# Jax and Jason-Wedding Sneak



## bennielou (Apr 6, 2011)




----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 6, 2011)

Were you 2nd shooter?


----------



## bennielou (Apr 6, 2011)

Nope!  I own the business and I'm the first shooter, although I don't like to call myself that.  It's a three person effort, but I'm nomally on the frontlines.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 6, 2011)

just no 1 and 2 looks weird them lookiing at slightly to the left.  Usually I tell them to look at way more to the left and up.  It looks like if they were looking at other photographer thats all.  My other concern is the processing how they all have different tones.  2,3,4 have too much black.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 6, 2011)

YMMMV. I do shots clean, and then with a tone, so everything works for the eventual albums. Also, I'm not fold of the grip and grin camera aware shots, so I avoid them. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 6, 2011)

Also, I don't see your website listed, so it's hard for me to tell what your normal style on album design is.  Could you list that?  Thanks!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 6, 2011)

bennielou said:


> Also, I don't see your website listed, so it's hard for me to tell what your normal style on album design is. Could you list that? Thanks!


 
You lost me.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 6, 2011)

Do. You. Have. A. Website. ?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## OrionsByte (Apr 6, 2011)

bennielou said:


> Do. You. Have. A. Website. ?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


 
It's in his sig.  Tone down the sarcasm, no one's trying to be mean, he was just sharing his opinion.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 6, 2011)

Sorry Brian, I didn't see it. I wasn't being sarcastic. Promise!
Went to the site and his work is good, just different. Yin and Yang. Nothing wrong with that!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 6, 2011)

Wow.. didnt know this is "who is better" thread.  You seriously have a big problem if you cant listen to criticism.  Look at #1 and #2, cant you at least acknowledge why I think they look weird?

I post things here all the time and I hear people's oppinion.  I dont agree with 100% with what they say but I appreciate their input.  To be frank, no. 1  and no. 2 if I was the photographer, would have never made it to this forum (for sure will never make it to my album).  They look like it was taken when they were posing for other photographer.


----------



## RauschPhotography (Apr 6, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> They look like it was taken when they were posing for other photographer.


 
To be completely honest, that's exactly what I was thinking. If you were first-shooting this wedding, you need to command the attention of the B&G during these shots--if the second shooter is trying to get in on the action, they either need to be behind you or at an angle that isn't going to disrupt your photographs. Just my two cents.


----------



## e.rose (Apr 6, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> My other concern is the processing how they all have different tones.  2,3,4 have *too much black.*


 
My thoughts exactly.  ESPECIALLY number 2.  That was literally my first thought, "Wow, the blacks are super...black."


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 6, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> Wow.. didnt know this is "who is better" thread.  You seriously have a big problem if you cant listen to criticism.  Look at #1 and #2, cant you at least acknowledge why I think they look weird?
> 
> I post things here all the time and I hear people's oppinion.  I dont agree with 100% with what they say but I appreciate their input.  *To be frank, no. 1  and no. 2 if I was the photographer, would have never made it to this forum* (for sure will never make it to my album).  They look like it was taken when they were posing for other photographer.


 
I have to agree with most of that and especially with the bolded (by me) part.

I opened the thread and wondered what the hell that was. Those shots, to be honest, suck.

#1  Tilt is fine when it adds to the image. In this one I don't get it. Plus the background is blown.

#2  What's with the flowers on the left? And that rock right in front of the bride looks very weird. As said, in both of those the B&G don't seem to be looking in the right place.

#3  The weird flowers again. if that is what they are.

#4  Why are they right against the frame?

#5  is the best of the bunch and, yet, it is not that great. At least, clone out the rock mid height on the right. It looks kinda weird.

Also, you've been on this forum long enough to know to number your shots. And, yes, you were being sarcastic although S's question was legitimate.

We all have bad days and that's ok but posting them is not.


----------



## e.rose (Apr 6, 2011)

^^^All of that.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 6, 2011)

e.rose said:


> ^^^All of that.


 
Yeah, the blacks ARE looking super black.  I'll have to fix that.  Thanks!


----------



## bennielou (Apr 6, 2011)

Wow, I had no idea the shots totally sucked Cloud.  I guess I screwed up.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 6, 2011)

Just my opinion of course but, yes, to me, they suck.

Thing is we all suck sometimes. Unfortunately, I know you can do better. Unfortunately #2, someone else who does not know you has a right to wonder why those are posted int he Pro area...


----------



## bennielou (Apr 6, 2011)

Good to know Cloud. Like I said, I'm taking some "vintage" looks for a test drive, and I wanted feedback. Guess the vintage look just isn't working for me.  The reason I asked schewettylens about his site, is because I wanted to see if he did vintage and how his looked. It wasn't a who's better thing, just more of a processing curiousity. Anyhoo.....back to the drawing board. 
The bride has seen these on FB and really loves them, but I'll redo them just so she has different options. The only photos I've worked up on her wedding are these few and they are still RAW in Lightroom, so it's easy to put a new tweak on them. Thanks for all the feedback, because this type of processing is new for me, and I wasn't sure how it came off.  Guess it didn't come off too well at all!
Thanks again.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 6, 2011)

bennielou said:


> Like I said, I'm taking some "vintage" looks for a test drive, and I wanted feedback.



Ok, fine, but when you take things out for a test drive, give us a clue. This just looked like you were all over the place with no idea where you were heading. Just saying those were PP trials would have explained the differences from shot to shot.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 6, 2011)

All my comments I made had nothing to do with what my work look like.  If you want to know my credentials, you should never listen to anything I say.  I have shot only 11 months.   I probably talk more than I shoot if you look at my post count.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 6, 2011)

Ah!  Ok.  These were a test drive.  Too late I guess!

In Dallas right now, I'm not sure about other places, there is this HUGE vintage thing going on.  I wasn't a fan for a while, because everything looked washed out.  Then I lost a few jobs to the vintage wedding folks and thought I should give it another looksee.  I didn't want to become "dated".  (I see the irony....LOL).
Hubby keeps telling me to stay the course because it has worked all these years, but I don't want to be that photographer with the ugly blue background and a mullet.   It's hard to know when you need to spice things up.

Anyhoo, I'll rework these in my more classic (boring?) style, and give them another strut.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 6, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> All my comments I made had nothing to do with what my work look like.




I didn't think it did.  I saw your site and I like your work.  We process differently (at least the way I normally do it) but that aint a bad thing.  I just wanted to see if you did vintage.


----------



## vitor (Apr 9, 2011)

Pretty encompassing critiques.  Agree with all of them.


----------

