Marriage C&C please!

[Nette]

I was messing around with my baby (D5100) and take this pictures and I love them. I would like to know what y'all think about them. Thank you in advance for the C&C.

#1
0.017 sec (1/60)
f/5.6
55 mm
ISO 500
Flash Off

Marriage *close up* by NetteRequena, on Flickr

#2
0.025 sec (1/40)
f/5.6
55 mm
ISO 800
Flash Off

Marriage by NetteRequena, on Flickr

 

[AgentDrex]

The first one is the closest for me. Perhaps placing the ring on the upper-left more and having more of the text lit would be nice. Good attempt though, thank you for sharing.

 

[KmH]

Your thread has been moved to the General Gallery per the new description for the Beginner's Forum.

The Beginners forum is no longer a C&C or Gallery forum section.

I recommend cropping them square.

 

[Propsguy]

I would get "marketability" right the hell out of there....

A lower camera angle with the "Marriage" text in the foreground and a shallow depth of field might help give the image some depth. I would consider also not having "seldom quarreled" in there... my eye keeps going to those words rather than the rings... not sure why. Perhaps "Unity", "Love", "Harmony" or some other descriptive term that doesn't include text of potential negative connotations would be more suitable?

Additionally, I would use a fibrous paper that has some texture.... the paper looks like it's just from a cheap paperback dictionary, and it cheapens the image.

Some cropping would help as well.... too much negative space for me...

Other than all that... good concept and well attempted... worth a reshoot...

 

[Frequency]

Excellent concept... i just feel that the rings should not have touched the boundary of the light patch...just a bit more bigger patch to avoid that contact

:thumbsup:

 

[NorrellPhotography]

I think they look good.

 

[cgipson1]

I would get "marketability" right the hell out of there....

Really? Most of the women I know use "marketability" to get the "marriage"!

 

[OpticMemory]

I like the 1st one.. I agree with AgentDrex to light the text more... maybe expand the explanation of what marriage is

 

[Trever1t]

The strange artifacts as light falls off really distract me. Also I think the focus is more on the print and less on the rigs...

 

[Tony S]

Bring your lights lower instead of nearly directly overhead so the oval extends up the page making more text visible, have it shining on the face of the rings so they are lit up. I'd make a copy of the definition you have there on another piece of paper so there are no distracting other terms, even enalarge them so it fills the frame a bit more.

 

[Joel_W]

I would get "marketability" right the hell out of there....

Really? Most of the women I know use "marketability" to get the "marriage"!

Charlie, I can assure you that my wife of nearly 30 years (this July 10th is the 30th), didn't use nor need any marketability.

 

[cgipson1]

I would get "marketability" right the hell out of there....

Really? Most of the women I know use "marketability" to get the "marriage"!

Charlie, I can assure you that my wife of nearly 30 years (this July 10th is the 30th), didn't use nor need any marketability.

So you are saying she didn't dress nicely, wear makeup, flirt.. or use any of the normal female marketing gimmicks like that, huh? lol! :greenpbl:

 

[Joel_W]

Really? Most of the women I know use "marketability" to get the "marriage"!

Charlie, I can assure you that my wife of nearly 30 years (this July 10th is the 30th), didn't use nor need any marketability.

So you are saying she didn't dress nicely, wear makeup, flirt.. or use any of the normal female marketing gimmicks like that, huh? lol! :greenpbl:

She always dressed conservatively by my generations standards. But since she was and still is a 10 on a a scale of 1-10, no tricks were needed. I still say she's half blind to have settled for me, as I classify myself as Mr. Average at best.

 

[manaheim]

The whole "wedding rings on the book" thing has been done to death.

Nicely exposed, though... speaking from experience, getting a shot of wedding rings that's all glittery and well exposed is challenging.

 

[cgipson1]

The whole "wedding rings on the book" thing has been done to death.

+ 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! lol!

Nicely exposed, though... speaking from experience, getting a shot of wedding rings that's all glittery and well exposed is challenging.

I actually don't see the glitter I associate with diamonds.. there is very little.