I don't do weddings...

[pixmedic]

awe...couldn't have been THAT redneck. I didn't see any banjos, OR Burt Reynolds popping out of a stream with a compound bow.

 

[pgriz]

I'm not a wedding photographer, but I've been to enough weddings, and shot enough (both young and old) to say that I'd be pretty happy to have shot these. Under the circumstances, there's usually very little time to work out the technicalities, and you go with what seems to work. Swettylens may have valid points, but it's always easier to critique after the fact. I know in the weddings I've shot as a family member, each wedding is different, and I've had to adapt to the situation with the equipment I had with me. Usually takes a few tries before the images start coming out decent. But that's me. Your photography in the studio and the shows reveal a pretty good understanding of light. Here the difference was the on-camera flash. Perhaps in the ideal world they could be improved on, but we don't know the environment, so what you could have done differently is speculation on our part.

"The Groom" - technically, the flash is a bit too hot. Focus is good (maybe too good for this particular shot), and you've caught his eyes smiling and him looking happy.
"The Bride" - good exposure, but somewhat flat. She's happy. Focus is bang on. If you had some control over the posing, I'd have suggested a 45-degree bend to her body, with her looking at the camera with her head slightly extended and slightly tilted upwards - that would give a clean neckline.
"The registry office" - from the shadows, I can see that you bounced the light above and behind you. Good exposure, and good image under the conditions.
"Best Man" - here I think the direct flash works very well, separating him from the background. The image looks tilted slightly to the left (tree in background, his posture). Cropping some from the right and a bit more from left (square format) could be considered. He has a slightly impish almost-smile on his face.
"Small Group" - good lighting. Like the way the leaves above frame them. Looks like the flower girl had an accident earlier, but participated anyway - a trooper! Groom looks like his eyes are closed, but I know people like him who always have their eyes almost always mostly closed, and it is difficult to get them to open wider.
"The couple" - good lighting, separation from background. In terms of posing, I'd have asked them to rotate their bodies inwards a bit, towards each other. The groom seems slightly shorter than the bride, and perhaps shooting a bit more to his left, and from shoulder level (not eye level) would have made the two more equal in height.

Overall, I think you did very well, and contributed to the occasion. I'm sure they will be very happy with the images they get from you. Contratulations.

 

[Bend The Light]

I apologize, I didn't intend to criticize the people but I see that I wound up doing just that.

What I meant to say was more complicated. These are not traditionally beautiful young brides and grooms. They're older. They're stouter. I am pretty sure they'd be ok with that -- I am older and stouter too, and while I wish I was young and thing, I'm not. It happens to everyone, if you just wait long enough!

The POINT is that you're simply not going to be able to produce traditionally beautiful wedding photographs. Which is kind of a stupid thing to have said, since it's pretty obvious.

When I said they were fantastically interesting, I was also reaching for a photographic point, which is this: While you're not going to produce the cliched "here's is the dewy young bride in her gown surrounded by her bridesmaids in their horrid dresses" you can (and did) do some wonderful photographic work. These people are visual delights, they have the marks of life on them, there are stories in every line of their faces and every imperfection. They look joyful, they look nervous, they look excited.

You did a freakin' great job, all things considered, and you should be pleased with yourself. I think they'll be pleased with the results.

Thanks for taking the time to come back and reply. I appreciate the points you make. Hell, I ain't the best looking character there is but someone made a photo of me win a competition once upon a time, so there you go! I take your point about how the wedding will never look like the dewy young bride you mentioned (crikey, it was her third time!)...but as you say...these are the people, and this is their life, and their wedding.

Nice pics. Pic 1, I usually have the subject close their lips if they may have braces or teeth issues. If they're minor i may touch up with photochop. Who knows, the family may enjoy that pic of him more one day when they remember him and I'd have taken a lessor pic =)

Well, he wasn't that bothered by it, I don't think. He was flashing that smile around all day. It's just him, I suppose. I would have ended up with very few pictures of him had I omitted the ones with teeth (or lack of0. More to the point, this is one of the few where he doesn't have his eyes almost closed tight...he seemed to do that every time he smiled...his eyes were open, but only just.

My comments are in red.

