Diane and I have done portraits (Senior, Family, newborn). We have done corporate events and we have even done some sporting events. But in 4 years we have never photographed a wedding. We had been asked several times but we never felt secure enough in our abilities to take on something that can't be re-shot.
I have known Dylan all his life and was a great kid who became a fine man. His bride Katy had put out a call for someone to photograph their wedding, but their budget was pretty low. We had done a portrait session with them last year and so we felt comfortable with them and offered to shoot their wedding day. (We never charge for our photography services. Maybe someday.)
We took a little over a thousand photos. Lots of group shots and even more at the reception. It was a small hall and the DJ had quite the lighting setup. There were no expectations for photos at the reception. (Katy wanted wedding portraits and family shots.) But Diane and I wanted to get the experience of trying to shoot in low light. We learned that a small hall that is only lit by colored lights is really hard to get decent shots in. We used some flash and those photos were in focus, but you don't get a photo that captures what is happening.
I think we knew how difficult shooting a wedding would be and that's why we have avoided it. Our first turned out to be a lot of fun though, and I think Katy and Dylan will be happy. (At least they were with the few that we have shared so far.)
I would love to hear what others think of these. Should we do more weddings? How many of you worked for free until you thought your work was good enough to start charging?
I think it's great that you did that for them for little or no money. I didn't realize you weren't charging people for your portraits. Your work is certainly good enough for that, but that's a decision you have to make.
I shot two weddings for free before I began charging as a primary. To be fair, I had shot dozens of weddings as a primary videographer before shifting over to photography, and I was aggressively taking 2nd shooter gigs before going primary. Funny, I got more 2nd shooter gigs through FM than any other means, and most of them were way out of IL. I didn't care. I traveled to MS, PA, Michigan, and a couple other states, often with no travel money, just so I could get the experience and build my portfolio.
What you described about the reception and low=lighting is pretty typical, and with experience you learn how to make gorgeous photos in whatever lighting situation you have. I once had a micro-burst knock out the power in an area where I shot a wedding and reception. During the Father/Bride dance, the father looked over at me and said my pictures could not be very good. There was only one light bulb lit in the room, hanging over the DJ's table about 100 feet away. They were dancing in the dark. I showed him the shots I was getting, and he was blown away -- but any decent wedding photographer would have gotten those shots with off-camera flash and a fill on the camera. We don't need no stinking electricity!
With this as your first wedding, you did really well. As you gain experience, you just keep getting better. Kudos to you for doing this!
I've done two weddings. I did the first for free, for reasons much as yours: because the bride was a) a relative and b) specifically asked me to do it. I told her that she might be getting what she paid for ... I ended up enjoying it a lot, and they seemed happy with the photos.
I charged for the second wedding, also a relative. Way, way under the going rate, but a bit.
What I have shot is a lot of receptions. Why? Because anyone can take photos at a reception. During the main ceremony, it is a bit rude to be running around competing with the paid photographer. But during the reception, there's not a lot anyone can say. Besides, there's too much happening at a reception for one photographer to get it all, even with an assistant. So, I've done about five or six receptions. And yes, shooting in the pitch black is tricky. I've used ambient light and I've used flash bounced off the ceiling.
In any case, you have a lovely set of photos here. The portraiture work is really good and the reception photos are quite good as well.
I've always been most concerned about the main ceremony. You can get at least a second short at almost anything else, except the first dances.
Anyhow, I agree with friscoron. I think you did very well.
That last photo (group shot) would benefit from f4 or so. No reason to have faces OOF on a large group shot. Crank up the ISO and drop the SS if needed.
I’ve only shot a couple of small weddings and have done some 2nd shooter work, so take my opinion for what it’s worth!
I think you did quite well; the only concern I would have would be in the post work. I would work a little just under her eyes to lighten the dark spots a bit. Could be that the outdoor lighting was overhead causing some shadow. Just my 2 cents, may 1 cent!
4 and 6 are great! In 4, the bride is saying, "I'm here, I'm beautiful, and I'm getting married." Perfect. 6 is just a fantastic capture of the three of them in a wonderful moment, plus a good black and white conversion.
In 3, the shrubbery in the bottom right corner distracts me. Also, in 3 and 9, the aberrations (purple fringing) bother me; it's easy to take out in post. Again in 3, the groom's suit is a different color than in 2, so I'm not sure what happened there.
