as you can see the sun is beaming in from camera left behind the sofa. We are supplying all the light on her via a sb800 with a 1/4cto gell to camera right
brad, i'm mixed on this set-a number of these almost do it for me, so close-i'll be more specific:
1-love the IR-that's a very cool comp but i have to play where's waldo to find her-i'm pretty good at that game, so i found her-but the bride doesn't want to have to play that game on her bridal pics if ya know what i mean
2-not crazy about her expression but i like the natural short lit pattern you've got going-again, the IR is an asset here IMHO
3-i think there's HUGE potential here-the problem for me is that the angle is a bit skewed-i'd get in closer to her and the couch and use the tall grass to help frame that-might also be a good shot to use some flare-also, am i seeing under the dress? before snapping, i try to check for any details that are out of whack before going ahead
4 & 5-the natural lighting is not working for her in these-either a reflector, strobe, or changing the way she's laying to utilize that natural light would help-i try to avoid having the nose shadow run up and across an eye
6-this is a cool composition-works well with the display of the tattoo-a little fill in the shadows wouldn't hurt and you might get a comment amount the amputated fingers, but all in all, i think it works
i will say that the last IR shot is cool by itself
i'll stop my critique here-don't wanna write a book but hope this is useful info-wasn't my intention to flame you so hope you see it that way-thanks for sharing your work
dan...the bride made the ir shot a 30x40 canvas...so you can see her just fine in that size print which is what i was after.
On the couch..i have about 25 shots of varying set ups and yeah, we have closer ones...but again, this version she bought....and it was because of the angle and the distance she selected that one......she wanted to show the boots.
4-5 have a strobe from the weak side...same with 6...
sorry to flame your critique, but it simply is inaccurate in its assumptions and conclusions.
If I see Daniels comments I tend to usually say, "what Daniel said" and move on. (his advice is very good). I chose not to read it till after I gave you mine.
Some really good work here and others that I'm not feeling. IR is cool stuff. We don't see to much of it here, (FM) and it's a treat when we do. Location looked cool and bride is pretty.
Too many of these the bride has too serious an expression. I scrolled and didn't see one with a smile on her face. 2 looks oof, no? That graffiti is cool and all but I think the particular word you played the session off of my be a bit risky. "Hoser" Some might get the wrong implication. in 1 we barley make out the bride. I honestly thought it was a landscape shot at first.
That said 5 is awesome. Best shot in the set IMO. You have a similar pose on the one just before it but the harsh light cuts right into her face. I defiantly prefer 5. Hope it helps. Take care.
Thanks Sam,
The girl definitely wanted to push the envelope in a couple areas...fun being the top of her list. She actually scouted that location with the graffiti and train tracks and it was huge fun shooting it. Again I agree on the smile part, but she prefers herself with the solemn expression. I shoot for me....and my clients first and only...so she wanted the graffiti, and it worked in these images, so as far as I'm concerned anyone that is offended by the word need not look...and likely no one other than the client will see it other than here of course
(I do have smiles of her though). Initially the thoughts on the small bride in the big lanscape shots were the same, but seeing them blown up totally changed my view. That shot ended up being the favorite of several photogs in another forum as well. But you are correct, small its too small.
bb
Brad Barr wrote:
sorry to flame your critique, but it simply is inaccurate in its assumptions and conclusions.
i'm confident in my ability to critique a photo and simply call it the way i see it-you're more than welcome to disagree-i would warn against the concept of posting here and desiring only positive feedback-you seem to have a plethora of reasons why all of the critiques so far are inaccurate-if all you want is praise....
- number your images so we can critique easier
- #6 in the series, the 3/4 portrait of her, her arm looks huge. I dunno, maybe she wants that look, but I imagine 98% of brides would not like that. Perhaps if she put her hand on her hip.. thins the arm out but still shows the tat somewhat.
I did not actually ask for c&c although i dont mind it. The problem with some critiques is that there is an assumption that something is missing...which in many cases was simply the next shot in the sequence...ie your comment about going in closer.......This shoot had 500+ images captured....I posted what 10-12...Like I said...I didnt post them for your approval or criticism. I just posted them or anyone to check out. You'll note that some post asking for c&c.....i just posted them for all to see. You dont see too many TTD sessions with IR. All the light you see in 4&5 for example were done with fill and a strobe...since the back of the couch was too the sun, and thus she was entirely in the shade as you can see from the last shot of just the couch, Yet it appears as though it was natural light because I chose it to light it to look that way. Sorry if it didnt suit you. But actually if it looks enough like natural light to have fooled you then I guess I did an ok job of balancing the exposure and lighting scenario...so thanks for that.
You might consider also that your comments, like my posted images...also may be considered...contemplated...evaluated...and yes sometimes flamed if they are not correct or if they are based on incorrect assumptions....as they were. So, as you said...you might not always get positive feedback on your comments; just as I may not always get positive feedback on my images. Its really ok to me if someone doesnt like my shots...really it is. But again, half the things you mentioned in your "critique" are simply in the next shot in the series, and again...i didnt ask for a shot by shot evaluation. The thing about a series is that you have included both...not one or the other...say of an over all shot, and a variety of tight shots.
I also find it useful to visit the websites and background info on those who post and compare and contrast what they say with what they do. Sometimes that says volumes about the comments made in any particular situation. Wedding photography is all I do. I have shot over 700 weddings, since 1986. I feed my kids and pay my mortgage with wedding photography alone. Not many that put out all sorts of advice on these forums can say that. A prime example would be the wedding etiquette thread....probably half the people giving opinions about the subject are not even wedding photographers, let alone full time wedding photographers........so I just take a lot of it with a grain of salt. And yes ther is a very different view when this is all you do.
Thanks Andrew, forgot the numbers..so i edited them back in.
You are right about the arm...she isnt the smallest girl for sure and that likely could have been improved upon. Honestly I just didnt see it while shooting that one.
She only had a tribal ring tat during her wedding, but just got the whales added for this shoot.
bb
All the shots posted in this thread are essentially soc. Some obviously have been bw/sepia toned. But none have been cropped at all. I try to do most of that in camera, and then if we print one we crop it to suit at that point.
