Engagement Session

Let me know what you think, good or bad, are comments are welcome.

1.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

#3 is the strongest for me. I must say, however, that the dark tunnel in the background evokes something metaphorically that you might not want to evoke in an engagement photo.

#1 could use fill flash. The backgground is too bright. #2 looks like you might have a mix of sun and shadow. Deep six the high tension tower on the left.

joedlh wrote in post #10618565
#3 is the strongest for me. I must say, however, that the dark tunnel in the background evokes something metaphorically that you might not want to evoke in an engagement photo.

#1 could use fill flash. The backgground is too bright. #2 looks like you might have a mix of sun and shadow. Deep six the high tension tower on the left.

I hadn't thought about that for the tunnel. I guess I just don't think about things that deeply. And you're right on #1 needing some fill flash, and I actually took a couple using flash, but I thought the light was too hard for how soft the background light was. I should get an assistant so I can use an umbrella next time.

And yes, on #2 the light was a little scattered. It certainly wasn't photography (natural light anyway) friendly the majority of the shoot. I go back and forth with the power poles. I get complaints from colleagues that think things should stay natural and look the way they were.

#1 could use a fill of sorts, flash IMHO

#2 this picture just looks soft to me I guess they all look a little soft take this with a grain of salt could just be the compression

#3 is the best of the bunch however I am not a fan of the PP, the tunnel is distracting also

will227457 wrote in post #10618860
#1 could use a fill of sorts, flash IMHO

#2 this picture just looks soft to me I guess they all look a little soft take this with a grain of salt could just be the compression

#3 is the best of the bunch however I am not a fan of the PP, the tunnel is distracting also

Thank you for taking the time to respond. It does indeed seem I need to work on my fill flash technique. My girlfriend will be THRILLED to hear "hey, wanna go to the park... great, just let me grab my camera gear". She's a good sport though, so I certainly will put some more practice in in that area.

And yes, these all do look pretty soft, but in lightroom and in print, these are tack sharp. It's the compression (saved at 75% quality in lightroom).

Also, is there anything in particular you don't like about the processing? Color tones, shadows, lighting, etc.? I can understand the tunnel being distracting, just curious if there's something specific about the processing. It's very subjective so no worries if you just plain don't like it.

Agree with Joe..in #2 it looks like they are pushing the tree over, lol.

Careful when using filters and tints, you lose details in the blacks and whites.

Flo wrote in post #10618982
Agree with Joe..in #2 it looks like they are pushing the tree over, lol.

Careful when using filters and tints, you lose details in the blacks and whites.

Ha, I never thought of it like that until you mentioned it. It does sort of look like that. The tree is just crooked, I thought it made a nice angle. The one concern the bride to be had was (although it doesn't bother him) she didn't want to appear taller than him, despite the fact that she's about 4" taller. The slope and the angle of the tree played a large part in deciding to use it.

And yes, I did lose a lot of detail in the blacks in this one, and that bugs me. When talking to the groom the day before, the only request I had on clothing was "the two worst things you can wear are solid black or solid white, but if that's all you have or really what you want to wear, we'll make it work". I have this shot with different processing that I also like, just wanted to hear if there were any real complaints about this particular processing, and that's a very good point. Thank you.