Rachelle and Steven

manaheim · Jul 23, 2012

I finally got a few moments to pose the couple the way I wanted in a scene I picked.

Anyway, comments or abuse welcome...

Wedding%20-%20Rachelle%20and%20Steven%20-%200904%20bw.jpg

Ernicus · Jul 23, 2012

I like what you did with the lines of light. Good stuff there.

Seems dark though, the dudes tux gets completely lost

Trever1t · Jul 23, 2012

Yes, I have to agree, it's dark on my monitor too. A little pop and this is a winner.

jamesbjenkins · Jul 23, 2012

Your composition is great, but your processing is really weak, IMO. This duotone B&W doesn't work here since the background is so dark.

manaheim · Jul 24, 2012

hmmm... interesting. I'll have to look at it again. Thanks for the feedback!

Robin Usagani · Jul 27, 2012

I'm going to be very biased. You can tell with the photos I have posted that I love shallow D.O.F. For a full body shot that is somewhat close, I almost always use shallow D.O.F. I think it looks much better if the background blurs gradually. It gives the viewer a sense of depth and sharpness. Your photo will look sharp because your subject is in focus and the background is blurred even though in reality, this shot with f/4 is probably sharper.

A lot of people say that with awesome ISO capability with today's camera, fast prime isn't that important anymore. I agree with that to a certain point but when it comes to bokeh, it is just cant be replaced. I believe if you had shot this with a 35 prime at 1.8, it would have been a stronger photo (or even at 2.8 with your zoom lens).

manaheim · Jul 28, 2012

Schwettylens said:
I'm going to be very biased. You can tell with the photos I have posted that I love shallow D.O.F. For a full body shot that is somewhat close, I almost always use shallow D.O.F. I think it looks much better if the background blurs gradually. It gives the viewer a sense of depth and sharpness. Your photo will look sharp because your subject is in focus and the background is blurred even though in reality, this shot with f/4 is probably sharper.

A lot of people say that with awesome ISO capability with today's camera, fast prime isn't that important anymore. I agree with that to a certain point but when it comes to bokeh, it is just cant be replaced. I believe if you had shot this with a 35 prime at 1.8, it would have been a stronger photo (or even at 2.8 with your zoom lens).

I appreciate the bias and the comments, Schwetty- thank you.

It's a good point. Weddings are so much more frenetic than what I'm used to shooting day to day, so I sometimes forget this or that element while focusing on getting this or that shot. I've recently noticed I don't always have the DOF I want because I'm on F4 or 5.6... or I'm just further away than I realize. Something I definitely need to focus on more, and I really appreciate your calling it out.

'Course my new problem is my existing primary wedding photographer has sort of dried up... he's an attorney as well as a photographer, and his becoming more well known as an attorney has scared away his potential wedding clients. So... if I want to keep doing this... I need to find a new primary. NO idea how to do that. :lol:

tirediron · Jul 30, 2012

****ing top drawer! The ONLY nit-pack I have is that the background light near her bustle bothers me. I might consider just blacking out everything past the sidewalk, but regardless, I like this. Well done.

manaheim · Jul 30, 2012

tirediron said:
****ing top drawer! The ONLY nit-pack I have is that the background light near her bustle bothers me. I might consider just blacking out everything past the sidewalk, but regardless, I like this. Well done.

Oh wow, thanks man. Glad you liked it. I'll have to have a look at it again when I get home to see what you're referring to (can't see my own pics on the iPhone lol)