# Great wedding photos, unhappy clients?



## kinoflo (Jun 1, 2009)

Hey, photo-pros. I've got a problem. The wedding went great, but the clients aren't happy with the pictures, at all. I'm sure you've dealt with that kind of client who just doesn't realize what they're looking at. *I* was told the pictures were awesome.

Anyways, I thought I'd post the pictures here and see what you thought.

http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss46/kinoflo/_D3N8079.jpg

The happy couple:

http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss46/kinoflo/_D3N0277.jpg
http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss46/kinoflo/_D3N0829.jpg
http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss46/kinoflo/_D3N0769.jpg



Linked to fit the rules.


----------



## kdbug (Jun 1, 2009)

I hope you don't take offense, but if I were paying for these, I wouldn't be too happy with them. The flash is straight-on in most photos which blows out the skintone. The angles and thought behind the pictures is there. It might help if you get out of Auto. 

Just my thoughts!


----------



## photogincollege (Jun 1, 2009)

I have to kind of agree. I wouldn't be happy with these photos either for the same reasons. The dress is blown out in a few, as is the skin.  Though kdbug, he was in manual not auto.


----------



## astrostu (Jun 1, 2009)

As I was looking through the photos, I was thinking the same as the previous two commenters.  For example, the very first shot, I was thinking, "Wow, her cheekbone and forehead are lighting up like headlights.  If you just used the clone stamp to soften those regions, it would look much better."  But then I looked more at it, and there's really no depth.  I would assume from context that the stairwell to the right is at least a foot or three in front of her.  But, with the head-on flash, you can't tell any depth.  Another symptom of the single head-on flash is that the shadow of the banister above her is very sharp black.


----------



## kdbug (Jun 1, 2009)

You're right, I apologize for the EXIF mix-up!


----------



## epp_b (Jun 1, 2009)

Sorry, but these look like some quick, thoughtless snaps that were taken by some guest using a compact camera.  There's really nothing to them ... horrible lighting, ugly skin tones, no likable compositions, no feeling.  I can understand why they are unhappy and I hope that you are not being paid for these photos.

Direct flash is always the wrong way to use a flash indoors.  It makes people look sweaty and gross and it creates nasty, sharp shadows that are basically impossible to get rid of.

Don't be too discouraged.  Clearly, you are just beginning.  Everyone's first few thousand shots look like crap (mine included).

What would be good to know is: how did it go about that you were the photographer for the wedding?  Is it family?  A friend?  A friend of a friend?  Somebody who thought, "ooh, look, there's someone with one of those newfangled big cameras with the big circle thing on the front", and asked you to do it?

Wedding photography is not something you can tread lightly into on the first day you buy an SLR.  Heck, I don't think I _ever_ want to do wedding photography.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jun 1, 2009)

I also agree with the above... sorry, but I have to be honest.

First one has way too many distractions, what is that thing on the right anyway?


----------



## kdbug (Jun 1, 2009)

epp_b said:


> What would be good to know is: how did it go about that you were the photographer for the wedding?  Is it family?  A friend?  A friend of a friend?  Somebody who thought, "ooh, look, there's someone with one of those newfangled big cameras with the big circle thing on the front", and asked you to do it?



Snicker.. :hugs:


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 1, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> what is that thing on the right anyway?


Column at the base of the stairs ... you can see the black handrail end halfway around it.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jun 1, 2009)

Ahh OK... my eyes saw that a whole different way lol, thanks.


----------



## MelodySoul (Jun 1, 2009)

Do you honestly consider these "great wedding photos"? We're you paid to take them and if so did the clients hire you based on similar work?


----------



## epp_b (Jun 1, 2009)

Hmmm ... he's been lurking the whole time and hasn't posted a response yet ...

