JandALight Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Just trying to do better work, C&C appreciated (28 images in CA) | |
MRomine wrote:
I didn't intend to discourage you from shooting low it can add a nice perspective and mix up your coverage a little more. You just have to watch what is going on in the ceilings because of all the junk that can be up above.
MRomine, no worries, I took your suggestions as a very sensible caution to be aware to be mindful of what's up in the ceiling. I know I just have to be judicious and careful about when to shoot that way; I found your comments very constructive. Not sure if I mentioned it before, but that day I just really tried (to my detriment I'm thinking) to see what I could do from that angle, and the expense of nearly everything else. It's good that you called me on it, because as you and many have pointed out correctly, it's not the best/most flattering in many situations
---------------------------------------------
form wrote:
You shoot upward a lot and I see lots of double chins. Also the groom at altar has a strong curve I don't understand.
I agree on both points, and judging myself, very out of character. Again, the theme of the day seemed to be to just try stuff. Some of it worked sometimes, a lot of it never worked at all. This may be some of the latter. Thanks for looking though, I really don't mind the critique, I find it invaluable.
---------------------------------------------
Depth of Feel wrote:
I would title this set "Waiting for Ceiling Cat"
JK. My first reaction was, "these are interesting", and then I tried to figure out why and instantly, "oh they are all pointed upwards". I wouldnt say its wrong or bad. I'd pull it back 20% but its your style so whateves.
Also, I love these because I see more candids then I am used to seeing on here. It seems all candid. Great work!
I hate #11. Hate is a strong word. I hate the tilt technique used with the extreme upshot in this case. Doesnt work for me. You don't need to showcase the chandeliers. They have a cameo in many other shots.
Everything else though is fantastic to me.
...Show more →
Thanks for the critique, I think It's all very fair. Yeah, the set does seem to be a call out to the ceiling cat meme, doesn't it, haha. My sets tend to be all candids because, well, that's what I can get if I'm assisting; however, I think that in my own weddings going forward, I will probably make that an emphasis.
Good call on #11, like I mentioned earlier, I think I only included it here to sthe set felt more rounded out...it bothers me the more I look at it, but at least it's getting people to look, even if in disdain.
---------------------------------------------
skg photos wrote:
These feel like a talented but very very very short kid was helping his dad at a wedding, and he couldnt find a way to make himself taller for the moments he wanted to cover.
The problem with very short perspectivs on brides larger than a size 2 (for you guys, that's supermodel skinniness) is that it adds visual weight and double chins, as someone else mentioned.
If shooting from low vantage point on purpose, like a cover shot for Vogue from the ground up, you would likely need to be in comtrol of the light and the subject, not seconding, to get something truly flatteing.
In general with women over age 25, stay at eye level or higher when second shooting.
If I were this bride, I would really hate how I looked in 5, 8, 24, & 25.
And that lady with the big stomach on the left side of the frame in #1 would truly despise that image. The framing concept was good, but it presented that woman in an extremely unflattering way.
I suggest for basic improvement working on understanding posing, and why certain angles flatter or not. Even as a second shooter with covering unscripted moments, you want the bride to feel pretty in the photos, not fat or ugly, and that is hugely determined by a combination of lens choice, camera angle, and composition.
There is a reason why good shorter photographers often carry a ladder or stool in their trunk.
...Show more →
All good points, and I agree with most of them; the angle these were shot at did not do anyone any favors. This set was a bit of an anomaly, brought on by probing what works for me shooting wider, with obviously a lot of missteps along the way. I understand posing/focal length/angles on an academic level, but my own admission, I'm at a stage where I need to try these things out to convince myself what does and doesn't work for what I want to do...and even to figure out what I want to do in the first place. It's been a great year for me, with a couple breakthroughs I feel, but a lot of stuff like where i am just trying to figure stuff out.
As far as shot #1, that is an observation that I hadn't considered, and I would rather her not be at an angle to make her look bad, but I still like the shot for what it is.
---------------------------------------------
Scott Mosher wrote:
Hard to shoot down when you're shorter than everyone
I'll give a critique on Monday when I'm back at the office. Overall I liked your set.
Thanks Scott ;-)
---------------------------------------------
beachbumphoto wrote:
Hi There,
I think in general the moments you captured are fantastic. In this business its all about capturing emotions and moments. Fantastic job!