Oh and I quite like 8. There's something about the seclusion of the new couple as they dance, and others go about their business, that makes it very sweet.
I'm no pro, but I would be very pleased with these captures if it was my wedding.
Just my 2 cents.... and then back to creating some albums.....
Overall ... decent.
Observation ... no order.
1) update the water mark. looks dated. Be in the 2016....not 1990's.
2) when shooting reception ... what are your main points for camera setting, to get solid shots?
shutter speed, iso, aperture.
The 1DX pretty much top dog when it comes to clean high ISO. 3200, 4000, 6000 ISO all day long. This will bring in ambient and allow higher shutter speed. use higher ISO.
3) Clean up processing and make it consistent. Previous poster mentioned groom suit changing color.
4) Yes, you can take a picture during the day. Yes, the B&G are in focus.... but what about your surroundings?
The picture with groom and the little crum snatcher ( ) .... if you crop down to the top of the white column, the image becomes more powerful, cleaner, the difference between a cell phone image and a well documented image.
5) Surrounding... the couple dancing ... I keep wanting to look at the exit sign and doors.
Is this the most flattering position for the B&G? Is there a better shooting position?
6) You can shoot an entire wedding at f1.4.... cool. next assignment.... shoot an event, entire day, kids, family ..what ever at f8 or f6.3. How does this change your though process? Are you looking around the entire frame?
Are we being creative or just thankful we got a shot?
Question: When we document a wedding, are we documenting and presenting an accurate account of the day?
Or are we capturing the day with our creative presence added to the mix?
If we are accurately recording the day, the images of the bride is post processed how?
If we take the same image add the feeling-mood of the day, add your style (vibrant, classic, VSCO, muted, whatever...) ... how would the image be edited?
Which is correct?
Just out of curiosity.... all of the images presented have subject in center of frame.
Should you change it up?
Okay, since others have mentioned your settings, I'll comment on it. It's nice that your lens can go to f/1.6, but when you're shooting a reception (groups of ppl), that's not the time for a shallow depth of field. I shoot anywhere from f/2.8 to 4.0 during the reception. If your light is your flash, shoot at the lowest setting you can on your flash, and shoot at around 1/40 or so to let in the ambient light. As Mark said, push your ISO.
Lots of good comments already, but one thing that struck me as really strange was the equipment. Did you shoot the whole day with a 1DX & 50mm f/1.4 and a 60D & 17-55? Should be capable, but just a really different perspective had by those lenses.
Ziffl3 wrote:
Just my 2 cents.... and then back to creating some albums.....
Overall ... decent.
Observation ... no order.
1) update the water mark. looks dated. Be in the 2016....not 1990's.
2) when shooting reception ... what are your main points for camera setting, to get solid shots?
shutter speed, iso, aperture.
The 1DX pretty much top dog when it comes to clean high ISO. 3200, 4000, 6000 ISO all day long. This will bring in ambient and allow higher shutter speed. use higher ISO.
3) Clean up processing and make it consistent. Previous poster mentioned groom suit changing color.
4) Yes, you can take a picture during the day. Yes, the B&G are in focus.... but what about your surroundings?
The picture with groom and the little crum snatcher ( ) .... if you crop down to the top of the white column, the image becomes more powerful, cleaner, the difference between a cell phone image and a well documented image.
5) Surrounding... the couple dancing ... I keep wanting to look at the exit sign and doors.
Is this the most flattering position for the B&G? Is there a better shooting position?
6) You can shoot an entire wedding at f1.4.... cool. next assignment.... shoot an event, entire day, kids, family ..what ever at f8 or f6.3. How does this change your though process? Are you looking around the entire frame?
Are we being creative or just thankful we got a shot?
Question: When we document a wedding, are we documenting and presenting an accurate account of the day?
Or are we capturing the day with our creative presence added to the mix?
If we are accurately recording the day, the images of the bride is post processed how?
If we take the same image add the feeling-mood of the day, add your style (vibrant, classic, VSCO, muted, whatever...) ... how would the image be edited?
Which is correct?
Just out of curiosity.... all of the images presented have subject in center of frame.
Should you change it up?
