Latest wedding

[Lmphotos]

Informal country wedding (they have both been married multiple times wanted something low key) decided to play around with a bit of flash to spice it up you can critique if you like!

 

[412 Burgh]

I like it... But nothing screams wedding about it to me

 

[kathyt]

This isn't working for me. You can't tell what type of photo it is. The lighting is way too harsh all over the place. These dramatic flash situations work really well in low light, but not when you can see the harsh shadows of daylight.

 

[kathyt]

Maybe Robin Usagani will chime in here. He does this really well.

 

[Lmphotos]

They wanted a picture right there with the red gate and field. I couldn't do anything about the harsh in the background so decided to underexposed and pop a flash behind them to sillouhte them for some drama. I CTO the flash just to give it a sun appeal. It was my best at trying to see the situation and wondering how I could do it one better. Instead of having them stand in front of it and expose for them and completely blow out the back ground they actually wanted in the picture. Like I said very very informal wedding (for example it was done on a farm (horses, pigs and all) he had on jeans and she wore a short dress with cowboy boots. If this was a traditional wedding probably wouldn't have done it. But for this I thought it fit the feel.

 

[curtyoungblood]

First the good. I think it is cool that you're thinking outside the box and getting something different for this couple. I think you did something right by putting the CTO on the flash.

However, I agree that this isn't really working. I think the starburst effect of the flash is way too strong, and you can't really make out where the people are. Given the parameters that they want the red gate and field in the background, I still think there were some better solutions. 1. I think that you could have given your flash so that it wasn't directly in the gap between them (I understand that you did that on purpose, but it is what people are having a problem with), so that the effect wouldn't have been so harsh. You could have silhouetted them without totally losing and information on them.

2. you could have used that flash as a key light to bring their level up to a proper ratio to the background.

3. If that gate opens out into the field, I bet you could have convinced them to let you open it like 45 degrees so you'd get a nice light on them from the sun and used the flash to fill. You would have still kept the gate and field in the photo, but had better light.

 

[Lmphotos]

I have both with and without the starburst effect this is what I liked more. So maybe a preference deal there. Gate was to stay closed due to all the animals on the other side. I tried to place it is a way where the flash was mimicking the hard lighting so it didn't look extremely off and then bring down the background as much as I could. Their sillouhte without the flash did look off because of that hard lighting. So the sunburst made it seem a bit more realistic in my mind. It's good to get feedback but I'm still happy with the image because of where it started to what it turned into

 

[kathyt]

They wanted a picture right there with the red gate and field. I couldn't do anything about the harsh in the background so decided to underexposed and pop a flash behind them to sillouhte them for some drama. I CTO the flash just to give it a sun appeal. It was my best at trying to see the situation and wondering how I could do it one better. Instead of having them stand in front of it and expose for them and completely blow out the back ground they actually wanted in the picture. Like I said very very informal wedding (for example it was done on a farm (horses, pigs and all) he had on jeans and she wore a short dress with cowboy boots. If this was a traditional wedding probably wouldn't have done it. But for this I thought it fit the feel.

You are getting critique because you put this in the professional forum. Formal or imformal wedding shouldn't matter if you are acting as the paid professional. You still could have got this same effect in front of the gate without the harsh lighting with just different placement of the couple and some tweaks of your settings.

 

[Lmphotos]

They wanted a picture right there with the red gate and field. I couldn't do anything about the harsh in the background so decided to underexposed and pop a flash behind them to sillouhte them for some drama. I CTO the flash just to give it a sun appeal. It was my best at trying to see the situation and wondering how I could do it one better. Instead of having them stand in front of it and expose for them and completely blow out the back ground they actually wanted in the picture. Like I said very very informal wedding (for example it was done on a farm (horses, pigs and all) he had on jeans and she wore a short dress with cowboy boots. If this was a traditional wedding probably wouldn't have done it. But for this I thought it fit the feel.

You are getting critique because you put this in the professional forum. Formal or imformal wedding shouldn't matter if you are acting as the paid professional. You still could have got this same effect in front of the gate without the harsh lighting with just different placement of the couple and some tweaks of your settings.

I think your misunderstanding above they said "nothing about this says wedding" I am explains the wedding so yes to me an informal, country wedding this fits it. I wasn't going to pose them or take shots of them like this was a cathedral, elegant affair. I tried to fit the situation. I think you misunderstood why I explained it was an informal wedding. Because I want led everyone to get a feel of the wedding. Would this fit every situation? Absolutely not. But it was my vision and how I wanted to execute it. About the critique I even put in the line, "you may critique if you like." But in the same token you have to give me a chance to explain why I did what I did and my thought process. To me that helps with the whole process. After I explain what they wanted what I had to work with then people usually counter with what they would of done at that point. It's good stuff to hear how they would go through a similar situation. Yes I was a paid photographer and my clients were very happy with their "informal" shots (considering that's what they asked me to do from get go) so in this case for THIS wedding informal does matter considering they wanted and designed it that way. Every wedding I do is a case by case bases and I shoot it and plan accordingly.

 

[Derrel]

I've seen this effect done since the early 1980's. In this instance, I think the flash is way too strong, and almost totally dominates them, and the kiss. This has always been kind of an easy go-to gimmick, and it looks very gimmicky every time I see it. This is, in my opinion, one of the most overused and simplistic lighting "techniques" to come out of the 1980's. Sorry if that seems harsh, and it is not intended to disparage you, the original poster. This look has a long history, and it has become, to me, something I got my fill of 20+ years ago.

 

[curtyoungblood]

I think you're confusing "this doesn't say wedding to me" with "this is an informal wedding". I understand that this was a casual wedding, and they wanted photos to match, but I think the agreement here is that the effect didn't work for this photo.

I feel like you are really happy that something you had a vision for worked, and you may have even gone out on a limb to do something new. It feels like you're really attached because of this, even though all the comments so far say it isn't working. (I have done and experience this phenomena many times, so my comments are intended as sharing some hard-earned lessons and not an insult)

 

[texkam]

Having a sunburst there isn't logical unless it's the sun reflecting off an object. That is yet another reason I am struggling with this shot.

 

[Lmphotos]

I've seen this effect done since the early 1980's. In this instance, I think the flash is way too strong, and almost totally dominates them, and the kiss. This has always been kind of an easy go-to gimmick, and it looks very gimmicky every time I see it. This is, in my opinion, one of the most overused and simplistic lighting "techniques" to come out of the 1980's. Sorry if that seems harsh, and it is not intended to disparage you, the original poster. This look has a long history, and it has become, to me, something I got my fill of 20+ years ago.

Lol since I I was a newborn in the late 80's maybe that's why I like it? To me it is new and added a did element to the shot. Not for everyone but my clients really like it and that makes me overjoyed

 

[Robin_Usagani]

I dont know derrel... Perhaps it was used a lot on a studio setting. I can honestly say I havent seen this kind of shots on weddings with film. But you are right, photographers does do this a lot nowadays. Clients love it and it only takes 1 light! I'll admit it. I chimp a lot when I do this. If I had only a film camera, I honestly can say I would not be able to do it. Even after I chimp and got the setting right (enough ambient and enough flash power), it takes multiple shots to get the light just right. You kinda want to hide the light behind the subject but not completely. Even after that, I still have to do quite a bit of manipulation and to remove the lightstand sometimes. So if I had a film camera, I don't know if I can do it at a wedding setting. Like the shot below.. I am not sure if I like the result, but this is like busiest street in downtown Denver on a Saturday night. The traffic was coming at us! The flash wasnt straight and pointed down too much. I would love a little flare.

P.S. it would make it a super nice shot if it was raining or snowing!