_*epp_b readies "successful troll is successful" image*_


----------



## bdavis (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm assuming your using your pop up camera flash for these? At least thats what it looks like. I think your first step in getting some better shots would be buying a speedlight and learning to bounce flash off walls and ceilings. Doing this will give you drastically better shots, softer lighting, minimized shadows, more accurate skin tones, and greatly reduce the "deer in the headlights" look that most of your photos seem to have. 

Here is a great resource that I have used a lot to help you with your wedding photography:
http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/1-natural-looking-flash/

EDIT: Don't take the harsh comments from the other users badly. We all have bad shoots in the beginning, it's part of the learning experience. Just keep at it and things will get better.

Goodluck!


----------



## bigtwinky (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm curious to know who told you that the pictures were awesome?

I agree with what people posted here in that I wouldn't like these if they were my wedding pictures.  The straight on flash, the lack lustre compositions, not getting in close to people's faces to really show a moment and limit background are all signs of a P&S camera shooter.

We all have to start somewhere, but we all need to know our limitations.  A camera does not make a photographer.


----------



## Lyncca (Jun 2, 2009)

I have to agree it does look like a popup flash and the white balance is all over the place too. 

I also might add that in the second one, either your aperture was set to a high number or you are using a kit lens to be getting such little bokeh with the distance of the bride and groom from the minister in relation to the them to the lens. That should be way more blurred to seperate them from the background more. And, the second and fourth image are crooked if you look at the doortop and the mantle.

I wish the OP would respond back. People are trying to help even though they may seem to come off harsh. I have my first wedding this weekend as a second shooter after shooting portraits for over a year now. It takes off the pressure and I can get some practice. I'm excited!


----------



## farmerj (Jun 2, 2009)

nobody has noticed that the first picture was taken on 12/29 *2006*. And the rest were taken on 1/21 *2007*.

I couldn't understand why there was a Christmas tree in the first picture at this time of year.  The brides hair was totally different.


It would be interesting to see if kinoflo is anyway related to alice photo.  BOTH are new members over the weekend.  And Alice Photo is by no means a noob to photography if she is really who she says she is.

If that is REALLY Christopher Hartt.  Damn, he was having a REALLY bad day.
Wedding Photography by Christopher Hartt / Plano (Dallas) TX Photographer / Gallery Quality Images
Christopher Hartt / harttphoto.com

I realize there is more than one Christopher Hartt, but this weekend I receive an email from "alice Photo" claiming she was a noob photographer.  It even linked back to a website  here in the forum.  She ain't no noob. Exhibits & Events ï¿¼

And then this shows up......


----------



## epp_b (Jun 2, 2009)

> nobody has noticed that the first picture was taken on 12/29 *2006*. And the rest were taken on 1/21 *2007*.


Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it's time for this...


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 2, 2009)

bdavis said:


> I'm assuming your using your pop up camera flash for these?


The Canon EOS-1D Mark II N does not have a built-in flash.


----------



## bdavis (Jun 2, 2009)

How do we know these were shot with a 1D Mark II? If the person really had that and a speedlight you would think they would know how to use both of them effectively.

To me this looks like a person with an entry level/enthusiast camera shot these and used the pop up flash. They dont look like a professional with a 1D Mark II.

Weddings are a hard thing to learn and you only get 1 chance. Maybe you need to find a friend and be a second shooter so the pressure is off you.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 2, 2009)

bdavis said:


> How do we know these were shot with a 1D Mark II?




IF you look at the EXIF info, it says it was shot with a 1D.  Looking at the pictures.....

Nothing adds up.  The flash, the photos, the photographer, even the WB is cool in #4.


----------



## bdavis (Jun 2, 2009)

Ahhhn a mystery indeed.


----------



## B Kennedy (Jun 2, 2009)

^^  exif data says 1d mark 2 n...can't vouch for the pro though


----------



## farmerj (Jun 2, 2009)

epp_b said:


> > nobody has noticed that the first picture was taken on 12/29 *2006*. And the rest were taken on 1/21 *2007*.
> 
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it's time for this...




