Any of these good enough for a competition?

I am not a wedding photographer by profession but I did a number of wedding last year and there are few I particularly happy about.
I want to enter a couple in a local competition so I am requisition feedback
Of the following
- are any good enough to enter (ie they potentially stand out from the usual fare)
- if so, any re-editing suggestion to improve the image

cheers

#1

IMAGE LINK: http://www.stonemeadow​.com.au/p843207527/e99​1a61d6

IMAGE LINK: http://www.stonemeadow​.com.au/p843207527/e99​1a5c2a

IMAGE LINK: http://www.stonemeadow​.com.au/p843207527/e9e​4c5679

IMAGE LINK: http://www.stonemeadow​.com.au/p904649781/e99​eb1ee0

IMAGE LINK: http://www.stonemeadow​.com.au/p723728376/e9d​9a78b3

IMAGE LINK: http://www.stonemeadow​.com.au/ryanrosie/e991​b7a59

These are really good. I can't tell if it's POTN's algorithms that have rendered them not as tack-sharp as they could be but that's just being nitpicky. I like these.

Looking awesome!

My only comment would be to apply some skin smoothing for competition. Just to iron out some of the skin blemishes

These are ok

two points. Number 1, the church needs straightening and you have cut off the horses head. Number 5 the pose, the bride looks a bit slumped and disinterested, also where you have added vignette its turned the white balance on the dress blue.

Id bin those two if you are entering in comps, the others are nice though.

I think that it would be worthwhile to enter these images in a competition.

I also think that you have gotten some very good critique here, especially from Dave in post #5, and also from George in post #4. . I couldn't agree with them more.


.

pelooyen wrote in post #18560370
Any of these good enough for a come

What do you mean by, "for a come"?

I am unfamiliar with that term, as used in relation to weddings or photography. . Any clarification would be appreciated.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18562814
I think that it would be worthwhile to enter these images in a competition.

I also think that you have gotten some very good critique here, especially from Dave in post #5, and also from George in post #4. . I couldn't agree with them more.

.

What do you mean by, "for a come"?

I am unfamiliar with that term, as used in relation to weddings or photography. . Any clarification would be appreciated.

.

COMPETITION

Choderboy wrote in post #18562847
COMPETITION

.
Really? . Somehow, that just doesn't seem right.

If I were abbreviating "competition", I would never even think of using "come" as an abbreviation.

Usually, abbreviations consist of only consonants, or else the entire first syllable of the word is used. . But to use the first syllable and then the vowel from the second syllable, that is unusual, to say the least.

I guess some folks just have very different ways of thinking, when it comes to words and letters and phonics.


.

It's a mistake, not an abbreviation

Tom, it's a typo: "come" where "comp" was meant. That's what happens when you let your fingers do the thinking.

dballphotography wrote in post #18562771
These are ok

... the church needs straightening and you have cut off the horses head. ...

Yes ... definitely needs angle/perspective correction for the church ... and amputation of the horses' heads is a real issue for me. Cutting off the top of the church tower is less of an issue ... but still not ideal.

If you haven't got the pixels available to address these issues, I agree that you should drop this image. It spoils the set. I suspect this is a shot that needed a wider angle lens or stepping back a few paces.

Otherwise, some very nice shots. Give it a 'go' ... good luck!

OhLook wrote in post #18562901
Tom, it's a typo: "come" where "comp" was meant. That's what happens when you let your fingers do the thinking.

I really want to make a come joke considering we are talking wedding. But I better not.

Thank you all for the feedback and yes a typo.
I take the suggestion on board but that still leaves 4 images, I can only choose 2.
I’m leaning to #3 and #4 but there is something intimate I like about #6.

If you have the inclination and time, I value your input, including editing improvements.
It will also improve my work for later weddings.
Again, thanks.

pelooyen wrote in post #18563081
Thank you all for the feedback and yes a typo.
I take the suggestion on board but that still leaves 4 images, I can only choose 2.
I’m leaning to #3 and #4 but there is something intimate I like about #6.

If you have the inclination and time, I value your input, including editing improvements.
It will also improve my work for later weddings.
Again, thanks.

OK ... my own opinion is #3 and #4. And I decided that before I realised this was your own thinking. But I'd be inclined to do just a very subtle skin-smoothing exercise on #4 before I submitted. Don't make her plastic! Just a small adjustment would be very effective.

#1 ... verticals way off ... amputations to the top and to the right
#2 ... a very nice shot but too 'standard' (great for the actual wedding set but not right for competition)

#5 ... her posture is a little hunched ...
#6 ... dunno ... I like the high key treatment but it seems a little soft (although that does bring out her expression/emotion very well, to be fair)

Only my opinion.

[NOTE: I've edited this to correct dumb errors I made in referencing photos #5 and #6.]

I personally think 4 is the strongest image. It is a nice portrait in nice light. You have some nice near side shadow that is awesome, nice catchlights, nice line is defined on the left and nice tone. Like the previous poster said, subtle skin toning is the go.

I also like 3... Would like to see it in colour and what some good PPing would look like. (Not saying yours is bad) and the top left cloned out.

The flower shot is pretty but is more editorial IMO.... sort of a Magazine filler shot.

I really like the last one as I am a sucker for moments, but I dunno if it is a comp photo or not.

The others not so much... but thats just my opinion.

Either way I bet they were thrilled with them