My comments are in Dim Grey.

...but a friend convinced me to do one for friends of his. It was done as a favour, no payment, and had I not been there they would have not had any photos at all (barring the mobile phone shots by some of the guests). So, here we go...

The groom

2-8-2012 Phil - Groom by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr
If the guy has bad teeth, then show only the ones where he is smiling without showing his teeth. Or only show the far away shots. According to the exif data you were only at ISO400 with f/5.6 and 1/250. You could easily have shot this without flash if you had a fast zoom or 50mm f/1.8. Or even with higher ISO, slower shutter with that lens.

He didn't do much smiling without showing his teeth. See my comments above. At this point I should have had the 50mm f1.8 on, but I didn't. Inexperienced, you see? And this was the 3rd shot at the wedding and so the 5th shot I had taken with the canon 430EX on the camera. I was a total newbie to flash at this point...

The Bride

2-8-2012 Carol - Bride v2 by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr

Camera	Canon EOS 40D
Exposure	0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture	f/8.0
Focal Length	50 mm
ISO Speed	400

F/8.0???? Full on flash again. This is what you do, open up your lens to almost max aperture, 1/40, ISO1600, flash bounced.

Thanks. I don't know why I didn't have the aperture wider...no idea. This was a grab shot to be honest...she was walking in. There was nowhere to bounce flash - glass conservatory roof and brick walls.

The registry office (which was TINY!)

2-8-2012 Just wed with bridesmaids, best man, and usher by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr

Not bad for a direct flash photo.

Poor lighting in the room. Brick walls, sloped ceiling, not white. The room was very small, and I was about 1foot from the table edge. I did what I could to mitigate the shadows behind them...

Best Man (and bride's son)

2-8-2012 Ben the Best Man by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr

Dont think flash is necessary.

The second photo of the wedding. We were under trees, and it was actually quite dark. I should have not had the flash directed straight at him, though...newbie, you see?

A small group (with other son looking at a mobile phone camera!)

2-8-2012 BandG, BM, U, BM, FG by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr
Wandering eyes

Yeah! The bloody relatives with their mobile phones and P&S cameras. I tried everything to get all of them looking the same way. This was the best of the bunch.

The Happy Couple

2-8-2012 Just married v2 by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr
His eyes were shut. Flash isnt necessary.

It seems that you are stuck at 1/250. Why?

His eyes were open...as much as they were most of the time in photos. That's why the first photo above is there...one of the very few where you get to see his eyes...

The shutter was at 1/250 for the flash. Could it be different? I dunno. First time using the flash, you see?


So, honest critique. Bear in mind that I will NOT be setting myself up as a budget wedding tog any time soon, but I would be interested in how you think I did with what I had.

Cheers

Those teeth.....

I think the biggest issue is the use of flash. It's all very flat and direct. There is no depth to the scene.

Yeah, flash newbie. I already covered the teeth.

Looks like a redneck wedding.

I ALMOST went there but opted out at the last minute....:mrgreen:

Glad you didn't. It's rude to criticise the people in a photo.

I guarantee you that some talented photographers can shoot this wedding and low budget/redneck would not pop in your mind when you see the results. They are that GOOD!

Unlike me. I can make pretty people look really ugly.

awe...couldn't have been THAT redneck. I didn't see any banjos, OR Burt Reynolds popping out of a stream with a compound bow.

That would be just you guys over the water. We don't have that sort of thing over here. Thanks.

I'm not a wedding photographer, but I've been to enough weddings, and shot enough (both young and old) to say that I'd be pretty happy to have shot these. Under the circumstances, there's usually very little time to work out the technicalities, and you go with what seems to work. Swettylens may have valid points, but it's always easier to critique after the fact. I know in the weddings I've shot as a family member, each wedding is different, and I've had to adapt to the situation with the equipment I had with me. Usually takes a few tries before the images start coming out decent. But that's me. Your photography in the studio and the shows reveal a pretty good understanding of light. Here the difference was the on-camera flash. (actually a Canon 430EX on the hotshoe, but in my hands, pretty much an on-camera flash, at least in the beginning) Perhaps in the ideal world they could be improved on, but we don't know the environment, so what you could have done differently is speculation on our part.