No mystery at all.


----------



## epp_b (Jun 2, 2009)

> How do we know these were shot with a 1D Mark II? If the person really had that and a speedlight you would think they would know how to use both of them effectively.


You'd also think that someone with an $8000 camera body would know how to use it as well.

It's entirely possible (and probable) that the EXIF data is fake.


----------



## B Kennedy (Jun 2, 2009)

epp_b said:


> > How do we know these were shot with a 1D Mark II? If the person really had that and a speedlight you would think they would know how to use both of them effectively.
> 
> 
> You'd also think that someone with an $8000 camera body would know how to use it as well.
> ...



Very true, and if it were to probably be fake, they are obviously trying to make it seem as if they were some pro with serious equipment, which is all starting to make some sense.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jun 2, 2009)

Funny how we are still Sherlock Holmesing this one


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 2, 2009)

kinoflo said:


> Hey, photo-pros. I've got a problem. The wedding went great, but the clients aren't happy with the pictures, at all. I'm sure you've dealt with that kind of client who just doesn't realize what they're looking at. *I* was told the pictures were awesome.



Facts:

Introduces themselves as a Professional Photographer.

They have encountered a Client that is not happy with the images taken.

Assumes they are dealing with Clients that have no concept of what a good picture it.

They believe the images are good, and that other Professional Photographers will feel the same.

States, others have told them that the photographic images taken are good.

Shows sample pictures to prove to the Forum that they are good.


----------



## msf (Jun 2, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Sorry, but these look like some quick, thoughtless snaps that were taken by some guest using a compact camera. There's really nothing to them ... horrible lighting, ugly skin tones, no likable compositions, no feeling. I can understand why they are unhappy and I hope that you are not being paid for these photos.
> 
> Direct flash is always the wrong way to use a flash indoors. It makes people look sweaty and gross and it creates nasty, sharp shadows that are basically impossible to get rid of.
> 
> ...



How would you suggest to improve this?  You cant always bounce a flash off of a ceiling, sometimes the ceiling is just to high.  How far to the side should the flash be to get away from the direct flash look?  With a stroboframe, the flash isnt to far off center, but is it enough?  And how do you get away from the harsh shadows that off camera flashes usually produce?  When the camera is straight above the camera, the shadow is usually hidden behind the subject, but if its off to the side by a couple feet, then you can normally see a pretty good harsh shadow behind the subject, even if the background is far away.  And you cant always get the flash far enough to the side so that the shadow will appear out of frame.

I suppose you can have dedicated flashes set up down the isle and other spots you plan to photograph, but I like the freedom of being able to move around with off camera flashes.

I think the above picturse can be helped alot by adjusting the color balance in photoshop. : )  and some photoshop work.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jun 2, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> kinoflo said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, photo-pros. I've got a problem. The wedding went great, but the clients aren't happy with the pictures, at all. I'm sure you've dealt with that kind of client who just doesn't realize what they're looking at. *I* was told the pictures were awesome.
> ...


 
Not sure you can call all of that FACTs.  The only fact in there is that the OP posted the information.  Who knows, they could be their own pictures, taken by their brother in law with his Canon SD750, and he is trying to make him look bad / play a prank and totally made up a story and changed the EXIF.

Just because someone say's it doesn't make it a fact.


----------



## johnbergsing (Jun 2, 2009)

If any of this is real, after the brutal beating he/she just took I doubt the OP will ever return here. Sometimes tact is more important than truth. There were ways to encourage the OP and guide him/her but that's blown now.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jun 2, 2009)

I didn't get the impression that the OP was here to get help on composition and lighting.  If the intent of the OP is as its written, it comes off as 

"I took these amazing wedding pictures, everyone tells me they are amazing, but the bride and groom hate them.   Does everyone get this?  Where you do a great job and the people don't appreciated your talent?"


