Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Weddings & Other Family Events 
Thread started 12 Apr 2013 (Friday) 10:09
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Wedding from this past weekend

 
cabinajm
Senior Member
Avatar
812 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ATL
     
Apr 12, 2013 10:09 |  #1

So this is my second overall wedding. I was really worried about the formal shots, mostly because I am not too strong with the posing. The pictures actually turned out pretty decent and as the day wore on I got more confident with my posing, shooting, giving direction, etc. Unfortunately I don't think I used enough flash to compensate for the shadow on the faces, but I like how it turned out. Still going through the 2600 photos from the 10 hours I shot.

1.

IMAGE: http://abinajmphotography.smugmug.com/photos/i-qjkSvXF/0/L/i-qjkSvXF-L.jpg

2.
IMAGE: http://abinajmphotography.smugmug.com/photos/i-cP29JqS/0/L/i-cP29JqS-L.jpg

-Chris
A couple Canons, a flash, a bunch of lenses and LIGHTS!
Silverstar Media : Photography - Web Design - Technology Support (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Apr 12, 2013 11:56 |  #2

Posing looks fairly decent in both.

For 1, I wish the groom wasn't as square to the camera so the bride's dress wasn't covering his feet. Also, you could have avoided overlap with the couple just to the right of the B+G--but this doesn't bother me too much.

I'd say the main areas of critique for the images are:

i) backgrounds--if getting cleaner backgrounds (ie. no people) wasn't possible, perhaps this wasn't the ideal location. I shoot in some of the busiest areas of the downtown of a large city on the weekend and I'm always able to carve a spot where it seems like my bridal party 'owns' the town.

ii) as you suggested, the way these are lit could use some work. Your options were to either blow out the background and just concern yourself with exposing the subjects (it looks like that's what you did in (2)--and it works fairly well), to use the direct sun as your main light (put 45 degrees behind your shoulder); or you could have kept the sun behind them and popped in some flash.

The sun looks fairly low in these images--was it still squint inducing ? if not, I'd have used the sun in the first. For the second photo, because it's fairly easy to light 2 people with an off-cam flash, I'd have brought the exposure down 1.5 stops and lit them with a speedlight + umbrella combo.



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cabinajm
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
812 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ATL
     
Apr 12, 2013 12:09 |  #3

Thanks for the input. I didn't spend a lot of time editing these (1 minute if that). There were tons of people out so I couldn't get a clean background. If I wanted to, I could probably clone those people out. there was one shot of the B&G that I haven't posted yet where I had to remove a person that was basically standing next to the bride. Turned out pretty good. Shots were taking around 6:00pm so sun was setting but still harsh.


-Chris
A couple Canons, a flash, a bunch of lenses and LIGHTS!
Silverstar Media : Photography - Web Design - Technology Support (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bbvdm
Goldmember
Avatar
1,081 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Kenmore, NY
     
Apr 12, 2013 15:51 |  #4

2600 photos!!!! Good Lord that's a lot. For 10 hours, that's 4+ shots per minute...with no break!


Canon 5D MkII gripped, Canon 7D gripped, Canon 40D gripped, Canon XTI (IR) gripped, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, Canon 60 Macro 2.8, Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS , Canon 24-105 4.0, Tokina 11-16 2.8, Canon 50mm 1.8, Sekonic L-358, Canon Speedlite 580-EX II, (2)430-EX, Pocket Wizards, lots of other stuff that seems to keep growing...:lol:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Apr 12, 2013 15:56 |  #5

^ I totally forgot to comment on that ! 2600 does seem like overkill to me--my average is about half that number. Does that include the photos of a second photog., or is that your total ?



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mclaren777
Goldmember
Avatar
1,482 posts
Likes: 85
Joined May 2012
Location: Olympia, WA
     
Apr 12, 2013 22:37 |  #6

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #15821017 (external link)
my average is about half that number

Perhaps he is using two-shot bursts. That's usually my tactic for weddings.


A simple comparison of sensor technology: Nikon vs. Canon (external link)
A technical comparison of sensor technology: Exposure Latitude (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Apr 12, 2013 22:48 |  #7

^you take two shot bursts of every shot ? I totally recognize that there are certain contexts in which it totally makes sense to shoot in continuous mode (super action-y moment, kiss); but that definitely isn't my standard mode for shooting.



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mclaren777
Goldmember
Avatar
1,482 posts
Likes: 85
Joined May 2012
Location: Olympia, WA
     
Apr 13, 2013 09:05 |  #8

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #15822295 (external link)
you take two shot bursts of every shot?

Yeah, I often do with pictures of people. And the more people in the scene, the more I'm likely to do it.


A simple comparison of sensor technology: Nikon vs. Canon (external link)
A technical comparison of sensor technology: Exposure Latitude (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nickgillespie
Member
Avatar
91 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2009
     
Apr 16, 2013 15:27 |  #9

i agree with taking bursts of ppl. you wouldn't believe how quickly smiles and facial expressions change


Wedding Photographer in Charlotte (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotoMatte
Goldmember
Avatar
1,707 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 208
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Go Ducks!
     
Apr 17, 2013 00:12 |  #10

Taking two-shot bursts all day, if you're using a Canon speedlight, will eat up that flash twice as fast.
I like the 2nd image the best but yes, it could benefit from more light on the couple and less ambient light in the sky. The 1st image looks like it was shot with no flash at all (especially for the wedding party couples); maybe you could brighten the entire image in PP and just let the background (including the wedding party) blow out quite a bit. It's either that or use PP to lighten the entire image then 'paint in' a darker exposure for the B&G. I agree with Christopher Stevens: perhaps you could've used the sun as your main light source since it seems you didn't have enough OCF power to light up the subjects and still keep the sky properly exposed?


the site (external link)
the blog (external link)
Smugmug (external link)
My gear: Canon, Macintosh, Adobe

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cabinajm
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
812 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ATL
     
Apr 18, 2013 10:29 |  #11

Sun was completely blowing out the highlights.

