The rings shot

I thought I'd get more feedback here than in "Weddings"

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

The hands in the background are bothersome. Are those the hands of the clergy? Why aren’t the papers falling over if they are only being supported by the left hand? Or are the papers on a table, and if so, how is it that we see the left hand. Why does the right hand just stop? Is that a relative of Thing?

Rad

Oh, incidentally, the hands in the foreground are well shot.

I have to agree with Radtech...I find the hands of the clergy in the background to be distracting. While I could be wrong here, I think you were maybe trying to convey the sense of "union" here, but the clergy's hands aren't really necessary for that. I think a horizontal crop would serve this image much better. Beyond that, I think it's a really good image...nice and sharp, good color and DOF...but...for a "rings shot", I tend to believe there should be more emphasis on the bride's ring than the groom's. In this shot, the bride's ring is barely in the shot. Because of the angle, I'm not sure you could have gotten it better during the ceremony though...you probably would have needed to do a "posed shot" afterwards and recomposed for a better angle on the brides ring.

The one thing I learned from my brief flirtation with wedding photography (beyond "I'll never do that again") is that the emphasis for -EVERYTHING- should be on the bride. At the risk of sounding terribly cliche, "it's HER day" and everything in the photos should reflect that (...at least anything pertaining to the bride). The ring, the bouquet, the dress/veil...it's all about the bride.

Just my $.02 worth,
Jim

Rad, Jim--Thanks for the comments. I agree the clergy hands are distracting but I didn't want to totally eliminate them. But, I guess that's best. Could I pawn them off as" The Hands of God"?

I actually like the "clergy hands". It becomes immediately obvious that it's not just two people holding hands, but a special, formal event - a wedding. This is reinforced by the knowledge that for the hands to be there, the black around them must be a formal robe. The documents are - I assume - supported by the left hand with the thumb over the edge, hence stable, and did not disturb me at all on first seeing the shot. I do wonder if the held hands aren't a little close to the bottom edge...? All up, very nice - the sort of work that I'd be delighted by if I were the client. Regards, Tony

i also like the hands in the background. kinda "makes" the shot so u know its shot during a wedding, not just some hands.

tonydee wrote in post #5450541
I actually like the "clergy hands". It becomes immediately obvious that it's not just two people holding hands, but a special, formal event - a wedding. This is reinforced by the knowledge that for the hands to be there... the sort of work that I'd be delighted by if I were the client...

I have to agree as well. The clergy elements are the only thing that convey 'this couple is getting married right here - right now'. They are necessary to bring the story of the moment across effectively. For me, they are also a pleasing, artistically presented element placed appropriately out-of-focus. I would have loved to have had a shot like this in our wedding photo set.

Mark

The point I would debate here is that -if- this were the only shot from the entire wedding, that would be true. As a stand alone shot, then yes, having the clergy hands in the shot helps to convey what's going on. However...with most wedding photography at least...the "rings shot" is only one of a series and it's the series that tells the story, not the individual shot(s). In my mind, this is analogous to reading -one- chapter of a book and expecting that one chapter to tell the whole story. If it did, what's the point in reading the rest of the book? With a wedding there are many parts of the story to tell, not just the rings/hands. From the moment people start coming down the isle to the "you may now kiss the bride" to the cutting of the cake to the removal of the garter and tossing of the bouqet...they're all just chapters of the story. The rings shot is only one chapter.

With that in mind, the clergy hands are not necessary for the shot at all which again simply brings us back to distracting. One of the first rules of composition; simplify. If it's not essential to the primary subject of the image...in this case, the hands representing "the union", then remove it. If taken in context with a series of other shots from the wedding (in other words, the -whole- story) then in any viewers mind there would be no confusion as to "what the shot is about" and the clergies hands simply become a distracting background element. They lead the eye away from the central focus of the shot.

I'm not a wedding photographer and never will be...did it once and never again. However the principles of good photography such as composition are the same regardless of the subject matter. Either way, just my opinion and my $.02 worth...please take it for what it is.

Peace,
Jim

Solid argument from Jim. I guess that means if you're going to print this one and put it on your desk, the hands can stay, but if it's going to be another page in the album, keep it simple and ditch them. Still, an excellent capture as it can be easily cropped for either usage. Cheers, Tony

Don't you just hate it when you listen to the closing arguements and they both make perfect sense.

Thanks, all, for the feedback.

I was going to throw in my morsel of thought on the subject but reading Jim's comments i agree 100%.
Must add though that in terms of lighting,focus and exposure this is an excellent shot.