----------



## kinoflo (Jun 2, 2009)

Wow. I went to work and checked back, and this thing is still going. You guys are awesome.

Okay, confession time, and please hear (read?) me out: I am the client, and I did pay for these photos. I did not alter them; other than posting them to PhotoBucket, which reduced the size of the pictures, you're seeing them the way they came off the disc.

And I am amazed as you are that they turned out so bad. Chris's reputation seemed immaculate, and in hindsight, I guess he just didn't have that much experience with weddings. He's a great guy.

No, I'm here because I've been trying to drag out of his assistant Amy either (a) copies of the pictures that weren't edited, hoping there are salvageable colors in there, or (b) a confession that the work was just awful.

She hasn't responded to (a) except with a promise to look. To (b), her answer is that not only are the pictures awesome, but I don't know what I'm talking about, and that I must be doing *something* to make the colors come out wrong. That's what she said this week, that's what she said two years ago.

Infuriating. And so I came here to get some expert opinions.  I hope you'll notice I didn't try to sway the discussion. Amy really did think they were awesome, and I really thought they were awful.

The comments came back harsher than I had hoped for, but they were honest, and I want to thank you guys for that.

I agree with farmerj, I think Chris may have been having a bad day, or the dark environments really caught him off guard. But I think it's equally important to admit your mistakes. This shoot didn't go well at all.

And please remember that for your future clients: even if they have no photography training at all, most people can spot a bad picture when they see it. And even if the picture isn't bad, the customer is unhappy. Work on that, not on trying to convince them they're wrong.

And also remember who is representing you, and follow up on *how* they represent you.

All right, hopefully mysteries solved, and hopefully no reputations (permanently) damaged


----------



## bdavis (Jun 2, 2009)

msf said:


> epp_b said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but these look like some quick, thoughtless snaps that were taken by some guest using a compact camera. There's really nothing to them ... horrible lighting, ugly skin tones, no likable compositions, no feeling. I can understand why they are unhappy and I hope that you are not being paid for these photos.
> ...



Ever heard of bouncing flash off walls? Maybe bouncing off a high ceiling with the bounce card up to have the reflected light be the main and the light coming down from the ceiling as a fill?


----------



## DScience (Jun 2, 2009)

who's Chris and Amy??


----------



## kinoflo (Jun 2, 2009)

DScience said:


> who's Chris and Amy??



Chris Hartt, whose name farmerj spotted in the photos' metadata, and Amy, his assistant, who digitally edits the photos.


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 2, 2009)

kinoflo said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > who's Chris and Amy??
> ...



It doesn't look like any editing was done... I could do better editing with iPhoto, let alone Lightroom or Photoshop...


----------



## Clawed (Jun 2, 2009)

Okay, so were these shots the best of the bunch, or some of the worst? Obviously, that is an important consideration.


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 2, 2009)

Clawed said:


> Okay, so were these shots the best of the bunch, or some of the worst?



I can only hope these are the worst of the worst. However, I have a feeling they are not.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 2, 2009)

kinoflo said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > who's Chris and Amy??
> ...




I would have a REALLY hard time believing that these were taken by the Chris Hartt I linked to above from Plano Tx.


Either way,

You came here mis-representing what is happening.  You made it seem as if YOU took the pictures, when in reality you didn't.

As you did not take these pictures, it's also a little bit against the rules to be posting them in the first place.

What gives with posting pictures that are 2+ years old.


Seems there was another recent posting with similar "issues" not long ago.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-shop-talk/165695-help-really-bad-photo-advice.html


----------



## kinoflo (Jun 2, 2009)

Clawed said:


> Okay, so were these shots the best of the bunch, or some of the worst?  Obviously, that is important since you are posting them as the client.



I tried to pick some of the better photos that still showed the key problems, so I guess I'd say they're better than average.


----------



## Clawed (Jun 2, 2009)

kinoflo said:


> Clawed said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, so were these shots the best of the bunch, or some of the worst? Obviously, that is important since you are posting them as the client.
> ...


