Bride went from loving her wedding pics to "not up to my standards"

[Andrew Sun]

More processing meaning: more editing. Now, editing itself is a whole new topic that can be discussed in fine detail but in general, it can either save some of your no-good images or enhance the already-great images.

Most of your images are already mentioned by a number of people in this thread. Under-exposed, under-processed and many are out-of-focus. All in all, it isn't the end of the world. This whole experience (including dealing with clients who seems quite confused themselves) will only make you better.

 

[Black Dog]

I thought the shots were very good. Even some of the posed shots looked very natural. It sounds like the customer did not have a problem until she saw the prints, so, like those above said, if there is indeed a problem with the finished product it was in the processing of the prints, or how they appear printed.

As unpleasant as it can be, sometimes it is the high maintenance or demanding customers that "help" you sort out problems or shortfalls in what you do.

Regards

 

[Tinstafl115 112]

I'd say that you have some good shots and a few great shots, though what I mostly see is that a quite a lot of them are underprocessed with the wrong white balance. That's not too bad, even less so if you were shooting in raw. I think there are a good number of them could go from "good" to "stellar" with some more processing.

I looked over the shots you posted. I think you need to calibrate the monitor as has been said. Also, the white balance issue seems to be in the beginning of the wedding shot in the preparation phase. It might have come from different lighting and the flash not overpowering it. Also i saw a few where you cut off feet legs and hands. Other than that, you have a bunch of good shots and she should be pretty happy with them when they are processed and printed.

 

[FarrahJ]

I didn't know there was such a thing to calibrate the monitor.

Then you should NOT be charging people. I realize that you made it VERY clear to the bride that you are not a pro and they agreed...but if you don't know what you're doing, then you shouldn't jump to a single wedding shooter. A wedding is a one time event...no re-shoots available.

I also agree with epp_b about the processing...but IMO, you have VERY few good shots. The processing is inconsistent. You have some that are under exposed and some where the whites are blown. You have some that are OOF and I wouldn't even show them. Most of the indoor ones have wonky WB issues. Your BW conversions are also inconsistent and mostly muddy...as though you used a few actions... badly. Even the posed family shots were done in dappled light. THAT is something you should notice when setting up the shot. Really, I would have thought these were taken by a random guest and not the hired wedding photographer.

I know I'm coming out harsh, but I would seriously re-consider shooting a wedding again until you can guarantee good photos.

 

[molested_cow]

I myself have turned down many requests to be event photographer because I have only shot photos for my own pleasure and cannot guarantee anything. Plus, I shoot with 35mm which means it's even more unforgiving if the light condition isn't favorable. I'd say if you want to become an event photographer, start with doing it for free, or as the second/back-up photographer. Communication with your client is also very important. You NEED to deliver up to, or surpass their expectations. An event like wedding is one of the hardest. I'd suggest really know the schedule inside out, when things are expected to happen and plan for them. Also, know the venue inside out too. You need to be at the right place at the right time. Knowing the weather is another thing. If it's going to be cloudy, then have a strategy to make the best use of it.

Equipment for wedding event is also very demanding. Good lens for indoor shots. Portrait and wide angle to telephoto, you almost need everything, not to mention a good mobile flash set up and the skill to use them properly. You need a lot of experience for sure. That's why people spend 4 years in photography schools.

Here's a really good example of someone who started out as a recreational photographer and became a pro:

* ±B§¬ö¿ý½g* Photo Gallery by Albert Jou at pbase.com

The message below actually says he's sorry that he cannot take any more reservations because he's completely booked for the rest of the year.

With regards to monitor calibration, this is very important for ANY profession that deals with image output. Photographers, graphic designers, publishers etc. Basically, you need to calibrate all of your imaging devices, from scanners, monitors to printers. Design consultancies will hire professionals to calibrate EVERY scanner, monitor and printer that they own. It's useless to create an image that looks to be beautiful on your own screen and turn out to be off when printed on the final medium. My laptop has really inaccurate color saturation which is beyond adjustment, so I use a separate monitor that is closer to my printer whenever I need to process any image. Also, when making a print from a commercial printer, always proof read them before them make the actual print. This isn't about making sure that there's no spelling error, but making sure if the image comes out right. Otherwise, you will be wasting both time and money.

