3 Wedding Pics For C&C

[doogan]

 

[David84]

Hi, I am in no way a professional, nor have I ever shot a wedding...but I do lurk here a bit so I'll throw my 2 cents at ya

1st pic - There are obviously halo's all over the place.... something you just don't usually see in pro wedding photography.

2nd pic - I'm not liking the car (but I understand your shot)...however, please un-photoshop your camera out of there!

3rd pic - Not bad, I think the bride could have been complimented more with a different expression on her face...

Hope that helps!

-David

 

[IgsEMT]

1) Halo does provide a cute effect. But try eliminate it in the future. I haven't seen the rest of it, but generally - one or two artsy images are ok, but for everyone that is done that way you should have a normal as well.
2) Your camera in the image - again its cute but it is a double aged sword. The pic IN THE CAMERA shows groom with his head cut of - hence a BIG No No
3)you live and you learn, next you should have the bride look at you w/o moving her head...
Got more?

 

[JerryPH]

Thats some massive lens flare in #1. This is a wedding, and in a wedding, for me, I want a strong focus on A. the bride, B. The groom, C. moments that are focused on the event that remind them of the day. The first one is just flare on some undecernible couple waaaaaaaaay too far away to even know who they are.

If it was a shot of the B&G from waist up and some flare was there, that is a totally different shot... this one kinda failed.

#2 Bride poorly positioned and partially hidden behind the car. If the subject was the car & sign... get them lower and nearer to it. NEVER hide the bride behind anything like this, unless it is an artistic statement, which in this case, it is not. That camera in front is VERY tacky, and not very well taken (groom's head is missing!)

#3 The shot is not tack sharp (particularly the bride's eyes). The bride is also not in a very flattering pose. Her expression is not happy and she looks more annoyed... this one I would not even show her.

Please do not think that I am being mean or hard on you, but I just don't think these are all that great.

 

[SrBiscuit]

PREFACE: im not a pro or anywhere close. i am viewing these strictly as a fan of photography.

lens flare looks like a pshop addition. not liking it. the shadows dont match the positioning of the fake sun.

why the camera on 2...is the shot about the bride and groom, or the fact you have a dslr? the pic in the lcd is poorly superimposed as well. the setting is also rather undesirable.

issues on 3 have been covered.

like others asked...got any more from this wedding?

 

[Derrel]

The Photoshopped-in lens flare seems to be a way to salvage an overview shot of the ceremony that,on its own, might look a little bit underwhelming.

Shot two, with the small Nikon Photoshopped in would look better I think if the groom's head would have been in the frame properly. I'm not sure why they are shown cropped off so oddly. Still, I think some people will like that photo.

Shot three shows a standing woman in a horizontally shot photo. Why? She's wearing a beautiful dress, a once-in-a-lifetime (well, used to be once!) gown,and she's shown as a head floating in a horizontal rectangle. Turn the camera! This is a vertical subject, a person,standing upright. Orient the camera to what is commonly called ' portrait ' orientation on such subjects and you'll look like you've had professional training.

 

[Christie Photo]

Wow... TOUGH room!

I'm sure the first view isn't the only capture of the room. It's good to have a record of what the space looked liked, showing those in attendance. The lens flare in this one is a bit gimmicky, but no crime committed. Some might feel it illustrates a divine presence.

The second shot is a reminder of how the car was decorated. Adding the bride and groom to the image was a good idea. I'm not a fan of the added camera, but it offers an additional choice.... the pavement or the gimmick.

The last one is in a nice setting for a close-up, but agree a bit of direction would have been a big improvement.

-Pete

 

[doogan]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to comment.
Two people said "any more?" Yes, I will post more.

No one likes the pic with the camera in the foreground,
and now I must agree: it's kinda tacky. (I trashed it.)

Lens flare: guess I was trying to liven up an otherwise
boring photo, and was curious what you people thought
about that idea. I will include it for the B&G and if they
don't like it then there's another one with no flare.

The third photo of just the bride's face was a quick
grab without any posing.

I hope I don't sound llike I'm defending all these photos.
Actually I'm pondering over all the comments and taking
some of them to heart.

Derrel said: Orient the camera to what is commonly called ' portrait ' orientation on such subjects and you'll look like you've had professional training. That's very insulting. You don't seem to realize
that a head shot can be done vertically or horizontally, it's a subjective thing. Don't comment on my photos anymore, go and insult someone else.
____________________________________________
http://www.dreamworldimages.ca
http://www.squidoo.com/pet-photography-business
http://www.squidoo.com/child-photography-business