Well, it's certainly bogus to have wedding pics that do not meet your expectations, my wedding photographer was terrible so I feel your pain.  I am getting into wedding photography as a result, and I am terrified of the prospect of having my clients dislike my work.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 2, 2009)

kinoflo,

Please read your PMs


----------



## kinoflo (Jun 2, 2009)

Clawed said:


> Well, it's certainly bogus to have wedding pics that do not meet your expectations, my wedding photographer was terrible so I feel your pain.  I am getting into wedding photography as a result, and I am terrified of the prospect of having my clients dislike my work.



Good luck! I have a friend doing the same thing. I think as long as you're your own worst critic, things work out.


----------



## epp_b (Jun 2, 2009)

It would have been better to the state from the beginning that you were the client.  There are enough honest people here that would tell you if you were being a whiny customer or if these pictures are truly bad.

Now that we know the situation in full, I can tell you this while being completely tactless: you got ripped off.  These are truly awful pictures by any measure.  No amount of processing can recover the complete lack of skill of the person behind the camera.

If the photos you posted are the average in the bunch, I'm scared to see what you considered the really bad ones.


----------



## Clawed (Jun 2, 2009)

kinoflo said:


> Clawed said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it's certainly bogus to have wedding pics that do not meet your expectations, my wedding photographer was terrible so I feel your pain. I am getting into wedding photography as a result, and I am terrified of the prospect of having my clients dislike my work.
> ...


 
I know that I would own up to a poor job at least.  Plus, some of the mistakes your photographer made look like rookie errors.  I havent been shooting that long, but I know not to shoot someone in the face with your flash like that  

My photographer was stoned, had his fly down all night and pulverized everyone with his flash for the duration of the shoot....


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jun 2, 2009)

like farmer, im curious about the span of dates on these shots.
can you expand on that?

i think the reason for misrepresentation is justified...the OP knew (as i think we all do if we are honest) that had she come in here saying "these were taken of my son's wedding...what do you guys think?"
i think tact would have gone out the window earlier than JohnB thinks it did. by representing themselves as the photog, i think that tact was maintained for 2 pages or so.

all the issues have been pointed out, but the dates, camera model, and skill shown here just doesnt add up.
im curious to see how this pans out.
call me a skeptic.


----------



## wiredhernandez (Jun 2, 2009)

This is such a TROLL thread .. hehe .. I would find it hard to believe any professional would take photos of that quality...


----------



## msf (Jun 2, 2009)

bdavis said:


> Ever heard of bouncing flash off walls? Maybe bouncing off a high ceiling with the bounce card up to have the reflected light be the main and the light coming down from the ceiling as a fill?



Ive heard of bouncing the flash off of walls, but if your in an isle, odds are there are people on either side of you, therefore no walls near by to do the trick.

Also in the situation im thinking of, the ceiling is quite high, by the time the light came back, it would probably be the same level as ambient light, defeating the purpose.  A bounce card would help somewhat, but the light source would still remain fairly small, causing the shadows to still be harsh.


----------



## ~Stella~ (Jun 2, 2009)

farmerj said:


> Seems there was another recent posting with similar "issues" not long ago.
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-shop-talk/165695-help-really-bad-photo-advice.html



That thread belongs to someone I know.  She is an amateur photographer and most certainly who she says she is.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 2, 2009)

~Stella~ said:


> farmerj said:
> 
> 
> > Seems there was another recent posting with similar "issues" not long ago.
> ...




I am referring to the posting of images that are not theirs.


----------



## craig (Jun 3, 2009)

I find it curious how crummy photos et al are a feeding frenzy on TPF. This thread has 4 pages of bashing and stating the obvious. My bud Keith has strong wedding photos http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/professional-gallery/166621-wedding-collage-kc-plaza.html and only 4 responses. Let's get a grip people. Concentrate on the positive and let the negative slide. 

