2nd Wedding (pic heavy)

[Kerbouchard]

[

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.

You posted three pics. The original, a bad edit in color and a bad edit in black and white...or are you so drunk you can't remember what you posted? That would be about the only explanation for those edits.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I dialed the exposure way down to show there is still detail. Just shut the F up.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I dialed the exposure way down to show there is still detail. Just shut the F up.

The fact that there are some bluish shadows and a bit of texture still visible does not mean the shot was not overexposed. The quality of your edit shows just how badly overexposed the photo originally was. You are over your head on this one and now you are just talking nonsense and adding a bit of profanity to add a bit of bluster. Give it up.

 

[Robin Usagani]

So you agree you couldnt read?

 

[Kerbouchard]

So you agree you couldnt read?

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Do you think you can sound that out for me?

 

[Ryan L]

Gotta say this is getting a little ridiculous, In the 2nd image Schwetty was showing the highlights were intact, and not trying to edit the photo. He underexposed it so that you could see clearly what detail was remaining. Thats it...

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Karissa gets banned, Karburetor has been quiet, so the forum devolves into all this infighting. Sweet!

 

[Kerbouchard]

Gotta say this is getting a little ridiculous, In the 2nd image Schwetty was showing the highlights were intact, and not trying to edit the photo. He underexposed it so that you could see clearly what detail was remaining. Thats it...

No, what is ridiculous is that anybody could look at that edit and think the highlights are intact. Some of the highlights are intact. Most of it isn't. If you or Schwetty can't see that than it is not worth further discussion.

The whites were overexposed leading to a loss of detail that cannot be recovered. Couple that with a bad white balance and I just don't see a reason to seriously critique these photos or why a long standing member here who claims to specialize in wedding photography would claim that these are normal results.

They aren't, unless an inexperienced photographer is shooting in conditions that are beyond their experience and equipment. Yes, as I said earlier, whites are hard. That isn't an excuse. Expose the freaking bride's dress correctly or don't shoot weddings. Period.

 

[Ryan L]

Karburetor

:lmao:

 

[willis_927]

I think we need Karissa back to get people away from this thread. Kerbouchard, if your going to post in my threads thats fine, but atleast make some useful posts and helpful C&C so I can someday take perfect pictures like you must.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I got that much back from a JPEG file! I am speechless.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I think we need Karissa back to get people away from this thread. Kerbouchard, if your going to post in my threads thats fine, but atleast make some useful posts and helpful C&C so I can someday take perfect pictures like you must.

Look, I've assisted at weddings. I know that you don't always have options on your shooting angle or your lighting set up. Most of the time, the primary shooter sets up the lighting for the formals, and you get what you can get. For me, I don't even go to the formals. I go to the reception and get the detail shots before the guests and wedding party get there so that I can make sure I get the perfect set up shots. I assume the main photog was using dedicated lighting for the shots that you posted and that you were somewhere close by just taking shots as he was. My advice would have been to go inside, take the detail shots, take the food shots, take the table setting shots before everybody got a chance to mess them up.

As far as advice goes, I'm sending you a PM with my e-mail address. Like Schwetty already pointed out, some of those images can't be recovered as they currently are. Send me a RAW file that you like and I'll post my edit to this thread. If I can't do any better than Schwetty, I will tell you why, and what you could have done in the future. If I can, I will tell you what I did. As it is, neither Schwetty or I know what processing decisions you made or if that impacted what we see here or if it could have been recovered in post processing.

Oh, and I have only started 10 threads on this forum...3 of them have been weddings, so if you want to 'research' my background, it shouldn't be too difficult.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I can tell you right now, without adding additional light... thats the exposure you want. If you had exposed it to the bright white, then her face will be a stop or two even more underexposed. Then her face is going to be bad because you lose a lot of detail from underexposing too much of the MOST IMPORTANT thing... the face.

 

[Ryan L]

Gotta say this is getting a little ridiculous, In the 2nd image Schwetty was showing the highlights were intact, and not trying to edit the photo. He underexposed it so that you could see clearly what detail was remaining. Thats it...

No, what is ridiculous is that anybody could look at that edit and think the highlights are intact. Some of the highlights are intact. Most of it isn't. If you or Schwetty can't see that than it is not worth further discussion.

The whites were overexposed leading to a loss of detail that cannot be recovered. Couple that with a bad white balance and I just don't see a reason to seriously critique these photos or why a long standing member here who claims to specialize in wedding photography would claim that these are normal results.

They aren't, unless an experienced photographer is shooting in conditions that are beyond their experience and equipment. Yes, as I said earlier, whites are hard. That isn't an excuse. Expose the freaking bride's dress correctly or don't shoot weddings. Period.

I agree to expose correctly, and that the wb is off. It's an 800x893 pixel jpg, most of the details have been pitched already anyway. The OP was also a 2nd shooter and said this was their 2nd wedding. Also said they werent paid. What more did you really want out of this rant?

 

[Kerbouchard]

Gotta say this is getting a little ridiculous, In the 2nd image Schwetty was showing the highlights were intact, and not trying to edit the photo. He underexposed it so that you could see clearly what detail was remaining. Thats it...

No, what is ridiculous is that anybody could look at that edit and think the highlights are intact. Some of the highlights are intact. Most of it isn't. If you or Schwetty can't see that than it is not worth further discussion.

The whites were overexposed leading to a loss of detail that cannot be recovered. Couple that with a bad white balance and I just don't see a reason to seriously critique these photos or why a long standing member here who claims to specialize in wedding photography would claim that these are normal results.

They aren't, unless an experienced photographer is shooting in conditions that are beyond their experience and equipment. Yes, as I said earlier, whites are hard. That isn't an excuse. Expose the freaking bride's dress correctly or don't shoot weddings. Period.

I agree to expose correctly, and that the wb is off. It's an 800x893 pixel jpg, most of the details have been pitched already anyway. The OP was also a 2nd shooter and said this was their 2nd wedding. Also said they weren't paid. What more did you really want out of this rant?

Not much...couple that with the fact that this was posted in the beginners forum and I would say you are probably right and most of my comments are out of line. Sorry Willis.

Perhaps, I have been too critical. You are right, the OP was not paid, and was only shooting their second wedding. Under those circumstances, they did a pretty good job.

I guess my main Rant was against Schwettylens who claims to be a primary wedding photographer who thinks these results are perfectly normal. They aren't, and they shouldn't be...at least not professionally.