# First Post! - Wedding Shots



## GotaLuvThosPens (May 26, 2010)

I'm just a semi-pro getting started in the photo industry.  I LOVE LOVE LOVE photography but I know I have a lot to learn.  Here are a few from a recent wedding.  Some feedback would be very much appreciated.

















<3 
Tressa


----------



## GotaLuvThosPens (May 26, 2010)

I edited multiple versions of the first two but I liked the silhouetted ones best.  For the hands I would have much rather been eye level but the way the bridge was I couldnt achieve it.  

Another take on the first shot with the bride as more of the focus...




I would have liked to have her facing the other way or with the lead room in front of her instead of behind but there was a golf cart to the left and this was actually candid while she was waiting for the groom.  I kind of like it though...  Sometimes I'm a fan of the awkward dead space. Haha.

Tressa


----------



## robertwsimpson (May 26, 2010)

You can't see anyone in any of the photos... That's probably not good for wedding photos.


----------



## GotaLuvThosPens (May 26, 2010)

I obviously took more than 3 photos at the wedding....
These just ended up being some of my favorites.


----------



## robertwsimpson (May 26, 2010)

I thought you were looking for feedback?  Maybe show us something that shows a face or an emotion or something?


----------



## GotaLuvThosPens (May 26, 2010)

Her coming down the isle.  I wish there was more lighting on her face but i still like it.


----------



## JOSHardson (May 26, 2010)

In my opinion the three you just posted are much better. The first picture up top could work for me if you maybe composed it more like a panoramic, cutting a lot of the top and a little of the bottom out.


----------



## justjen (May 26, 2010)

I didn't like the first ones, but the 2nd ones you posted are great


----------



## AndreaB (May 27, 2010)

The second ones are definitely much more appealing as wedding photos.  I really like teh bride goorm glasses with them kissing behind them.


----------



## Wyjid (May 27, 2010)

boo. i like the first ones. while pictures of peoples faces and emotions are important, a few dramatic art prints add to a collection. I've built a business on non traditional wedding photos. the couples love them. it;s the reason they hired us. so if the couple saw a portfolio with pictures of a similar style, there's no reason to say that they are mediocre wedding shots, cause they're not. they're just not what you would want for your wedding. That's fine, you didn't hire the guy, that couple did and they probably love it.


----------



## GotaLuvThosPens (May 28, 2010)

Wyjid said:


> boo. i like the first ones. while pictures of peoples faces and emotions are important, a few dramatic art prints add to a collection. I've built a business on non traditional wedding photos. the couples love them. it;s the reason they hired us. so if the couple saw a portfolio with pictures of a similar style, there's no reason to say that they are mediocre wedding shots, cause they're not. they're just not what you would want for your wedding. That's fine, you didn't hire the guy, that couple did and they probably love it.



Yaaaay thank you thank you!!  I mean sure you need some of those sort of stuffy posed pictures of smiling faces for the fam.... but I have the real fun when we get to the creative, unique shots.  Glad to see one person on my side


----------



## robertwsimpson (May 28, 2010)

yay someone finally told you what you wanted to hear!


----------



## JBLoudG20 (May 28, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> yay someone finally told you what you wanted to hear!



:thumbup:


----------



## smackitsakic (May 31, 2010)

Ha, lesson #1 when posting and asking for comments/critiques, be prepared to listen, not get offended, and learn for next time!  I've had a few posts on here thinking my pics were awesome, only to get 'tossed around' a bit by fellow posters.  Fortunately the feedback is often a stepping stone to a better photograph the next time around.

Have an open mind when posting on here and don't take feedback as offensive or standoffish.


----------



## GotaLuvThosPens (Jun 1, 2010)

Who said I was offended?  I'm familiar enough with photography forums to know how brutal it can be. If I couldn't handle it I wouldn't be here.
If someone gives me good advice I appreciate it.  Some of these people didn't give anything that could even be considered advice.  "I can't see any faces."???


----------



## smackitsakic (Jun 1, 2010)

GotaLuvThosPens said:


> Who said I was offended? I'm familiar enough with photography forums to know how brutal it can be. If I couldn't handle it I wouldn't be here.
> If someone gives me good advice I appreciate it. Some of these people didn't give anything that could even be considered advice. "I can't see any faces."???


 
If the bride in the picture said "I can't see any faces!" would you take it more seriously then?  Is "I can't see any faces!" not a subtle suggestion to you to get closer or fill the frame more with the subject next time?  Sounds like it to me


----------



## GotaLuvThosPens (Jun 1, 2010)

If the bride got all of her photos and in three of them couldn't see her face and complained about it.... i'd have some advice for HER.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jun 1, 2010)

I'm a fan of doing things differently, thats awesome.  There are too many people who take the same old photos at weddings, slap some standard photoshop actions that they always run on their images, do some other minor adjustments, and call it a day.
I feel that all three images missed their mark as being good artistic images.