Kinoflo: What did you pay for your wedding photos? If you paid under $3,000 (ok maybe $1,500) then you only have yourself to blame. Good Photography costs money. Keep in mind that Photography is all about the details. Next thread leave none out. 

Love & Bass


----------



## Overread (Jun 3, 2009)

craig said:


> I find it curious how crummy photos et al are a feeding frenzy on TPF.



correction "crummy wedding photos" 
I never get feeding frenzy like this on my work...  no sharks for me.........


and I never know if that is good or bad...


----------



## kinoflo (Jun 3, 2009)

This will be my last reply, I think. I found out what I wanted to know. Sorry for the ruse.



SrBiscuit said:


> like farmer, im curious about the span of dates on these shots.
> can you expand on that?



Those were indeed the dates the pictures were taken. This came up now because the P.A. is still arguing with me about the quality of the pictures.



SrBiscuit said:


> i think tact would have gone out the window earlier than JohnB thinks it did. by representing themselves as the photog, i think that tact was maintained for 2 pages or so.



That's part of the reason. I was actually thinking I wouldn't get a response any other way!



SrBiscuit said:


> all the issues have been pointed out, but the dates, camera model, and skill shown here just doesnt add up.
> im curious to see how this pans out.
> call me a skeptic.



They're all correct, but I'll leave it to you to decide.


I don't remember what I paid, but I disagree with the idea that a good wedding photographer *must* cost $3000. That's confusing value with cost; it's just as easy for a bad photographer to charge that much, and a good photographer to cost less. I picked my photographer because of his background and his portfolio (which, admittedly, were portraits), not what he charged.


----------



## delizo23 (Jun 5, 2009)

haha


----------



## epp_b (Jun 5, 2009)

> I don't remember what I paid, but I disagree with the idea that a good wedding photographer *must* cost $3000. That's confusing value with cost;


Yes, but you're more likely to get a good photographer for $3000 than you are for $300.  Value and cost are not necessarily interchangeable, but they are certainly closely related.

Look back and find out what you paid.  If you paid $500, consider this a hard lesson learned.  If you paid $3000 or more, you may have grounds for a lawsuit.


----------



## adamwilliamking (Jun 5, 2009)

Take this as lightly as you have to, but, the problem here is you're charging people for professional photography when your photos are very far from professional.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jun 5, 2009)

adamwilliamking said:


> Take this as lightly as you have to, but, the problem here is you're charging people for professional photography when your photos are very far from professional.


 
you read the thread?...

OP is not the photog.


----------



## Jaszek (Jun 5, 2009)

Kind of late but some of you said you shouldn't post work that's not yours....didn't she pay for them already? So they are hers now.


----------



## craig (Jun 5, 2009)

You are correct. The deal is that this is a photography forum for photographers. If you did not shoot the photo it is really important that you acknowledge the person that did.

Love & Bass


----------



## CrimsonFoxPhotography (Jun 5, 2009)

Jaszek said:


> Kind of late but some of you said you shouldn't post work that's not yours....didn't she pay for them already? So they are hers now.



Not if she wasn't granted licensing rights of any sort.  It depends on the contract.


----------



## Nicholas James Photo (Jun 6, 2009)

I found that the best way to improve my wedding photography was to shadow an established photographer for a period of time. 
I contacted someone (fairly local) who's work I admired and asked if they wanted a free dogs body.

