Golden Hour Wedding Shots

I was a 2nd-cam videographer at a friends-of-a-friends wedding over the weekend.
Shot a few pix for the heck of it (you'll see why), but did mostly video.

The rig:
T3i, 50mm (/1.4) at f/2.8, 1/1250, ISO 160.
Variable ND filter (used at the insistence of the producer/paying person).
I feel like this ND filter (which cost him a whopping $15) kind of crapped on the quality a bit. Like weird aberration stuff.
They just feel "dirty" and "noisy" to me--and to my uneducated reasoning, the EXIF data above suggests that my settings may not have been the problem.
That's why I snapped a few pix...to see what that ND filter was really up to for such a "good price".

Anyway, all forms of comment/critique are welcome--composition, color, PP, quality, etc.
Also, I got a weird flare in a lot of pix, as seen in the second shot. How do you either
a) avoid this
b) fix it beyond the clone/healing tools?

A little flash fill would have helped #1. I would like #2 without the large flare.

Good (not cheap) lens. VERY clean lens. No filter. Watch for flare as you compose the shot. ( DOF preview button may help with that.)

I think you didn't take advantage of the Golden Hour lighting. The subjects are heavily backlit, which is a cause of the flaring and "dry" (washed out) feel. These would have come out much differently if you positioned yourself with the sun to your back at a 45 degree angle, or if you maintained the same shooting position but used flash to illuminate the subject and used the sun to provide a rim-light effect.

I don't think they are bad photos, and I actually like the 2nd image, but I get the feeling that you were hoping for something a bit different in the final images. Were you using a lens hood? That may have potentially reduced or eliminated the flare.

mannetti21 wrote in post #16962269
I think you didn't take advantage of the Golden Hour lighting. The subjects are heavily backlit, which is a cause of the flaring and "dry" (washed out) feel. These would have come out much differently if you positioned yourself with the sun to your back at a 45 degree angle, or if you maintained the same shooting position but used flash to illuminate the subject and used the sun to provide a rim-light effect.

I don't think they are bad photos, and I actually like the 2nd image, but I get the feeling that you were hoping for something a bit different in the final images. Were you using a lens hood? That may have potentially reduced or eliminated the flare.

Agree, the beauty of the golden hour is the light it provides for the subjects. Either flash (lots of it in this case) or turn the whole thing around with the sun at your back.

As these are they don't really define the couple, both of whom are unrecognizable.

As others have said, you have wasted the light of the golden hour.....the whole point is to light your subject....your light is not the subject.

hey guys..

One thing to keep in mind: I was running two T3is for video, not photos.
I literally snapped off about 18 total frames and that was it. The rest of the time the video was rolling.

by comment, here we go:

- Photosguy: good thought...I wish I had a flash on me at the time!
I was using the 50mm f/1.4 ...it's my best lens. The trouble was I had that dratted ND on there and a further look shows it really has a ton of aberration to it. :/

- Mannetti: the ND had a huge hood on it. I kind of was hoping for a little different shots.... then again, only about 7 turned out and these are only 2 of them.
Maybe I'll post another two that have way different composition. I think I was trying for a light-rim effect...but the fill light lacks. What I was seeing as a video shot didn't follow over so well.

Spike/Titus: Agreed, they're not recognizable in these two. I was thinking of these in the context of a larger set of photos maybe?
Is it ok to have a set of photos with lots of recognizable face time, and then to shoot a few that are more ambiguous?
I did want to crop in on the couple and light of the faces a bit in PP, but the images are trashy and noisy when cropped in further...I think I learned a valuable lesson about crap filters.

rogue.guineapig wrote in post #16961960
I was a 2nd-cam videographer at a friends-of-a-friends wedding over the weekend.
Shot a few pix for the heck of it (you'll see why), but did mostly video.

The rig:
T3i, 50mm (/1.4) at f/2.8, 1/1250, ISO 160.
Variable ND filter (used at the insistence of the producer/paying person).
I feel like this ND filter (which cost him a whopping $15) kind of crapped on the quality a bit. Like weird aberration stuff.
They just feel "dirty" and "noisy" to me--and to my uneducated reasoning, the EXIF data above suggests that my settings may not have been the problem.
That's why I snapped a few pix...to see what that ND filter was really up to for such a "good price".

Anyway, all forms of comment/critique are welcome--composition, color, PP, quality, etc.
Also, I got a weird flare in a lot of pix, as seen in the second shot. How do you either
a) avoid this
b) fix it beyond the clone/healing tools?

Every image must tell a story. Here's the story I get from Image #2. A happy moment for the couple. But unfortunately on their wedding day a nuclear bomb had just detonated about 6 miles away from where the wedding reception was and they are coincidentally and unknowingly running toward it at the moment the explosion happened. The expansion shockwave will arrive in about 20 seconds. Judgment day has arrived. Now we must face the war against the machines.

facepalming and laughing all at once...fair enough!!

Having the sun directly in the frame is asking for flare, and blindness.

I have to completely agree with mannetti21.

Yes, I wouldn't call these golden hour shots. They're silhouettes taken late in the day.

I think the lesson to be learned here is don't use $15 filters.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …od-times-with-bad-filters

That study verifies this postulation.