My 2nd Wedding.... free of course....

[zendianah]

Hello.. who ever is viewing this mess... I'm feeling a bit discouraged,,, I'm using Lightroom as well as Photoshop.. I saved all RAW images as TIFF.. cause I read somewhere thats what you should do.. Than my final images saved in JPEG.. to my surprise the image size reads as follows

w= 1.416
h= 2.056
Resolution = 2000 -- At this point I want to cry. What did I do wrong. Are my pics a wholy mess? Also.. these were taken is a lightning storm ..


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

 

[Big Mike]

w= 1.416
h= 2.056
Resolution = 2000

Is that a size in inches, and a resolution of pixel per inch? If so, you have nothing to worry about, that is a large enough to make big prints. The only thing you really need to worry about is the size of the image in pixels.

As for the photos, I like them and maybe I can come up with some helpfull critique:
#1, the white balance/color seems off, it looks too green or cyan. I love the shot though.
#3, this one also seems off. Too red this time I think.
The rest look better, although you are loosing detail in the dress in a few of them.
Also, many of them have the dreaded 'side shadow'. It's not so much a problem in #3 but it's a bit worse in #4 and #5...and in #7 it really makes the bride look weird.
I'm assuming you are using a hot-shoe flash and shooting with the camera in portrait orientation? This is why they have flash brackets that flip or rotate...so that you can keep the flash above the camera when shooting in portrait...and keep the shadows from being thrown to the side.

 

[Southerngal]

Exactly what should you do to avoid that type of shadow?

 

[Big Mike]

Exactly what should you do to avoid that type of shadow?

Don't have the flash off to the side of the camera...have it above the camera instead. The problem is that people are taller than they are wide and so it makes sense to shoot in portrait orientation...which puts the hot shoe on the side of the camera, rather than on top. As I mentioned, that's where a flash bracket comes in. You attach the flash to the bracket and connect it to the camera via a cord. There are two types...the flip and the camera rotate. Either way, the flash will be above the camera in either landscape or portrait orientation.

 

[zendianah]

Unfortunately I used the on camera flash for these,,,, So I dont know how in the heck I did it.. Growing pains I guess

 

[Big Mike]

Well, the on camera flash can create side shadows as well...although not as pronounced as a hot-shoe flash.

 

[mysteryscribe]

If you are using an off camera flash you might want to get it up a little higher. That shadow behind their heads would most likely be thrown down rather than straight back if you did that. With digital most people bounce if off the ceiling to avoid it all together. With film for me it is better to get the flash a bit higher than the camera.

 

[zendianah]

Im the idiot that let my 2nd shooter use the speedlight.. ugghhh... I think I went a little crazy on the diffuse glow. I think thats why there are funky shadows.. Thank god I have the originals. I will rework and post.

Funny story about the day.. We were in Boulder and cells of storms kept coming in.. Finally we thought great.. storm is over.. Minister quite colorful speeds thru the vows.. Low an behold.. as soon as he says I pronounce you man and -- LIGHTNING STRIKES... We lauph and look up.. I WISH I WAS EXPERIENCED ENOUGH TO CATch that lightning bolt.. I lauphed so hard and thought.. dammmnn is that a warning OR WHAT

 

[NJMAN]

Nice work Zendianah! He sure does look like a colorful minister from that first photo (physically and expression-wise!).

NJ

 

[mysteryscribe]

I should have said nice job as well... those shadows dont bother me at all I have seen worse in my sample books from the old days.

 

[zendianah]

Nice work Zendianah! He sure does look like a colorful minister from that first photo (physically and expression-wise!).

NJ

Thank you !! Its hard work and Im trying to get better. It helps to look at your photos as well as some others. Lighting... IM TRYING VERY HARD,,, Im reading Understanding Exposure, Field Guide to the D200 and a Wedding Book on Lighting and catching that moment.. I'll get there one day.. I LOVE IT.. and love people photography in general.

 

[zendianah]

I should have said nice job as well... those shadows dont bother me at all I have seen worse in my sample books from the old days.

I apprecaite your coments mystery !! Im still a newbie and not claiming to be pro. I dont think I will ever claim that .. There is so much to learn.. New poses -- New and intreresting lighting... I'll never be a pro at anything always a student of life.

 

[mysteryscribe]

that's the best attitude... You can be in photography for lots of reasons. Some folks are in it for the money, some for the ego boost, and some just to express themselves. I got in it to get laid. Worked to lol

 

[zendianah]

that's the best attitude... You can be in photography for lots of reasons. Some folks are in it for the money, some for the ego boost, and some just to express themselves. I got in it to get laid. Worked to lol

NICE!!! Thats a rockin reason!! Chicks dig photographers...

 

[EOS_JD]

Than my final images saved in JPEG.. to my surprise the image size reads as follows

w= 1.416
h= 2.056
Resolution = 2000 -- At this point I want to cry. What did I do wrong. Are my pics a wholy mess?

If these are sizes in inches and ppi here's what you have.

Images are
2.056 x 2000 = 4112px
1.416 x 2000 = 2832px

So 4112 pixels x 2832 pixels in size which is pretty big!

There are 3 simple equations that help give you the info you require.

No of Pixels (on one axis) (Px) = Print Size (PS) x resolution (ppi)

PS = Px/ppi

ppi = Px/PS

From this you can work out print sizes or resolution for a particular print size so as you can see with the No of pixels you have you can easily get a top quality 13" x 9" image (or smaller) at 300ppi and you can get larger sizes up to around 16x12 at 240ppi (which will look fantastic).

And you can print even larger if you wish.