Thank you Mark, for such detailed feedback. This is really great stuff and I think you do a great job of explaining what a decent wedding photographer has to think about, if he or she wants to offer a product that stands out to prospective clients.
I think it really goes to show just how dynamic the process of shooting a wedding can be. I was focused on the basics (light, backgrounds getting them in focus) and that is reflected in my lens choice and camera settings.
I think you hit it on the head when you said, "Are we being creative or just thankful we got a shot?". I was so focused on trying to get the shot that creativity didn't come in to play much. (Most of my attempts at creative shots looked pretty good on the back of the camera but not so good on the big screen)
We were lucky to have worked with a couple that knew we hadn't done this,but chose us anyway.
Thanks to all for the constructive, helpful feedback.
I've seen people charging for weddings that don't do nearly as well as you did, so you could ask to be paid some time soon. There are some faults however - some of which have been mentioned - and others you may be already aware of as your own best critic... (so I won't make a list unless you ask for it!)
What you CAN do - is learn and correct for your next event shoot, and with each one, do better and better.
Is the bride happy? My guess is yes. She is portrayed very well throughout the variety of shots. Beautiful woman very well photographed. I like #1 and #3 and think the full shade helps. I like the shade/bright contrast between her and the background in #4 but wish her face was entirely in the shade. I like the composition and closeup quality of #5 but she seems tired. That may be true but there also seems to be a loss of contrast in her face which may be due to flare and the bright backlighting. Maybe some darkening and warming of her skin tones might add some needed zip. Strong backlighting can be great but keeping it more to her back and less to her face might help. I still like the feeling of the pic and it may be a good reflection of the moment.
In terms of your settings, I don't know why you are using iso 250 with 1/2000+ in the outdoor shots. Get to base iso and make sure the background is not overexposed.
DianeinCR wrote:
KE_DP - Thank you for your kind words.
As the second half of this wedding shoot I'd be interested in any critique you'd be willing to give. Feedback from those on this forum is so valuable.
Diane
You're welcome!
OK ,Diane and Greg here are some notes, all IMO, YMMV. :-) Since these aren't full resolution there may be things we can't see for sure, but....
#1 - This is probably my favorite - even with sunlight leaking onto the dress you kept if from getting blown out while keeping her skin tones up. The comment about the watermark is valid - dated and unsophisticated. Speaking of which, once looking at that I couldn't help but notice GD Good Photography. As in G@d D@mn Good? Really? :-) Maybe G&D instead...
Lastly, you've nearly cropped off the bottom of the dress. That ruins any chance of it ever going in a frame.
2 - The first thing I noticed is a kind of double vision bokeh. Maybe it's just CA. The tall pillar on the right isn't straight. (Leans right) There's an odd effect in the lower mostly LH corner - looks like light leak from a lens - applied in post - or some bad reflection? It kind of washes a haze over the bottom 1/4 of the image. Maybe try an 8x10 crop and lose the roof line at the top?
3 - He changed clothes from #2! Was it black, gray or blue? No clue here. Her dress has a blue cast (compare to #1). A way to maintain accurate WB throughout the day is shoot a WhiBal reference card (or similar) when you move to different lighting situations or cameras, or lenses. The foreground weeds don't work for this shot very well. there is something off with the foreground in general - like it was added in post because the dress is clear right against total blur. Im not a fan of the shed in the BG either. That could easily be replaced with cloned bushes.
4/5 - nice though a departure from the set - these look like VSCO or some other washed over effect. 4's sun spots are a small distraction but not as bad a the poles in the BG. Clone them out! Her hair has a tiny green tint in front in both.
6 - nice - 7 - 1/10s? Motion blur shows so maybe it was intentional... No one can really tell - it's art! You could have easily cranked the ISO for higher shutter speed though.
8 - I love the backlight - but the photo bombers and hallway, not so much.
9 - cute, funny - though I might have had her put the drink down. Slight green yellow cast.
10 - f1.6 doesn't cut it for a group 2+ rows deep. f5.6 would have covered it, but you knew that. :-) It looks like it was taken from sitting in a chair. Standing up might have put some light on the back row. Compare her skin tone in #9 to these and either she's very pale or they are over saturated. Maybe both.