www.nicholasjamesphotography.co.uk


----------



## Exhibit_A (Sep 1, 2009)

you just need to practice, practice, practice, bro because trust me shooting weddings is not an easy task.. don't let the comments here bring you down, because it would just make me stronger.  just read some wedding photo books and visit many wedding forums cause they will help you a great deal. maybe also mess around with shooting product shots with different types of lighting e.i. tungsten and fluorescent, and get the feel of how lighting works, or see if you can shoot portraiture style pics of your friends using the same lighting that u took (or plan to take) to weddings and experiment with it.. be artistic... because lighting, i think, is the most important for shooting weddings.. so if your gonna continue to shoot weddings work on your lighting skills and i would recommend photoshop, i know its expensive if you dont have it, but you can correct many things with it like color cast and all that! for instance the last picture seemed to have the wrong white balance, it seemed bluish, and even tho im more of a warm tone type of guy i think warmer pics look better for wedding pics, but again thats just me..anyhow i would show you some of my shots from my weddings so you can compare but im assuming that i need a link to post them up in this forum, and i dont have a link to them at the moment! anyhow best regards, and good luck!


----------



## JamesMason (Sep 1, 2009)

This is definatly some sort of cryptic game, maybe some sort of viral marketing by a camrea manufacterer. "the mystery of the weddding photog"


----------



## FrankLamont (Sep 1, 2009)

I hate to point it out, but the OP is not the photographer.


----------



## mariusz (Sep 1, 2009)

not the best shoot I have seen that is for sure.  I would do a little more post production work on these - maybe that will help a bit.


----------



## J Rock (Sep 1, 2009)

I'm sorry but this thread was very entertaining, I'm really liking TPF!:lmao:


----------



## AUZambo (Sep 2, 2009)

J Rock said:


> I'm sorry but this thread was very entertaining, I'm really liking TPF!:lmao:


I agree...very seldom to I read a multipage thread when I'm not in on the beginning of it, but this thread was very intriguing!


----------



## epp_b (Sep 2, 2009)

> not the best shoot I have seen that is for sure. I would do a little more post production work on these - maybe that will help a bit.


Not even NASA could come up with technology to save these disasters.


----------



## Overread (Sep 2, 2009)

eerrr guys the OP (as revealed later in the thread) is NOT the photographer (page 3 of this thread second post) - they played out they were to get "honest" feedback on the images which they considered low qualty from a photographer who they hired to do their wedding.

The op has also not been back in a while (or at least not responded to this thread) and as far as I can remember the original photographer is not aware of this thread nor the comments.

edit -- but if your all realy keen you can hack my shots apart if you like


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 2, 2009)

Overread said:


> edit -- but if your all realy keen you can hack my shots apart if you like



As soon as I read the whole thread, I deleted my post.  I hope the original photographer does not see this thread, as he has good grounds for copyright infringement.

No bride that I know... has the rights to post her pictures on the net without proper licensing rights.

Now, if you want me to tear into your wedding shots... PM me a link... lol


----------



## Overread (Sep 2, 2009)

errm do you do honeymoon shots as well? Only I might actually have some of those!
(they are not good I'll admit that --- and the subjects might have more legs than normal, but I am sure they were married at some point!)


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 2, 2009)

Honeymoon shots... do you mean boudoire shots?  Yeah, I do those too, but I obviousy I do not post those here or on my flickr account.  

Those go on private password protected sites for bride/groom only.


----------



## Overread (Sep 2, 2009)

Well if you willing to -- I did get a release for these ones at least.
And flickr is ok - you just have to make sure that its listed as mature and stuff and you don't get in any trouble.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/3883090730_edb15256e1_o.jpg

that was about the only decent shot - and its already a crop to make matters harder. Noise was a problem too since it was getting dark and I don't have a highrange camera (yet)


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 2, 2009)

Overread said:


> Well if you willing to -- I did get a release for these ones at least.
> 
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/3883090730_edb15256e1_o.jpg
> 
> that was about the only decent shot - and its already a crop to make matters harder.



Sorry, I am so disappointed.

- her legs *are* way too long
- she lost her G-string, the ho.
- he's naked too, the pervert
- and they could have at least hidden the wine bottle before "performing".

The composition is nice though... you voyeur!


----------



## Overread (Sep 2, 2009)

Sorry about the winebottle - it was very much a grabshot -- and neither of them were really in the mood to have me try to compose anything better!
(Oh and if you look in the background you'll see I was not the only onlooker!)


