Critique my crappy wedding photos!

[Zenmervolt]

Despite my best efforts to dissuade them, a couple of friends roped me into photographing their wedding. To be fair, they didn't have enough money to hire anyone who knew what he was doing (pot-luck reception, etc) and they wouldn't have had any photos otherwise.

Anyway, here are the proofs, culled from ~500 captures and still needing some cutting down.

http://www.picvolt.net/main.php/v/ZV/Higgins_Wedding/

ZV

 

[ElFenix]

i assume you underexposed or exposed off the dress to get the details of the dress. you can probably bring them up a bit without losing anything. do a batch with a 1/2 stop exposure compensation and see what that does.

a lot of the pic thumbnails are broken.

 

[OdiN]

Is this your first wedding? Ceremony lasted about 20 seconds right?

They don't look too different from my first wedding - which means lots of room for improvement.

A lot of the groups are underexposed or not balanced correctly with the light from the stained glass windows. The few outdoor shots I saw could have benefited from fill flash. What kind of equipment were you working with?

The poses are pretty stale for the groups, and I don't think you spent enough time with just the couple. I usually will spend about 30 minutes with the couple at various locations and poses and things. But I don't like formal group shots anyway - though people do like them - they are stale I think and if I can do other things I will, but can't always. The wedding I did this weekend I wanted to do some other things for groups of the bridal party, but they were an hour and a half late for the photography which left about 45 minutes for what groups I could get before the ceremony, and that ran over so they only had the limo for a certain time and that ran into my time after the wedding, but oh well that's how things go and it's no fault of mine. My contract specifies that there is to be a 120 minute window either before or after (or combined) for photography of groups, etc. for the best results. If not, I'm not responsible. But we did get good shots, just not as much as I would have liked.

Oh..back to your photos

One thing - you got some good captures during the ceremony showing some emotion - and at the end of the day, capturing a moment becomes more important that the technically correct exposure, etc. - so long as it's good enough people will like them.

I think that overall the couple should be thrilled with them - they wouldn't have had anything otherwise.

I'd have to take a closer look at things to critique more specific aspects, but don't have time at the moment. I will try to review them a bit more later.

Is this something you want to do or want to become better at?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Is this your first wedding? Ceremony lasted about 20 seconds right?

They don't look too different from my first wedding - which means lots of room for improvement.

A lot of the groups are underexposed or not balanced correctly with the light from the stained glass windows. The few outdoor shots I saw could have benefited from fill flash. What kind of equipment were you working with?

The poses are pretty stale for the groups, and I don't think you spent enough time with just the couple. I usually will spend about 30 minutes with the couple at various locations and poses and things. But I don't like formal group shots anyway - though people do like them - they are stale I think and if I can do other things I will, but can't always. The wedding I did this weekend I wanted to do some other things for groups of the bridal party, but they were an hour and a half late for the photography which left about 45 minutes for what groups I could get before the ceremony, and that ran over so they only had the limo for a certain time and that ran into my time after the wedding, but oh well that's how things go and it's no fault of mine. My contract specifies that there is to be a 120 minute window either before or after (or combined) for photography of groups, etc. for the best results. If not, I'm not responsible. But we did get good shots, just not as much as I would have liked.

Oh..back to your photos

One thing - you got some good captures during the ceremony showing some emotion - and at the end of the day, capturing a moment becomes more important that the technically correct exposure, etc. - so long as it's good enough people will like them.

I think that overall the couple should be thrilled with them - they wouldn't have had anything otherwise.

I'd have to take a closer look at things to critique more specific aspects, but don't have time at the moment. I will try to review them a bit more later.

Is this something you want to do or want to become better at?

Total ceremony time was no more than 20 minutes (based on timestamps between first and last ceremony shots). It was quite short from my memory of other ceremonies I've attended, though that may be due to my actually having to do something.

Slight underexposure seems to be the order of the day for me; I did the same with slides, preferring the greater density. Probably because I don't like to take photos of people and things like landscapes and flora tend to benefit from the more intense colors that slight underexposure causes.

Agree that the fill flash was a miss, a large miss. I have a decent flash (Sony's version of the Minolta 5600 HS-D), and used it at the reception and the rehearsal, but wasn't thinking about it directly before or after the ceremony because I was too worried about remembering that I couldn't use it during the actual ceremony to remember that I could use it immediately before and after.

Equipment was rudimentary: Sony A700, Sigma 20-40 f/2.8 EX, Minolta 28-75 f/2.8, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX, HVL-F56AM flash. Almost all of the shots are with the 28-75.

We were supposed to have a nice outdoor location for the pre-ceremony shots, but had 25-30 mph winds there and had to punt.

Agree about the stale poses, I know that I am absolutely suck at group poses. This was one of my warnings to the couple initially. I've never liked non-candids.

I had about 60 minutes each with the bride's and groom's parties before the ceremony and then about 20 minutes combined after the ceremony, but lost a lot of that because I didn't have a good list of what shots were wanted or what shots I should take. That was a big miss on my part.

It's something I want to become better at, but I'm not sure I want to do weddings. It's a lot of pressure for something that is usually a relaxing hobby. On the other hand, it actually was rather fun too. I just haven't quite gotten over being self-conscious with the camera; I'm still not quite willing to butt in for a good shot. I think I'll stick with SAP consulting, it's easier.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
a lot of the pic thumbnails are broken.