Apologies if you think I'm overly critical - you asked for it though. :-)
Brev00 wrote:
Is the bride happy? My guess is yes. She is portrayed very well throughout the variety of shots. Beautiful woman very well photographed. I like #1 and #3 and think the full shade helps. I like the shade/bright contrast between her and the background in #4 but wish her face was entirely in the shade. I like the composition and closeup quality of #5 but she seems tired. That may be true but there also seems to be a loss of contrast in her face which may be due to flare and the bright backlighting. Maybe some darkening and warming of her skin tones might add some needed zip. Strong backlighting can be great but keeping it more to her back and less to her face might help. I still like the feeling of the pic and it may be a good reflection of the moment.
In terms of your settings, I don't know why you are using iso 250 with 1/2000+ in the outdoor shots. Get to base iso and make sure the background is not overexposed....Show more →
ah ... 'no' for your last sentence. shooting in bright sunlight and narrow DOF will result in high shutter speed. Not much different between ISO 100 and 250.
A little golden rule ... exposure on skin over rules everything, especially when shooting portraits, people shots and not doing something creative.
Thank you Karen. Not at all overly-critical. The only way we get better is to take a critical look at our work.
I think one of the reasons I didn't work harder to modify my setting was because I was so afraid to miss something. There are a lot of special moments at an event like this and often times the only way you can tell is by how the family reacts. I found myself looking for these moments and feeling I would prefer to have a capture that needs a little work in post, than one that was completely useless. I think experienced wedding photographers know what they need to do in order to get the best of captures at the best settings.
Thanks again to all for the very helpful feedback.
Greg
KE_DP wrote:
You're welcome!
OK ,Diane and Greg here are some notes, all IMO, YMMV. :-) Since these aren't full resolution there may be things we can't see for sure, but....
#1 - This is probably my favorite - even with sunlight leaking onto the dress you kept if from getting blown out while keeping her skin tones up. The comment about the watermark is valid - dated and unsophisticated. Speaking of which, once looking at that I couldn't help but notice GD Good Photography. As in G@d D@mn Good? Really? :-) Maybe G&D instead...
Lastly, you've nearly cropped off the bottom of the dress. That ruins any chance of it ever going in a frame.
2 - The first thing I noticed is a kind of double vision bokeh. Maybe it's just CA. The tall pillar on the right isn't straight. (Leans right) There's an odd effect in the lower mostly LH corner - looks like light leak from a lens - applied in post - or some bad reflection? It kind of washes a haze over the bottom 1/4 of the image. Maybe try an 8x10 crop and lose the roof line at the top?
3 - He changed clothes from #2! Was it black, gray or blue? No clue here. Her dress has a blue cast (compare to #1). A way to maintain accurate WB throughout the day is shoot a WhiBal reference card (or similar) when you move to different lighting situations or cameras, or lenses. The foreground weeds don't work for this shot very well. there is something off with the foreground in general - like it was added in post because the dress is clear right against total blur. Im not a fan of the shed in the BG either. That could easily be replaced with cloned bushes.
4/5 - nice though a departure from the set - these look like VSCO or some other washed over effect. 4's sun spots are a small distraction but not as bad a the poles in the BG. Clone them out! Her hair has a tiny green tint in front in both.
6 - nice - 7 - 1/10s? Motion blur shows so maybe it was intentional... No one can really tell - it's art! You could have easily cranked the ISO for higher shutter speed though.
8 - I love the backlight - but the photo bombers and hallway, not so much.
9 - cute, funny - though I might have had her put the drink down. Slight green yellow cast.
10 - f1.6 doesn't cut it for a group 2+ rows deep. f5.6 would have covered it, but you knew that. :-) It looks like it was taken from sitting in a chair. Standing up might have put some light on the back row. Compare her skin tone in #9 to these and either she's very pale or they are over saturated. Maybe both.
Apologies if you think I'm overly critical - you asked for it though. :-)
Okay. Not quite sure if I explained my point well. Typically, I raise my iso from base for a reason. To raise shutter speed to avoid motion blur, for instance. So, outside of it not making a difference, was there a positive reason to boost iso? Second, if getting the skin tones right in #2 means overexposing the bg, I would consider a different angle so the brights do not take up so much of the image. The first point is just a question while the second is a nit. Overall very positive set.
Besides, there's too much happening at a reception for one photographer to get it all, even with an assistant. So, I've done about five or six receptions. And yes, shooting in the pitch black is tricky. 
