2nd Wedding (pic heavy)

[butterflygirl921]

the shots of the couple could of been better if you made them portrait and got all of them but otherwise good work

 

[g-fi]

Overall you did great. Just need a little more wb adjustment. I don't see anything blown. Good job!

Uh.. really? Is this a joke? You don't see in #5 where the dress is completely blown out, there is absolutely no detail in the dress? Am I on Candid Forum?

I don't mind your critique at all, but what would you have done differently do prevent this? This was around 2:00pm, sun almost directly above, and obviously extremely bright. As Schwetty said, without additional lighting this would be very hard to prevent.

On a side note, thanks for all the comments/suggestions people.

Well, I would have avoided shooting in the direct sunlight if at all possible, but without a choice I would have exposed for the dress, and used fill light to get into the harsh shadows. Without fill I would have underexposed and brought in fill in post processing. I would not have chosen locations that I had to work against to get great portraits. How is rendering your bride's dress indistinguishable not a big deal? Using the excuse that it's white in full sun so it's OK to overexpose it to get the correct exposure in the faces is lazy, especially when you have the bride turned around TO SHOW OFF HER DRESS. I mean, if the clients are happy, awesome, I'm not getting into a fist fight over it, but if you post for C&C and want to argue that it's OK to half ass wedding portraiture b/c you don't have the right equipment or knowledge to shoot in difficult circumstances, don't use the "The sun was shining and it was hard mkay" excuse.

 

[g-fi]

As a follow up, why didn't you have additional lighting with you? What made you choose these outdoor locations?

 

[RauschPhotography]

As Schwetty said, without additional lighting this would be very hard to prevent.

If you're being paid to do a wedding, why wouldn't you be prepared for this? If there was even a possibility that you needed additional lighting, you should have had it..

 

[willis_927]

As Schwetty said, without additional lighting this would be very hard to prevent.

If you're being paid to do a wedding, why wouldn't you be prepared for this? If there was even a possibility that you needed additional lighting, you should have had it..

I think you guys better read the first post where I said I was a second shooter. I was not paid for this at all actually.

g-fi - I did not choose this locations, i was the second shooter as I mentioned in the first post. And I am not sure, but I think your arguing with yourself right now, because I was never arguing to begin with.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

As Schwetty said, without additional lighting this would be very hard to prevent.

On a side note, thanks for all the comments/suggestions people.

I pretty much agree with all the comments made. This should be a lesson to you as to why you shouldn't shoot another wedding until you have a flash and the ability to use it. I don't mean that as harshly as it may sound. You did very well for not having flash, but that's a pretty essential piece of gear for shooting weddings. If you want to step up your game, get one and learn to use it. The outdoor shots could have really came alive with some fill flash and the ambient dropped just a tad ( #3 would be the biggest to benefit from this. ) #2 would have benefited greatly from a reflector or off camera flash.

 

[Patrice]

As Schwetty said, without additional lighting this would be very hard to prevent.

If you're being paid to do a wedding, why wouldn't you be prepared for this? If there was even a possibility that you needed additional lighting, you should have had it..

I think you guys better read the first post where I said I was a second shooter. I was not paid for this at all actually.

g-fi - I did not choose this locations, i was the second shooter as I mentioned in the first post. And I am not sure, but I think your arguing with yourself right now, because I was never arguing to begin with.

Ok,

But still, why did you not have additional lighting? It should have been part of your kit regardless of your being second shooter or not. Is being second shooter not having the job of getting the secondary shots while the main photographer is doing the main sets? Given that function it is still appropriate to have the right gear for the job.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Why did you assume he didn't have flash?

 

[sierramister]

From a practical standpoint, I'm always looking out for potential liabilities (and it usually involves a toddler knocking over a light stand or leaving gear in the walkway). But in the case of shot 6, I wouldn't even go there. A bride in a dress longer than she will ever wear in her life possibly combined with heels on a railroad bridge seems like a bad idea. You may not liable if she slips and falls. However, that doesn't stop them from suing you and putting you through the wringer. If you're willing to risk it, I would at least call my agent up and pick his brain about how liable you are for a slip on what they will argue is a photo-shoot.

 

[willis_927]

Good point. Not sure how liable I would have been, as apposed to the main photographer, but definately something to keep in mind.
As for the guys talking about using a flash... I do have one yes, the bridge shots It was not used (some of the others it was), and I AGREE it should have been used on the bridge.. Rookie mistake, next time I'm on it.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I'm still curious about the whites. Check out times 1:43 through 1:57.

Hiring a Cheap Photographer | Xtranormal

There is no reason a second shooter at a wedding shouldn't be able to properly expose the Bride's dress or make sure the dress isn't blue.

"Whites are hard" isn't a very good reason for somebody who is shooting a wedding, even if they are just assisting. Turns out, we can pretty much expect at least one person to be wearing something white with a lot of detail that is somewhat important considering most brides spend more on their dress than they do on a photographer. The least we could do is properly expose it, show details, and display it as the right color.

 

[Robin Usagani]

To those who thinks the dress is blown. There is a big difference between really bright white, and blown as if there is no more information. Here is the photo with exposure dialed down and this is JPEG!

Now here is my edit.. I made it black and white because I only have JPEG.

Perhaps OP could have made them face other direction, use off camera flash, reflector, etc. but I think the biggest downfall is the editing. The indoor photos look pretty good. Given that this is OP's SECOND wedding AS SECOND shooter, he did pretty darn good job. If OP had tweaked the RAW better, use warmer WB, I am sure most of you would have said more positive things.

 

[djacobox372]

Overall you did great. Just need a little more wb adjustment. I don't see anything blown. Good job!

Uh.. really? Is this a joke? You don't see in #5 where the dress is completely blown out, there is absolutely no detail in the dress? Am I on Candid Forum?

I don't mind your critique at all, but what would you have done differently do prevent this? This was around 2:00pm, sun almost directly above, and obviously extremely bright. As Schwetty said, without additional lighting this would be very hard to prevent. On a side note, thanks for all the comments/suggestions people.

You could underexposed by a couple stops so you don't clip the highlights and then fix the exposure in post. Of course you have to be careful to be aware of what your camera is capable of. Current dslrs have excellent dynamic range, but older models don't always.

 

[Kerbouchard]

To those who thinks the dress is blown. There is a big difference between really bright white, and blown as if there is no more information. Here is the photo with exposure dialed down and this is JPEG!

Now here is my edit.. I made it black and white because I only have JPEG.

Perhaps OP could have made them face other direction, use off camera flash, reflector, etc. but I think the biggest downfall is the editing. The indoor photos look pretty good. Given that this is OP's SECOND wedding AS SECOND shooter, he did pretty darn good job. If OP had tweaked the RAW better, use warmer WB, I am sure most of you would have said more positive things.

Those might be some of the worst edits I have ever seen on this forum, and yes, they are still overexposed and the white balance is still off.

 

[Robin Usagani]

[

Those might be some of the worst edits I have ever seen on this forum, and yes, they are still overexposed and the white balance is still off.

You sir cannot read. How could my WB be off when it is black and white? Just shut the F up.