only critique is the first two shots look overly softened to the point of distracting. But again, good job. =) Have you shot a wedding previously?

[jbgeach]

Ariana - no I have never shot a wedding before. I was just there with my bag and wanted to help. I think some softness was due to my 50 1.8 sometimes having focusing issues. Shot number 2 was in low light and I believe at 1.8 so it really shows the limits of my gear.
Here are a couple others
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/3737429830_b42fd64677.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3457/3736641235_6e3491cdf9.jpg

[DAUMO]

cool!

[InnerSong]

Like the color one better?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3784104512_0bfe5e4b8e.jpg

I again feel really drunk after looking at this! Thanks!

[Nicole Faith]

I'm confused on your story. They didn't hire a photographer but her step-father opted to be the photographer, only to bring lesser equipment than was needed? Did they not talk this over with him? Just wondering because so much planning goes into a wedding that is seems odd that would happen.

I like the color version better - it's very artsy and I would have loved something like that at mine. I would also drop the white vignettes. This was something done in the 80's, so that is why it dates an image.

[cwood]

The thing about white vignettes is... they look like "white vignettes". Art should be subtle - not in-your-face unless that is your intention. If you toned it down A LOT in #2 it MIGHT look ok but it looks very artificial in #5.

I'm a little surprise people seem to dislike #1 so much. I think its pretty cool. Possibly it is not that good (maybe it is maybe it isn't) but I just appreciate that it is "different". Wedding photography tends to be primarily about taking technically perfect (i.e. sharp and well lit) images - and secondarily about making the images really unique and special. I think its nice to see something a little different in the mix. And by the way I like the B&W version better... But it's "art" so everyone's gonna have an opinion...

For #2 you need to be REALLY careful about shallow DOF when there is 2 people in the shot. If their faces are staggered (like they are in #2) you need to close off the aperture a stop or 2.

[jbgeach]

The thing about white vignettes is... they look like "white vignettes". Art should be subtle - not in-your-face unless that is your intention. If you toned it down A LOT in #2 it MIGHT look ok but it looks very artificial in #5.

I'm a little surprise people seem to dislike #1 so much. I think its pretty cool. Possibly it is not that good (maybe it is maybe it isn't) but I just appreciate that it is "different". Wedding photography tends to be primarily about taking technically perfect (i.e. sharp and well lit) images - and secondarily about making the images really unique and special. I think its nice to see something a little different in the mix. And by the way I like the B&W version better... But it's "art" so everyone's gonna have an opinion...

For #2 you need to be REALLY careful about shallow DOF when there is 2 people in the shot. If their faces are staggered (like they are in #2) you need to close off the aperture a stop or 2.
Thanks for the input. I have always enjoyed impressionists the most in art and have tried many ways to recreate the feeling without all the details, in a nice way.

#1 is the first pic I have taken that I feel truly captures that ideal.