"The Groom" - technically, the flash is a bit too hot. Focus is good (maybe too good for this particular shot), and you've caught his eyes smiling and him looking happy.
Yes, direct flash. But yes, you get it. His eyes are smiling, and his whole face is smiling...he was happy and he was about to get married. The teeth don't matter.
"The Bride" - good exposure, but somewhat flat. She's happy. Focus is bang on. If you had some control over the posing, I'd have suggested a 45-degree bend to her body, with her looking at the camera with her head slightly extended and slightly tilted upwards - that would give a clean neckline.
No posing...she was heading into the registry office ceremony room. A grab shot, really...just liked her smiling.
"The registry office" - from the shadows, I can see that you bounced the light above and behind you. Good exposure, and good image under the conditions.
Yes, I tried, in a limited space.
"Best Man" - here I think the direct flash works very well, separating him from the background. The image looks tilted slightly to the left (tree in background, his posture). Cropping some from the right and a bit more from left (square format) could be considered. He has a slightly impish almost-smile on his face.
Again, direct flash could have been done better, I agree. But again, you see the swagger this lad had...he was a great character, and loved his mum a lot...he cried in the ceremony.
"Small Group" - good lighting. Like the way the leaves above frame them. Looks like the flower girl had an accident earlier, but participated anyway - a trooper! Groom looks like his eyes are closed, but I know people like him who always have their eyes almost always mostly closed, and it is difficult to get them to open wider.
That's how he did his eyes all the time (almost). The little girl had her leg straightened iin an operation a couple of weeks before. She was my shadow, even took a couple of shots with my camera herself.
"The couple" - good lighting, separation from background. In terms of posing, I'd have asked them to rotate their bodies inwards a bit, towards each other. The groom seems slightly shorter than the bride, and perhaps shooting a bit more to his left, and from shoulder level (not eye level) would have made the two more equal in height.
Yes, I see how that would help. Thanks.
Overall, I think you did very well, and contributed to the occasion. I'm sure they will be very happy with the images they get from you. Contratulations.

I am certain they will like them...and even more so as they were free, and to get them some pictures they wouldn't have got at all had I not done it.

 

[Robin Usagani]

sorry.. i am just trying to make a point about people's comment about looking like a red neck. I am sorry, it is not even close to a red neck wedding. Not because they are from England. Because he is wearing a nice suit and tie, she is wearing a nice dress, the bridesmaid are wearing matching classy dress. The groomsmen are wearing black and white suit. Flower girls are cute. No redneck here!

 

[MLeeK]

Yeah, there are some major errors, but overall they are not bad. You can only work with what you have at this point, so go forward. A little skin help and some basic adjustments will make these beyond what the bride and groom imagine
This is a 5 minute edit and it's dirty, but you get the idea.

 

[Bend The Light]

sorry.. i am just trying to make a point about people's comment about looking like a red neck. I am sorry, it is not even close to a red neck wedding. Not because they are from England. Because he is wearing a nice suit and tie, she is wearing a nice dress, the bridesmaid are wearing matching classy dress. The groomsmen are wearing black and white suit. Flower girls are cute. No redneck here!

No problem. These are just people...and nice people actually. Not full of airs and graces...just themselves. I appreciated the comments about the photography, and have taken all of that into account for next time (not that I plan on being a wedding photographer at all!

 

[Bend The Light]

Yeah, there are some major errors, but overall they are not bad. You can only work with what you have at this point, so go forward. A little skin help and some basic adjustments will make these beyond what the bride and groom imagine
This is a 5 minute edit and it's dirty, but you get the idea.
View attachment 15712

I do get the idea...very good. I would like to learn how to do that.

In this case, I don't think I would be doing that, however, it was a freebie and not intended to take up a whole lot of my time. But the processing ideas you have would most definitely help in my other work.

Thanks.