Yeah, Gallery tends to do that for me when I upload a lot at once. Dunno why. Have rebuilt the thumbnails though and we should be good to go.

ZV

 

[OdiN]

Nice winds.....could make for a nice veil shot with it blowing back behind the bride.

That's one of the things about wedding or event photography - take adversity and turn it into opportunity.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Nice winds.....could make for a nice veil shot with it blowing back behind the bride.

That's one of the things about wedding or event photography - take adversity and turn it into opportunity.

The women would have none of it. Something about messing up their hair. I would have been all for it; I love wind shots.

ZV

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OdiN
Nice winds.....could make for a nice veil shot with it blowing back behind the bride.

That's one of the things about wedding or event photography - take adversity and turn it into opportunity.

The women would have none of it. Something about messing up their hair. I would have been all for it; I love wind shots.

ZV

You can do it after the ceremony. I have a shot of the bride after the ceremony on some rocks by the lake - had to go through a bunch of sand to get there - I do that type of stuff after that could make the dress dirty a bit.

Their hair isn't going to be perfect after all the dancing and such anyway.

My thoughts at least

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OdiN
Nice winds.....could make for a nice veil shot with it blowing back behind the bride.

That's one of the things about wedding or event photography - take adversity and turn it into opportunity.

The women would have none of it. Something about messing up their hair. I would have been all for it; I love wind shots.

ZV

You can do it after the ceremony. I have a shot of the bride after the ceremony on some rocks by the lake - had to go through a bunch of sand to get there - I do that type of stuff after that could make the dress dirty a bit.

Their hair isn't going to be perfect after all the dancing and such anyway.

My thoughts at least

No dancing at the reception, they couldn't afford a hall large enough. It was all tables for the light lunch. And no time between ceremony and reception. There were a total of 30 minutes between the end of the receiving line and the beginning of the reception lunch. They never left the church actually.

They really would have benefited from a professional since the situation was more difficult than it could have been.

ZV

 

[OdiN]

I think you did the best you could in the given situation, and I'm sure the couple will be gratefull for the shots.

 

[Deadtrees]

Most of shots look under exposed. The color is dull and plain.
It has that look of 70's movie.

For wedding photography, people mostly expect something spectacular. In this case, you seem to have gone to the opposite direction.
If you could, at least, mess with the color, it'd get better, I think.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Most of shots look under exposed. The color is dull and plain.
It has that look of 70's movie.

For wedding photography, people mostly expect something spectacular. In this case, you seem to have gone to the opposite direction.
If you could, at least, mess with the color, it'd get better, I think.

ouch.
Given the circumstances, I think it's okay. And ZV is right in thinking that he did offer a service if the B&G couldn't afford much.
A lot of these can be fixed in LR or some simple PS level adjustments.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Either my eye or my monitor is off because I'm not seeing the color issues everyone else is. I'll have to look into that.

ZV

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Either my eye or my monitor is off because I'm not seeing the color issues everyone else is. I'll have to look into that.

ZV

Calibrated displays here.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Either my eye or my monitor is off because I'm not seeing the color issues everyone else is. I'll have to look into that.

ZV

Calibrated displays here.

Outside of spending $200 on a monitor calibration tool, what options do I have to get my own monitor adjusted?

ZV

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Either my eye or my monitor is off because I'm not seeing the color issues everyone else is. I'll have to look into that.

ZV

Calibrated displays here.

Outside of spending $200 on a monitor calibration tool, what options do I have to get my own monitor adjusted?

ZV

If you have Photoshop, you should have Adobe gamma. That will help at least some - but it's no substitution.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Either my eye or my monitor is off because I'm not seeing the color issues everyone else is. I'll have to look into that.

ZV

Calibrated displays here.

Outside of spending $200 on a monitor calibration tool, what options do I have to get my own monitor adjusted?

ZV

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16800998044

 

[Zenmervolt]

I had no idea the prices on those had come down that much! Thanks!

ZV

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Either my eye or my monitor is off because I'm not seeing the color issues everyone else is. I'll have to look into that.

ZV

Calibrated displays here.

Outside of spending $200 on a monitor calibration tool, what options do I have to get my own monitor adjusted?

ZV

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16800998044

Be aware that if you have dual monitors, that one will not work properly.

I was trying to be cheap and got one - and yes it will calibrate a monitor, but only one - and it doesn't really let you pick, and it screwed up the profiles of each of mine.

I even called their tech support and complained that I only wanted to calibrate one monitor, but I still had to get the Pro version, which is about 3 times that price.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I had no idea the prices on those had come down that much! Thanks!

ZV

nor did I... is this thing worth it, or is it just a lame way for the company to get into the entry level market?

 

[ivan2]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Be aware that if you have dual monitors, that one will not work properly.

I was trying to be cheap and got one - and yes it will calibrate a monitor, but only one - and it doesn't really let you pick, and it screwed up the profiles of each of mine.

I even called their tech support and complained that I only wanted to calibrate one monitor, but I still had to get the Pro version, which is about 3 times that price.

possible to unplug the other monitor to let it calibrate just one?