So, going pro is not just about being able to click your camera trigger. You need to be able to provide the whole package, from the beginning to the final output. Whether you outsource part of your service or not, you need to have a network of resources to back you up. If you cannot make prints yourself, then establish a good relationship with a trust worthy commercial printer to do the work for you. Rule of thumb is, everything that goes out to your clients represents your reputation. Everything you send out should go through your hands before they are delivered.

 

[Derrel]

I went through the first 125 shots in the slide show,looking at each and every shot. Your quality is about 60/40, varying between adequate and inadequate. Incorrect white balance (excessively yellow indoor shots), failure to use fill-flash when needed,and lots of tilted horizons for no artistic reason. Indoors, a lot of your stuff done at the tables has a simply atrocious, large, black flash shadow, almost as if you rented a lens for the event, and used it with a pop-up flash that casts a big shadow right in the bottom center of every shot done with the lens zoomed to XX point.

Your indoor stuff at the reception ranged from okay to flatly unacceptable and out of focus. Sprinkled in are some nice shots, like their hands touching on the top of the head table, but there is a lot of stuff that's slightly to serious OOF, and a few shots that probably ought not to have been included, like the one of the seated infant right after the cake cutting. I can tell by looking that you do not have the kind of camera gear that ensures spot-on or even reasonably spot-on, easy Autofocusing in a dim,indoor area.

The slide show had 352 shots--probably removing the weakest shots and the "similars" would improve the look of the slide show. There are still some clunkers that are in the slide show. Consistency and quality is the name of the game,and the slide show demonstrates inconsistency across a number of areas. I did not see the shots she ordered and was unhappy with; it *is* possible that the lab printed smaller prints from the thumbnail images instead of the large JPEGs--I have actually had that unfortunate thing happen on simple machine re-print orders, where the machine will for some reason, print a 4x6 or 5x7 from a 14k thumbnail instead of a 1.2 MB sharpened, processed DSCF_0XXX_Print.JPG file...

 

[epp_b]

Yes, some of them are too dark and a number of them a much have a overly-warm colour balance.

A couple of quick edits of some shots I thought were better...

Brightened up, added some contrast, boosted the saturation to bring out the dress colours and added a bit of vignetting:




Used auto-adjust, which brightened up and added contrast. A few more contrast and tone adjustments, B&W conversion and vignetting:




Again, these are just quick edits of low-res JPEGs. I'm also hopelessly colourblind :\

Fill-flash would definitely have helped with some of these.

As I said, you have some good shots and a few great shots, but you should really refine your selection process.

 

[kkamin]

I'm pretty sure she said in her post to be gentle with the comments. I think the few people who have been grinding into her are missing the point of the post. It's not about how much you know, or about judging her, it's that she wants advice for her situation and she wants to improve.

And she stated outright that the bride agreed to have her wedding be her first shoot. She has experience as a second shooter, and by browsing her online gallery, she knew the protocol.

I think for you have some nice shots. I agree with others who said they just need to be corrected a little more. There is a great 12-hour video series at Lynda.com called "Photoshop Portrait Retouching" by Chris Orwig. If you are familiar with Photoshop, that series would address some of the issues people have pointed out, If you want to learn about color management by way of video, they have a course on that too. I highly recommend it, it's only $25 a month for a membership. (I swear I don't work there, I just think it's a tremendous resource).

Just try to get your monitor calibrated, if you can't spring for a colorimeter, do whatever you can online or in your preferences. Just make sure whatever color space you assign to your photos, the lab supports it (e.g. sRGB, Adobe RGB, etc.) and get some test prints from them to see how you guys match up.

Good luck,

K

 

[clickchick_23]

I'm pretty sure she said in her post to be gentle with the comments. I think the few people who have been grinding into her are missing the point of the post. It's not about how much you know, or about judging her, it's that she wants advice for her situation and she wants to improve.

And she stated outright that the bride agreed to have her wedding be her first shoot. She has experience as a second shooter, and by browsing her online gallery, she knew the protocol.

I think for you have some nice shots. I agree with others who said they just need to be corrected a little more. There is a great 12-hour video series at Lynda.com called "Photoshop Portrait Retouching" by Chris Orwig. If you are familiar with Photoshop, that series would address some of the issues people have pointed out, If you want to learn about color management by way of video, they have a course on that too. I highly recommend it, it's only $25 a month for a membership. (I swear I don't work there, I just think it's a tremendous resource).