 

[MLeeK]

That was done by "cheating." I opened the image in adobe camera raw, opened it to PS as a smart object.
Create a new smart object via copy
On the bottom layer double click to take it back to ACR.
Because this was so small my settings won't do you any good, but I decreased the clarity a good amount, pushed up the noise removal for both luminance and color and I used the adjustment brush to darken the background a fair amount. I also removed a bit of the color saturation in the background, decreased the sharpness and clarity.
Opened back to PS
On the top layer mask through all of the background and the skin areas up to the fine details you don't want to use.
I merged all of that and adjusted the levels to get a pop on her. Created a whole new layer of everything I had done and used the burn brush on her neck a bit to give her less of a double chin.


If I were editing these in full size and all that I probably would have used another layer and cloned a bit at about 20-30% opacity to ease up the eyes and wrinkles about them. Then mask back any that goes onto the eye or where you don't want it.

 

[Bend The Light]

That was done by "cheating." I opened the image in adobe camera raw, opened it to PS as a smart object.
Create a new smart object via copy
On the bottom layer double click to take it back to ACR.
Because this was so small my settings won't do you any good, but I decreased the clarity a good amount, pushed up the noise removal for both luminance and color and I used the adjustment brush to darken the background a fair amount. I also removed a bit of the color saturation in the background, decreased the sharpness and clarity.
Opened back to PS
On the top layer mask through all of the background and the skin areas up to the fine details you don't want to use.
I merged all of that and adjusted the levels to get a pop on her. Created a whole new layer of everything I had done and used the burn brush on her neck a bit to give her less of a double chin.


If I were editing these in full size and all that I probably would have used another layer and cloned a bit at about 20-30% opacity to ease up the eyes and wrinkles about them. Then mask back any that goes onto the eye or where you don't want it.

Thank you. I haven't yet used Smart-Objects in this way, but will have to try. One to play with on my holidays, that one.

Cheers

 

[Granddad]

Number 1 is a classic - teeth included. As you say, he's happy to flash his smile around so why make him close his lips? From my experience this is a cultural issue. Teeth are not a big deal in 90% of the world but for many (not all) in the USA they seem to be. I have slightly crooked teeth. A childhood fall was the cause and in the UK at that time braces were something that kept your trousers up. I'd never had an issue with my teeth or been remotely embarrassed by them until I was living in the States (married to my lovely American wife, now of 33 years) and my mother in law said to me: "Mark, have you ever considered having your teeth straightened?" ** !!????????!!** How do you respond to that?

It's a Hollywood thing, shallow, Austin Powers, stereotypes and discrimination based on looks. Unfortunately it's come over here, too but isn't yet quite so widespread.

 

[Derrel]

The bridesmaids dresses are actually quite stylish AND attractive! I think the shots speak for themselves. I have seen better,and I have seen much,much,much,MUCH worse wedding photography. A lot of "spirit" comes through in these images. I think as staiight-forward documentation, these succeed on most all levels.

 

[Rick58]

I agree with the compliments above. You stated from the start that you aren't a wedding photographer. These are MUCH better then the family would have had if you weren't there. You did a great job and an irreplaceable favor for a freind. nice job.
Not every photograph has to be a $1000 photograph. Sometimes it can just be what photography started out as, a recorded image of a moment in time that will never be able to be revisited. You achived this and more.

EDIT: First my apologies to BTL. My intention is not to hijack your thread, but I need to get this off my chest.

Ya know, I left this thread but had to come back. I started thinking about some of history's great photographer's and I wondered how many Civil War photograph's would have never been recorded if the photographer was worried about proper lighting, distracting background, DOF and Bokeh (whatever the hell that is). Whatever happened to images that simply record a moment in time or images that just plain old don't hurt the eyes to look at. I was embarrassed for all of us after reading some of the early posts on this thread. Rant over

 

[vtf]

Very good attempt! I actually like the first one, your friend is open and fun to be around and shows in the image. All the images show what I imagine to be a fun time and great people. Good images of good people and good times can't be beat!

 

[3bayjunkie]

You really shouldnt have used the flash out doors. It made the backgrounds seem too dark. And the faces became flatly lit.

 

[Netskimmer]

Our regional VP where I work is a redneck, he worked IN a coal mine for most of his younger years. He makes 6 figures and his wedding would put some royal families to shame. Not even gonna comment on the whole 'shallow Americans' thing. What say we move past the culture bashing and stereotypes and get back to the discussion at hand.