Here is your dialup warning. I'm posting this jclay style.. 55 photos because these peeps are my close friends (and almost all of my friends were guests), so deal with it folks. I see Heather at least twice a week, Matt couple times a month. Oh and my wife was a bridesmaid, so we brought all 3 boys (2 yo and twin 1 yo). It was definitely different shooting for friends.
I worked the 85/1.8 hard this wedding, and got to play with my newest equipment toy. 10 internetz points to whomever can figure it out. Shot this one a little more traditional, since the weather was not too cooperative (stopped raining long enough for like 5 min of photos outside), and just a natural function of who Matt and Heather are as people.
Me personally? Love them! I agree that #28, the bride portrait, is stunning. Too many other faves to list. Nice details as well. My only nit is on #32 and maybe one or two others where some visible distortion is evident. Just minor stuff. Not hard to visualize how stunning the album is going to be.
Did you mean that 34 looks like a magazine ad? Cause IT does... but that shot above it that you labeled as such doesn't. Just trying to see what you see! !
The main critique I have is that number 23 looks odd. Specifically the bride. Did you dodge her face at all? Or remove shadows under her eyes? Because she lacks contour and contrast. She's very... flat. I don't know.
It looks like this reception was fun. I think you're missing close up emotion... too many shots are wide angle and what we're seeing isn't necessary to the image. Compositionally, I'd love to see more people filling the lens. I like the line of girls gasping and laughing at something, but if you could have zoomed quickly to get a couple of face shots, it would add to the final storybook (if she gets one).
Overall, nice job!!!
I like the dance floor shot of the whole reception site and the shot of the bride dancing with her dad.
MC Yorke wrote:
Do you mean #53 Mel? cause, if so, I totally agree....looks like a little too much red channel in the BW conversion.
Lots of nice shots, for sure! Could you crop out some of the distracting background in #26?
Really love #34 (and I assume, with Mel, that you must have meant that one looks like a magazine ad)
Thanks for the comments so far. 34 does also look like a magazine ad, but 33 in my mind does as well, because it's so kodak-momenty perfect happy expression, too-perfectly-lit kinda shot.
I also think Mel means #53 as 23 and the images above and below it don't show/feature Heather's face. There is a specific reason the image came out like it did. My clue to you all is.. look at the grooms pants in 41 and compare to 51. 51 and 53 were shot + processed in the same style It's a little flatter than in-camera because her pose and the shot made her eyes a little puffy, thus I smoothed it in PS a bit.
alainvd wrote:
200L 2.0 or 1.8 is your new baby. Congratz
Sigh. Forum noobs. Alainvd, there is a running joke in here about my use and owning of a 200/2. It's just that good and I'm not shy about sharing that fact
unblinkable wrote:
It looks like this reception was fun. I think you're missing close up emotion... too many shots are wide angle and what we're seeing isn't necessary to the image. Compositionally, I'd love to see more people filling the lens. I like the line of girls gasping and laughing at something, but if you could have zoomed quickly to get a couple of face shots, it would add to the final storybook (if she gets one).
Thank you Mel for weighing in, I appreciate your taking time to comment despite your busy schedule. The dance floor was mostly empty during the night, and it would've been especially weird to get up close (hence most shots are 16-35 or 85). Also, several members of the bride's family warned me that the photographer at Heather's cousin's wedding was particularly intrusive and distracting.. so I was trying to be extra careful not to intrude. And since 1/3rd of the guests there were my friends, they are extremely camera aware when I'm nearby-- the only way I could get candids was to shoot tele.
That's all excusery, and your feedback is noted. I will make an effort at my next wedding to focus in (compositionally) more.
5 - I love hairspray shots!
9 - very cute.
18 - like this a lot.
28 - very nice. I'd like to see the same pose with a little less facial profile (head turned a little more to camera)
34 - killer. would probably also look good as b/w.
37 - these images have really great color - that most of the other images don't
42 - quite nice
52 - great tones in this b/w
Something I see (mostly in the first half of the set) is that the wide shots look too cropped and the tele shots too loose. Does that make any sense? The shapes just aren't there.
Thanks guys for the additional comments. 10 points to Ryan for figuring it out!
Tony- thanks for the specific feedback. I do understand what you're saying about the shots not being wide/tele enough, but I only sort of see that in a couple shots. When I shoot tele I do know that my personal taste preference is to shoot a little looser than you, as you shoot really tight. But it's interesting to think about the wide shots.
I agree 34 would look great as a B&W. The wedding overall wasn't awash in vivid colors.. (it was gray and dreary outside too).. the reception and ceremony were very muted color-wise. I'll take note though to emphasize it more though.
Thanks again everyone for the comments, they are helpful.
Good solid work. Definitely have a cold one after this day.
Like #4, 6, and 10.
#11 - i would have shoot from a top down or tighter to remove the cool (not) drop ceiling.
#17 turn B&W - PJ baby.
#18 sweetness....
#26 ... like the foreground/subject ... background distracting. Not sure i could do better .... to be JC. i dream.
#28 .... winner-winner-winner .... very nice.
#31 Really liking this .... to me this shot is a magazine shot. Maybe adjust the amount of foreground (assuming boarder is removed).
#34, 42, 43, 53 ...just good stuff.
Reception work is nice.
#37 - individual picture are good. The ring shot is a little busy. for me, the pictures are not working as arranged. looks like all crammed together.
!
It's a little flatter than in-camera because her pose and the shot made her eyes a little puffy, thus I smoothed it in PS a bit.