Technically, like many have already mentioned try not to shot so low. This has a very unflattering effect, especially on women.
I would not worry much about posing because your style seems to be very photojournalistic and trying to capture the story and moment. Instead concentrate on composition.
Try to get some sort of a fill light into those harsh shadow areas and possibly decrease the contrast somehow. I really love that you are going for the natural light look, but try find a way to balance that highlight:shadow ratio.
Otherwise fantastic job and I'm sure the B&G and family loved your work....Show more →
Thanks for the nice comments, and I generally agree the angle was too low for much of this and not flattering. As I've mentioned, I was experimenting (failing) a lot here, but I'm glad I'm catching some sort of emotion at the least.
As far as filling in shadows, to be honest, if shots come out of with a lot of contrast and shadows fall off suddenly I don't really mind, especially if they are in nice window light. It is what it is at that point. Though, at receptions, if I have a couple different light sources giving accent/rim, i'm usually always bouncing a good amount of fill only my subjects to get tone down the contrast.
---------------------------------------------
canerino wrote:
2, 4, 23 are really good. Figure out what you did there and drive at that.
Your proximity or focal length in 6 could have really changed that photo into a portfolio shot. Do yourself a favor and crop everything out except maybe grandmom and some of grandpop....
Good foundation....
yeah, looking at it now (I editing this set a couple months ago), window isn't adding anythign there, and i wish I had a more "front on" angle on it with the window to my left. However, I think that maybe scott was there already? That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. I am glad that I anticipated something good was coming up there though, but was in an odd spot. baby steps, folks!
---------------------------------------------
skg photos wrote:
"2, 4, 23 are really good. Figure out what you did there and drive at that."
The brides chin is down, not up, in these three. Thats's what I meant about learning posing principles- understanding them matters for candids just as much as for directed portraits.
skg, thanks for looking, I agree those are probably the best shots from the set, esp. if you look at the posing/angle. With this set, I think that I was exploring a low angle a bit much, sacrificing a lot of solid shots from waist to eye level. Thanks for looking and for the advice.
---------------------------------------------
joelconner wrote:
Thought it was really good stuff overall. Was not crazy about some up the up-angle shots. That is the least flattering angle on most people, and I think in some of these cases, it did not show the subjects at their best.
Thanks, I agree, just have to take my knocks for trying the weird low angles on this one I guess.
---------------------------------------------
dhp_sf wrote:
i didn't really notice how much you were shooting upwards until i started reading the comments, personally. but that's probably because i was looking for the emotion/expression in the set since it's one of the things i've been pushing from you to hone in on. In terms of that I think it's really really good--you got a lot of great moments and expressions here.
Regarding what slophoto mentioned, I think part of what is different is when Joe (the OP) works with me, he's pretty much a third shooter/assistant so tends to be out of the action, requiring a little more of a longer lens for a lot of the day. Here he's getting access and perhaps he's still in the mindset of staying out of the way and therefore staying low. But i'm just speculating.
I agree with everything Chuck said.
11) is super crazy tilted. if you're going to tilt, find a line to anchor the scene. there are a lot of strong lines in that image, but you're not really using a single one. don't just tilt for the sake of it. although i'm sure you know how i feel about that....Show more →
Duy, you hit it right on the head with my mindset of staying out of hte way, which translated a lot to just staying low/crouched. There was a type during the entrance when I figured scott would be shooting my way, so I tried to stay low to get out of his sight lines; though in restrospect, i probalby should have moved somewhere else so that I'd be out of hte way and be able to "shoot level" more. That, coupled with being pretty new to the 35 in a confined space all contributed to the use of low angles here, thinking back on it.
yeah, #11 was a failure to edit myself. I should have just left it out and let this set be pretty groom-light. Live and learn, I suppose. Thanks for looking, Duy, I really appreciate the time.
Thanks everyone for the advice, here and on PM. I'm actually glad I posted this set, just for the comments here. I have taken something from every single one here, and I don't think there were any without merit. In fact, I think a lot of the advice was a very good guy to just doing better work, which I know we all try to do, but is especially important for me being so early on.
Hopefully, I'll be able to look back on this first season and see where I have improved and where I've come from, and in time develop a style and figure out where I want to go.
|