2nd 'proper' church wedding.

[Christopher Steven b]

Here are several images from my last wedding--my second in a church setting. The lighting in the church was absolutely horrid--daylight from windows on either side and really contrasty tungsten lighting from above. Ambient was about f/2 @1/30 @1600 ISO (most had to be pushed slightly); and above all the lighting was terribly uneven. Halfway through I confess to having bumped into the table with the manger scene, upsetting all of the critters + possibly baby j himself.

I would appreciate any comments and critique.

1.
http://csbphotography.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p249000871.jpg


2.
http://csbphotography.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p512425247.jpg


3.
http://csbphotography.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p4975628.jpg


4.
http://csbphotography.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p379633651.jpg


5.
http://csbphotography.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p229780018.jpg


6.
http://csbphotography.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p310359621.jpg


7.
http://csbphotography.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p218571960.jpg


8.
http://csbphotography.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p240545633.jpg

[elysium]

Content protected by owner... :(

[Christopher Steven b]

d'oh. Fixed. Thanks !

[elysium]

:lol: Try again.

[Christopher Steven b]

It's called minimalism, sir. Actually this is strange--I'll have another look.

[FamilyJules]

they show up for me.
Your WB seems to be just fine, especially considering the lighting conditions.
I would've shot # 2 at about f/4 instead of 2.8..... you lost focus on the little girl on the left.
other than that, these seems very nice, and I'm sure the couple will be pleased :)

[Christopher Steven b]

Thanks so much, Jules. I think I didn't mind 2.8 here simply because the action was sort of directed at the girl on the right suggesting her as the main subject (particularly given her expression). But I admit that these sorts of aesthetic 'decisions' do seem to roll that way when at 1600 ISO and pushing it on shutterspeed.

As it happens, the following is, if i'm not mistaken, the very next frame:
http://csbphotography.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p468998383.jpg

[Christopher Steven b]

Anyone with critique ? I understand they're fairly static, but any suggestions about what I could have done differently ? In case it isn't obvious I'm a budget (~$300) wedding photographer and am looking to push beyond this status; frank critique would be appreciated.

[SnapsbyPoteat]

Here are several images from my last wedding--my second in a church setting. The lighting in the church was absolutely horrid--daylight from windows on either side and really contrasty tungsten lighting from above. Ambient was about f/2 @1/30 @1600 ISO (most had to be pushed slightly); and above all the lighting was terribly uneven. Halfway through I confess to having bumped into the table with the manger scene, upsetting all of the critters + possibly baby j himself.

Baby J I all about forgiveness! :)

[mathogre]

I think they came out quite well. The natural light played well for you. What follows is just my opinion.

1. I like it.

2. Very nice! The girls are pretty and you did a very nice job.

3. Nice!

4. It's almost too wide. The folks on either side seem a bit squeezed.

5. Tough shot for lighting. You probably did about as well as anyone could. With pp, you might bring down the highlights a little.

6. Still tough lighting, but you have a very nice photo of the couple. As with 5, you might bring the highlights down a bit.

7. Nit pick: seeing the ring would have been nice, though it's a wedding not a show. The gesture is what counts; seeing the ring would have been a nice touch.

8. Looks a bit over exposed, and a bit noisy. It's the only one that I see has obvious noise from shooting at 1600.

The separate photo of the two girls is very nice, but I'd prefer to see it in color.

Anyway, it's a nice set of photos! The couple should be happy with them. I hope you find my comments helpful!