If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding Photography Critique Request
On Jul 19, 6:42?pm, Robert Coe b...@
Well, that's up to the priest (or more likely the Executive Nun), isn't it? At my granddaughter's First Communion the Executeve Nun made it very clear in advance just what was and wasn't allowed. Nobody even dreamed of arguing or pushing the rules much. Bob Bob Mother Superior is the phrase here. Bob AZ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding Photography Critique Request
On Jul 19, 9:06?am, Chris wrote:
Just wondering what you guys think of a wedding I shot a little while ago. Here is the link: http://proof.chrismaness.com/3-24-07_Jevon/ Open for comments. Did you get paid? Some fill flash is in order if possible. But then I avoid weddings unless there is lots of money. I would not have posted all the images you did. Only post your best shots. Every computer has a Delete key. Did you take the pictures in RAW. Any additional lighting rules usually apply during the ceremony only. A visit with the pastor is certainly in order well before the shoot. Eases lots of concerns. Bob AZ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding Photography Critique Request
Chris wrote:
Just wondering what you guys think of a wedding I shot a little while ago. Here is the link: http://proof.chrismaness.com/3-24-07_Jevon/ Open for comments. You do not give us any idea of the camera you were using, and for this type of photography one would normally use a dslr - if one is shooting digital, of course. Perchance though, you might have been using a compact of some sort, in which case some of the remarks might not apply. However, here are my (constructive) comments: I agree with most of the respondents in this thread, specially the constant left tilt of the verticals. If you did this for effect, IMO it didn't work in a number of the shots, e.g. bride and groom on the rocky beach, the wedding cake! and the bridal couple cutting the cake. Did you not get any of them from the 'front', with the cake between them, and the bridesmaids' posies surrounding the cake? That's an 'essential' shot for most weddings. Another poster mentioned heavy shadows and the suggested use of fill flash. Maybe flash is not allowed during the service, but your shots of persons alighting from a car - you have several, but none of the bride herself that I saw - and people entering doorways with almost black faces, all call for fill flash. One other noticeable problem is where you cut off partial figures. Losing feet in a full length shot is bad, as are waist shots cut off too high above the waist, severing arms at awkward places. I get the impression that you don't or can't see the entire viewfinder at once, maybe because of glasses, because several shots are rather off-centre, and maybe you need to resolve your viewing performance. There are some shots that have unfortunate backgrounds, and I appreciate that you can't always control where people are standing, but if you are the official photog, you should not be afraid to move people around to get the shot you want, with regard to lighting, background, who is next to whom, no fat people on the ends of groups, that sort of thing. You will always get one or two who thrust themselves to the front of a photo shoot, and they need to be controlled. On one occasion I was doing a wedding, and there were two very fat teenagers, a brother and sister, and they were resisting my wife's attempts to get them posed in line, trying to crowd in on the bride and groom. Finally I asked how they were related to the bridal couple, and it turned out that they were the children of an invited guest, no relation to the celebrants. They got a fairly terse message to get their asses out pronto - not in those exact words, but they got the drift alright. The moral is, if you can't control the photographic situation, then it will control you. All you will get are snapshots. Having said all that, your overall coverage was good, not too many shots missed, mostly the 'setup' shots, like the father or guardian helping the bride exit the limo, she sitting with feet on the ground properly placed, he standing by the door, feet ditto - don't cut them off! - and her hand in his preparatory to alighting, then the shot after she alights. There are quite a few other 'essential' shots, but from here your best approach, if you are going to do it again, is to get some books, or surf the net for examples and techniques. Give us some more background, for interest's sake. Colin D. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding Photography Critique Request
Allen wrote:
Roy G wrote: "Chris" wrote in message ups.com... Just wondering what you guys think of a wedding I shot a little while ago. Here is the link: http://proof.chrismaness.com/3-24-07_Jevon/ Open for comments. Hi. Not bad for what I assume was a first attempt. You do seem to take an lot from the 5ft 6ins position, quite often causing foreshortening. You also need to learn how to use Fill Flash, there are shadows on too many of the faces. If using Flash, remember to get a swivelling bracket so that the Flash Head is above the lens in both Portrait and Landscape orientation. Post processing is required to enliven a lot of what seem to be straight off the Camera shots. Not bad for a first time. Roy G Many churches (mine included) do not allow flash (or any other extra artificial light) during services. Allen Just my personal opinion, but using flash, or having someone running around, getting in the way of the friends and family at a wedding is totally unacceptable conduct. Most wedding photographers are in the same category as papparatzi, in my opinion. Some are so rude that they have been asked to just leave. The rules need to be discussed ahead of time, along with what is, and is not, to be photographed 'live', and how many photos are to be taken, and when. They should also realize that other guests WILL take pictures, and if they aren't ok with this, then find someone who IS. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding Photography Critique Request
Colin_D wrote:
The moral is, if you can't control the photographic situation, then it will control you. All you will get are snapshots. The "journalism style" of wedding photography may not work for you, but it 1) lets the situation control the photography, and 2) does not produce snapshots. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding Photography Critique Request