Yes, shot burst to make sure I get the right emotion/look from the B&G, reduce eye blinks, etc.

2600 is from both myself and my second.


-Chris
A couple Canons, a flash, a bunch of lenses and LIGHTS!
Silverstar Media : Photography - Web Design - Technology Support (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jonwhite
Goldmember
Avatar
1,279 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
Apr 18, 2013 12:13 |  #12

2600 isn't really a lot for two people, I took 2,300 at my last wedding on my own and have shot far more than that at previous weddings, think the most I have taken is about 3500 on my own, maybe even more when I have done a photobooth for the evening reception.

Different people shoot in different ways, I certainly don't feel like I spend all day blazing away but there are certain points of the day where I do shoot a lot in a very short space of time, e.g. the posed group photos. Depending on the conditions (i.e. if its windy, or I have people that blink al lot) I will quite happily take 10-15 of each grouping very quickly to make sure I have all eye's open and hair in place without having to create compositions from different photos. Its much quicker to cull images than it is to create compositions in Photoshop.

1. As already mentioned the backgrounds are quite distracting. Hard to tell at this resolution but it looks like a couple of the guys have their eye's closed which would mean rejecting it and choosing another shot for me. Is the EXIF data for this photo correct? If so what was the thinking behind ISO 1250 and shutter speed 1/1250, seems a bit random.

2. It would have been nice to see some detail in the river and sky.


Wedding Portfolio Website (external link) | Wedding Photographer Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cabinajm
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
812 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ATL
     
Apr 18, 2013 12:37 |  #13

Either I forgot to change my ISO back to something lower because I was in a rush or I was trying to get the blown out sky.

I think in that photo their eyes were closed, I'll have to chop them from a similar outtake.

I am not too happy with the shot after looking at it again and noticing the grain, how dark it is, etc.

There were too many people out to get a clean shot of the river as a group, though i did take them down there and snapped a few shots. There were sapplings planted all along this hill so it was difficult to get a shot of the group without a tree interfering. If I could do it again, I would have taken my strobe out and set that up and possibly found a better place to shoot.


-Chris
A couple Canons, a flash, a bunch of lenses and LIGHTS!
Silverstar Media : Photography - Web Design - Technology Support (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jonwhite
Goldmember
Avatar
1,279 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
Apr 18, 2013 14:30 |  #14

Forgetting to knock the ISO down when you move from inside to outside is a very common mistake. First 50 or so weddings I photographed I had a red sticker with "ISO" on it stuck in the corner of my screen to remind me to change when I moved locations. Looks like you have just about gotten away with it in these but its quite easy to exceed your max shutter speed if you move from inside to outside and forget your ISO and in that scenario you can end up with no shot at all.

Sometimes there are things you can do regards what you have to work with, other times "it just is what it is" as we say and you have to make the best of it. Beautiful venues with no one else around = an easy day, public locations with lots of people milling around and distracting backgrounds is when you really earn your money. Experience is what really helps in these situations because you start to have different set-ups that you can pull from your memory that work in these surroundings.

We have a shot that we call the "car park shot" because you can do it virtually anywhere, you basically just lay on the ground and shoot the couple against the sky with some fill light so you can expose for the sky. its not the most flattering shot for some couples but its an example of how you can negate the background/environment when you need to.


Wedding Portfolio Website (external link) | Wedding Photographer Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Simplistic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,443 posts
Likes: 14
Joined May 2012
Location: Los Angeles
     
Apr 19, 2013 03:20 |  #15

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #15820101 (external link)
Posing looks fairly decent in both.

For 1, I wish the groom wasn't as square to the camera so the bride's dress wasn't covering his feet. Also, you could have avoided overlap with the couple just to the right of the B+G--but this doesn't bother me too much.

I'd say the main areas of critique for the images are:

i) backgrounds--if getting cleaner backgrounds (ie. no people) wasn't possible, perhaps this wasn't the ideal location. I shoot in some of the busiest areas of the downtown of a large city on the weekend and I'm always able to carve a spot where it seems like my bridal party 'owns' the town.

ii) as you suggested, the way these are lit could use some work. Your options were to either blow out the background and just concern yourself with exposing the subjects (it looks like that's what you did in (2)--and it works fairly well), to use the direct sun as your main light (put 45 degrees behind your shoulder); or you could have kept the sun behind them and popped in some flash.

The sun looks fairly low in these images--was it still squint inducing ? if not, I'd have used the sun in the first. For the second photo, because it's fairly easy to light 2 people with an off-cam flash, I'd have brought the exposure down 1.5 stops and lit them with a speedlight + umbrella combo.

Can I send you my entire iPhoto library on a harddrive in the mail so you can critique every single photo I've ever taken in my life? If you did, I'd be a photography genius!!!!!!!!!!!! hehehe :)

Your critiques teach me more and more every day. Thanks for being such a helpful professional,

-Ryan


5D II | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | Canon 85 f/1.8 | Canon 24-105 f/4 L
WARNING!: Before commenting that my color correction is horrible, please keep in mind that I am colorblind, and that hasn't stopped me from trying.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,716 views & 0 likes for this thread
Wedding from this past weekend
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Weddings & Other Family Events 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ChazMaz
1689 guests, 334 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.