Just try to get your monitor calibrated, if you can't spring for a colorimeter, do whatever you can online or in your preferences. Just make sure whatever color space you assign to your photos, the lab supports it (e.g. sRGB, Adobe RGB, etc.) and get some test prints from them to see how you guys match up.

Good luck,

K

Thank you so much for the nice words. :hug::
I was feeling a bit like I was being kicked while I was down. I spoke to the lab this morning and they are going to take a look at the pics I sent in and get back to me with help getting things right. Thanks again!

 

[FarrahJ]

I'm pretty sure she said in her post to be gentle with the comments. I think the few people who have been grinding into her are missing the point of the post. It's not about how much you know, or about judging her, it's that she wants advice for her situation and she wants to improve.

Gentle comments and Candy-Ass compliments aren't going to make her a better photographer. I feel she deserves the truth.

The original post wanted us to confirm that the bride was being unreasonable about prints we'd never seen. Instead of showing us a few of the shots, or the ones the bride ordered, she showed us the entire slide show. This tells me that she was pretty confident that the overall package was at least "good enough" for someone's first solo wedding. By telling her that she "has some great shots" or "they aren't that bad" it only re-enforces her confidence and she moves on to produce images of similar quality for the next bride. Why would I waste my time looking at over 300 images if I didn't want to help her improve?

And...I guess I was really put off by the fact that any MWAC has a calibrated monitor and she'd never even heard of such a thing. =(

As far as what to do about the prints...Every quality lab is overly generous with test prints to compare the image you see on your screen and their prints...so even having an uncalibrated monitor is no excuse for not knowing why a print doesn't look like the image on your screen.

 

[Foques]

Went through the whole slideshow. First shots I loved.

then, it turned into underexposed set of snapshots..with a little too tight cropping.

While many pictures were very nice, I don't know if I would order prints.
I would definitely put more time into PP.
Farrah <3, do me a favor, do that to my shots that I post.. I LOVE hearing constructive critique. (not being funny or a smartass here, I truly mean that).

 

[Derrel]

Here's a recently posted thread here on TPF. This guy and his daughter are two of the best naturalistic style wedding shooters on the web...not flashy, not a lot of tilted camera stuff, not a lot of odd angles, just simple, straightforward, direct, natural wedding work. They shoot Nikon full-frame and rely on the 14-24 and 24-70 lenses quite a bit, and the 70-200 as well if my memory serves me correctly. Their images are not the type of highly over-processed stuff so many aspire to; this is what quality, modern equipment can do with a competent shooter behind the eyepiece, without a lot of Photoshop effects and actions and weird borders...just pure, straight photography

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/180351-wedding-anastasija-aleksandr.html

And they turn out weddings like this every time.

 

[epp_b]

^ Very interesting. They do, however, have the advantage of shooting full-frame with Nikon's holy trinity of lenses (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 ... all constant f/2.8 lenses). Full-frame creates a much larger circle of confusion than any crop frame, which just seems to give the photos so much character.

That certainly doesn't replace or deprecate the requirement to compose, light and capture the expressions so elegantly the way they have, but it sure helps.

 

[katy625]

I say that there are more good shots than there are bad. There are quite a few in the beginning that were out of focus. I am always scared of how the pics will turn out once they are printed. I agree with the last post regarding more processing. There are some pics in the mix that with more Editing/PP the pics would go from good to stellar. There are a couple of the girl and what I imagine is her father and the Hue is very blue and they don't seem to be edited at all. Those would be good to make sure that they are edited.

 

[flea77]

Here's a recently posted thread here on TPF. This guy and his daughter are two of the best naturalistic style wedding shooters on the web...not flashy, not a lot of tilted camera stuff, not a lot of odd angles, just simple, straightforward, direct, natural wedding work. They shoot Nikon full-frame and rely on the 14-24 and 24-70 lenses quite a bit, and the 70-200 as well if my memory serves me correctly. Their images are not the type of highly over-processed stuff so many aspire to; this is what quality, modern equipment can do with a competent shooter behind the eyepiece, without a lot of Photoshop effects and actions and weird borders...just pure, straight photography

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/180351-wedding-anastasija-aleksandr.html

And they turn out weddings like this every time.

Utterly amazing! If I shot weddings, THAT is what I would strive to create. No fake B&Ws, no hyper processing, just beautiful shots, one after another.

Allan