some bridal shots on film, c&c welcome

[SoonerBJJ]

Some impromptu wedding day photographs. Shot on Tri X 400 and developed in Rodinal 1+50.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

Up for another look.

 

[Alpha]

Yes to #3.

Too much couch in #1. Her face is striking but I think it's otherwise unflattering as a bridal portrait.

#2 is a definite no.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

Thanks, alpha. What do you dislike so about #2?

 

[Alpha]

Except for the hair piece thing, there's really no indication that you're looking at a bride- so I don't think it really fits the bill for a "bridal portrait." Also, the angle from which it was shot makes her upper arm appear much larger than it is in real life. Making any part of a woman's body appear bigger than it is in real life is practically a mortal sin. Also, the wrinkle in her upper arm is unflattering because it makes it look flabby.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

Those are very good points. I should clarify that these are not any sort of "bridal portrait" session. They are my sis-in-law saying, "hey let's go take some photos before I walk down the isle." So the photo should be considered on its own merit, rather than whether it portrays a bride. But, the points about her arm are well taken. I'm envisioning a reposition of her arm, perhaps down to her side in order to diminish rather than accentuate its proportion, and an adjustment to the angle of the shot.

Thanks for the critique.

 

[heroes19]

I like #3. the #1-2 is a bit soft and not focus.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

I like #3. the #1-2 is a bit soft and not focus.

Thanks. Not sure if it's your monitor or the file but #1-2 are actually in very sharp focus. In #1 the face, and more importantly eyes, are very crisp and #2 has a very narrow DOF with the eye lashes in crisp focus and everything else OOF. All were shot handheld in natural light in a heavily shaded room. Aperture and shutter speed settings in #1 and 3 were a balance of getting the DOF I wanted and fast enough for hand held. #2 was wide open with the intent of getting only a sliver DOF.

 

[LF911SC]

They're over processed making them look that way. There's too much contrast and don't flatter the subject IMO.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

Thanks for the input, but they are not "processed." These were shot on film, developed at home and the scanned negatives were imported through LR. High contrast is the point of Tri-X in Rodinal. Some like it, some do not.

 

[LF911SC]

It's not flattering though. The added contrast gives her skin an orange peel look. Un wedding like look IMO.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

That is definitely a valid observation. I believe the combination of film and developer gives a very organic look, accentuating the skin texture rather than hiding it. Shooting with a DSLR and softening in post would have definitely given a different, more conventional, look. I feel the contrast gives it a harder, sexy appeal in the Ralph Gibson tradition. Maybe my taste is out dated but that's what I'm going for in my choice of film and developer. Definitely would not appeal to every bride but I'm but a rank amateur and my sis-in-law is a professional photog schooled in the old film ways and she liked the product.

I really do appreciate the input, though. This is the only way we get better.