#1 I get the silhouette, but what I dont like is the boring sky.  To go with something like this, I'd love to see some great clouds or other features that are appealing to the eye.  There is a lack of that here, and the top left of the image is pretty white almost blown (i'm at work, so can't be 100% certain due to crappy work monitor).

I also don't like that you chose to have her face towards the short end of the frame.  While that can work in some instances, I dont find it does here as it kind of removes any balance from the image and makes me feel that everything behind her is wasted

#2 that tree on the side is really killing the image for me.  Wide is good, but this one is too wide for me and that joined with the tree, make me feel like the B&G are non important.  Its good to be artistic, but you need to keep in mind that the images still need to have the B&G, their day, their guests as the focus.

#3 I like this one, mainly due to the lines in the fence.  Gives a nice feel to the image and I love the wood texture.  The BW conversion is nice, the low contrast is interesting.  The bad?  Their hands dont look in focus.  I don't like how you only have 3 of the hands on the fence.  This might be a great shot of the rings, but they aren't easy to spot.  I also dont like how you have the bouquet in this image... the stems are prominent and the flowers are cut out of the frame.  What was the point in having it in the image if you aren't going to show it?  I would of put the bouquet down, had the bride put her second hand on the fence, made them put their hands a bit more wrapped on the fence and zoomed in a bit more to get the rings.  But the basic out of focus of the image is what kills it the most for me.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jun 1, 2010)

erose86 said:


> GotaLuvThosPens said:
> 
> 
> > If the bride got all of her photos and in three of them couldn't see her face and complained about it.... i'd have some advice for HER.
> ...


 
If the B&G get all their required images, get all the classic wedding shots, getting ready, ceremony, reception... they are all great and are happy with them, there should be no reason as to why a bride would be angry with getting more artistic shots.

I did hear of 1 bride who wasn't too happy when the photographer showed her pictures of her and her groom's shoes...neat picture, well done, well framed... she was really not happy as the day was about her and if there was a shot with her in it she would expect to see her face.  Granted, she is more of a bridezilla as she was also ticked about the shots of just the bouquet or ones with DOF where she is purposely out of focus.

Looking at the other images, I'm sure the bride was happy with the quality.  Nothing wrong with some extras once you have the shots you need to fufill your contract with them.

Although any type of disagreement or issue would always need to be handled politely and professionally.


----------



## aliaks (Jun 1, 2010)

the bride seems lost on the very first photo. 
the second... imho the tree can be cropped out. 
the hands... why three hands? there are no flowers anyway


----------



## manaheim (Jun 1, 2010)

Images tilted (but not artistically, just a lack of attention to detail), impossible to see faces, blown out skies, lots of dead space...

Really, truly and honestly, this isn't a matter of suggesting a few tweaks or presenting you with some interesting counter-points on your artistic choices, this is a situation where the camera in your hand is a loaded weapon pointed in the wrong direction with the safety off.

Yes, I know that's harsh.  It's not meant to be mean, it's just meant to be a cold bucket of water.

My honest suggestion to you would be to AGGRESSIVELY study composition (and possibly technical aspects of photography as well, but I can't be sure as I don't know what your settings were on these).  Study other wedding photographers.  Decide what you like, what you don't, and why you feel the way you do about each.


----------



## knjrphoto (Jun 2, 2010)

I think the first images were a good idea, but were poorly executed. I think with more attention to detail as the previous poster suggested you could have a really nice shot.

Perhaps you could give more detail about your settings and equipment.


----------



## Live_free (Jun 2, 2010)

You have to remember as a wedding photography you are allowed to get in peoples faces to get pictures of them up close... This is a wedding they want pictures that are "them" not of an outline on a hill. Sorry I just don't think you id a very good job.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jun 2, 2010)

Live_free said:


> You have to remember as a wedding photography you are allowed to get in peoples faces to get pictures of them up close... This is a wedding they want pictures that are "them" not of an outline on a hill. Sorry I just don't think you id a very good job.


 
The poster did mention that they got shots of the faces and key moments of the event.

I dont think these are the only images the poster is giving to the BG.

I think we need to open up our eyes a bit and try and comment more on the images, which are artistic wedding shots, then just thinking that this is all the poster did.

*sigh* I guess I'll just go climb back into the box


----------



## bigtwinky (Jun 2, 2010)

erose86 said:


> bigtwinky said:
> 
> 
> > I think we need to open up our eyes a bit and try and comment more on the images, which are artistic wedding shots, then just thinking that this is all the poster did.
> ...


 
I totally agree, I dont like the images.  But its one thing to say why you dont like them, as individual images, and based on what CC the OP wanted (on artistic wedding shots), its a whole other thing to just throw out "its a wedding, you gotta see faces," bla bla bla.

People here tend to be a bit like sheep and when a few people start to go down one path of being stuck on the fact that you dont see faces and its a wedding, it makes a pretty pointless thread.

Thats all I'm saying. :hug::


----------



## manaheim (Jun 2, 2010)

Sorry if I missed something that was said earlier.  I tend to scan most of these and miss stuff periodically.


----------