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Colin_D wrote: The moral is, if you can't control the photographic situation, then it will control you. All you will get are snapshots. The "journalism style" of wedding photography may not work for you, but it 1) lets the situation control the photography, and 2) does not produce snapshots. I'm probably regarded by the younger set as old-fashioned now, but IMO the traditional photographic standards are still desirable, even if nobody today recognizes it as such. Yes, the journalism style is used a lot, but I have had younger people look at some of the more traditional wedding shots, and they've said something along the lines of 'I rather wish we had some nice shots like those'. My personal opinion is - and YMMV - that the journo style is more a result of using 35mm film cameras, no available studio, everything either outdoors or flash, and - dare I say it - ignorance or downright disdain for the more timeless, classic style. My grandson got married last year, the pro photog and his wife were shooting two Dynax film cameras. I had the job of scanning the negs for my GS to store on his computer, all nine 36exp films. The photog sold them the negs for a price, dunno how much. Most of the shots were pure kitsch, complete crap IMO. The groom and groomsmen acting out various scenarios, like one on a cellphone, another two looking at their watches, the groom scratching his head etc., clearly meant to be a jibe at the bride being late. Another with the men running away from the women, having stolen their posies. Supposed to be funny. Stopped being funny by the next day. Memorable shots, not many of those. When they are looked back on years hence, I think there will be disappointment. I finished up taking a few properly posed shots at the reception, cutting the cake etc. Guess which ones they had blown up and framed. Even at 73, I still get the urge to do a few weddings, but not 'journo style'. Colin D. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding Photography Critique Request
Chris wrote:
Just wondering what you guys think of a wedding I shot a little while ago. Here is the link: http://proof.chrismaness.com/3-24-07_Jevon/ Open for comments. My comment; Don't like the 'tilt' shots - if intended (especially the cake). If I were the couple and you the professional photographer, I would ask for my money back. None of the photos gave me the 'ahhh' factor - which a lot of people want. Remember wedding photographs not only need to be technically excellent, but convey the couples special day and the pictures IMO don't do that. Clive |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding Photography Critique Request
Colin_D wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Colin_D wrote: The moral is, if you can't control the photographic situation, then it will control you. All you will get are snapshots. The "journalism style" of wedding photography may not work for you, but it 1) lets the situation control the photography, and 2) does not produce snapshots. I'm probably regarded by the younger set as You might just be regarded by many of us old foggies as a bit out of touch with reality... ;-) old-fashioned now, but IMO the traditional photographic standards are still desirable, even if nobody today recognizes it as such. I see nothing wrong with traditional standards, and I don't believe they are not typically recognized. I don't think what you stated above fit that description though... Yes, the journalism style is used a lot, but I have had younger people look at some of the more traditional wedding shots, and they've said something along the lines of 'I rather wish we had some nice shots like those'. They should hire a photographer with demonstrated capability to produce what they want and provide a very specific job description to let the photographer know exactly what that is. I just don't see the problem... My personal opinion is - and YMMV - that the journo style is more a result of using 35mm film cameras, no available studio, everything either outdoors or flash, Yeah, folks have been doing that for what, over half a century now! That is an *old* tradition now... and - dare I say it - ignorance or downright disdain for the more timeless, classic style. I don't agree. How many weddings are held in photography studios? Why should studio techniques be the style of choice for a situation that does not match? That isn't disdain; but, you might just be a little stubborn, eh? :-) My grandson got married last year, the pro photog and his wife were shooting two Dynax film cameras. I had the job of scanning the negs for my GS to store on his computer, all nine 36exp films. The photog sold them the negs for a price, dunno how much. Most of the shots were pure kitsch, complete crap IMO. The groom and groomsmen acting out various scenarios, like one on a cellphone, another two looking at their watches, the groom scratching his head etc., clearly meant to be a jibe at the bride being late. Another with the men running away from the women, having stolen their posies. Supposed to be funny. Stopped being funny by the next day. Memorable shots, not many of those. Did *you* hire the photographer? Did the people who did the hiring approve of the results, and did they review the photographer's style before hand? Regardless, that is *not* a representation of the journalist style of wedding photography. It sounds more like an ill thought out studio approach, what with posed pictures. When they are looked back on years hence, I think there will be disappointment. I finished up taking a few properly posed shots at the reception, cutting the cake etc. Guess which ones they had blown up and framed. So just who hired the photographer, and why? Even at 73, I still get the urge to do a few weddings, but not 'journo style'. So? I doubt that you are in any way definitive of what is correct photography, or even traditional, whether wedding or studio or otherwise. Incidentally, I have family members who do studio photography and others who do weddings in the journalist style. We all enjoy comparing notes, and laughing at how things that are so comfortable for one person makes another totally off kilter at the very thought of it. We don't claim that makes anyone wrong though... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding Photography Critique Request
In article , Colin_D
wrote: I'm probably regarded by the younger set as old-fashioned now, but IMO the traditional photographic standards are still desirable, even if nobody today recognizes it as such. Yes, the journalism style is used a lot, but I have had younger people look at some of the more traditional wedding shots, and they've said something along the lines of 'I rather wish we had some nice shots like those'. Agreed. Whatever is trendy today will likely not endure into tomorrow. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding Photography Critique Request
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote: Just my personal opinion, but using flash, or having someone running around, getting in the way of the friends and family at a wedding is totally unacceptable conduct. Most wedding photographers are in the same category as papparatzi, in my opinion. Some are so rude that they have been asked to just leave. The rules need to be discussed ahead of time, along with what is, and is not, to be photographed 'live', and how many photos are to be taken, and when. They should also realize that other guests WILL take pictures, and if they aren't ok with this, then find someone who IS. Over 20+ years of doing wedding photography, I had numerous occasions where friends and relatives wanted to take photographs. I had no problem as long as I got mine first...and they weren't shooting over my shoulder. Brides & grooms were aware when they booked what the ground rules were. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wedding Photography - request advice | Carlos Lourenço | Digital Photography | 22 | January 19th 07 07:30 PM |
Wedding Photographer Ad Critique | Chris | Digital Photography | 50 | August 9th 06 06:40 AM |
Critique on my photography. | pallav | General Photography Techniques | 2 | April 5th 05 02:27 PM |
Critique on my photography. | pallav | General Photography Techniques | 0 | April 4th 05 10:45 PM |
Request: A Brutally Honest Critique in Exchange for Viewing My Photos | Keoeeit | Digital Photography | 6 | June 24th 04 09:05 PM |