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 2, 2009)

Overread said:


> (Oh and if you look in the background you'll see I was not the only onlooker!)



In the spirit of this thread, are you sure that this mysterious 2nd onlooker in the foreground was not you and that the original photographer was someone else and you are testing us?


----------



## epp_b (Sep 2, 2009)

> ...as he has good grounds for copyright infringement.


Oh, please, a couple of photos on a forum?  There's reasonable enforcement, and then there's just plain stupidity.

Besides, who would want to claim those as their own?


----------



## HeY iTs ScOTtY (Sep 2, 2009)

hehe not to be an ass but it looks like someone tripped over the learning curve and hit a wedding.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 2, 2009)

HeY iTs ScOTtY said:


> hehe not to be an ass but it looks like someone tripped over the learning curve and hit a wedding.


 


Very amusingly put.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 2, 2009)

I looked at the OP's photos in this post ,and wondered why people seem to be suggesting that *this* other shooter is somehow artistic http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/176320-heartpatrick-weddings-alex-elsa.html

There's a lot of people who are shooting weddings with technical skills that are just not very well-refined,nor what older people like me would consider professionally-capable.

The photos the OP showed in this post were technically,as in exposure accuracy and appropriateness, well above the skills displayed by the Malaysian wedding shooter in the post I reference above. If the two of them could meld their abilities in some sort of Vulcan Wedding Shooting Meld,  the resulting images would have both a modicum of technical virtue and a bit of style and flair.


----------



## IgsEMT (Sep 3, 2009)

To add to already stated mess - the pics that you showed are horrible. Composition and lighting is horrible. The couple is over exposed. your colors are damp.
For the future, *do not* ask family/friends for their opinion, always always ALWAYS ask peers. You'll get truth this way and advice on corrections.
F/F only know how to say "nice" things.


----------



## Overread (Sep 3, 2009)

Ok I think we seriously need to have this thread locked now - nobody is reading anything but the frist post and title now and missing the point that the OP is NOT the photographer = nor have they been back in several months ----.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 3, 2009)

And what's worse is now we're talking about another thread. 



Derrel said:


> I looked at the OP's photos in this post ,and wondered why people seem to be suggesting that *this* other shooter is somehow artistic http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/176320-heartpatrick-weddings-alex-elsa.html
> 
> There's a lot of people who are shooting weddings with technical skills that are just not very well-refined,nor what older people like me would consider professionally-capable.
> 
> The photos the OP showed in this post were technically,as in exposure accuracy and appropriateness, well above the skills displayed by the Malaysian wedding shooter in the post I reference above. If the two of them could meld their abilities in some sort of Vulcan Wedding Shooting Meld, the resulting images would have both a modicum of technical virtue and a bit of style and flair.


 
(anyone else will need to look at this other thread to understand what I'm on about here)

Derrel, I understand what you're saying but you're mashing together style and composition choices and technical capabilities and equating them as one complete and inseperable animal.

They are not.

There are rules of photography, no question.  Usually it's best to follow those rules and usually folks who break them turn out things that do not appeal to the masses... this is clearly the case with you.  That's fine.  You don't like them.  Totally understand.

However... sometimes breaking the rules yields interesing _artistic_ results. Sometimes those results appeal to others.  In my experience, it is usually only the people who truly understand the rules that are able to break them effectively.  

You may not like images the break the rules, but that doesn't mean that they utterly lack value.  They just lack value to you.  Different artistic choices than you, does NOT mean a lack of technical capability.  

I have seen _plenty_ of photographers on here who clearly had no idea what they were doing and defended their output as "their style".  This is not the case here.  The photog in the thread you posted about HAD technical capability... it was clear to me in the relative consistency of his style.  You can't maintain that kind of look without knowing what you are doing.  It wasn't an accident.


----------

