Andrew Welsh Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On
|
p.1 #7 · [-- Heather + Matt --] 14 Mar 09 | |
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.
Any other comments?
|