# Megan's Bridals



## bennielou (Feb 22, 2010)

Megan is a poster here, and hired us to come up to TN to shoot her wedding.  We had a blast, and she's a doll.  (And at 6' tall, even taller than I am!)  I completely lucked out that she is gorgeous as well.

1.






2.





3.





4.





5.


----------



## bennielou (Feb 22, 2010)

6.





7.





8.





9.





10.


----------



## bennielou (Feb 22, 2010)

11.  Bridal Jewlery





12.





13.





14.  And just for something completely wacky


----------



## red1013 (Feb 22, 2010)

Lighting is quite nice. 
#11 seems soft.


----------



## dzfoto (Feb 23, 2010)

What I dislike:  too much over postprocessing on skin, it is too soft; This could affect natural skin tones, which look a bit odd for me;

What I like: dynamic photos as 5,13,14  (and NOT so static, staged, arranged as No. 9)

Overall nice photos, lighting quite good, some of them could be a little bit lighter. But your client should be happy with the result. Keep it up good work 

Sorry of my English

Donatas


----------



## sterlingp (Feb 23, 2010)

Very beautiful bride.  I like them all but my least favorites are the ones of the bride surrounded by graphiti.  My fav is the one of her going up the stairs, and the full length of her looking out the window.  With the graphiti ones I just feel placing a bride in front of such vandalism and dirtiness isn't my cut of tea.   A bride in white is suppose to be pure, and innocent.  Maybe the bride is into graphiti I don't know.


----------



## bigtwinky (Feb 23, 2010)

Great looking bride, looks like she is really fun to work with!

Not sure if its me, but many of them seem to be soft / slightly out of focus.

1- hey left eye, her teeth/mouth all seem to be somewhat blurry.  I like the concept and the choice of background to go with the mask.  Her right arm also seems blurry.  Is this processing or in camera?

2- the dress seems blown out.  I dont mind the pose, I find it nice, but I find the shot is too far out to take advantage of the pose, and it also makes the lights on the upper left of the frame distracting.  Maybe getting in closer and playing more with that reflection in the mirror?

3- Again, the dress seems blown out and her face seems dark / shadowed. Pose is nice, and a nice way to show off the dress, but need to have better exposure on the dress to take make the texture or paterns stand out

4- I really dislike that lamp in the foreground, totally breaks the image for me.  Dont like the centered focusness of the image and I find the bright blown out light in the back a bit too bright and blinding, even when I try and keep my eyes focused on her face.  The gown is dark, under exposed and blurry, not really adding much to the image.  If the gown is not enhanced and the focus of the shot, I dont think you need to compose to ensure its all included.  A more horizontal composition would cut out that lamp and the darkness at the bottom.

5-  Too much head space on top.  Or the stuff in the head space isn't interesting enough to make it a great image.  Trees + blown out background...meh.  Her face also seems out of focus / blurry, with the front of the dress being sharp?  I'm thinking too wide of an aperture

With those comments in mind...
Set 2
6- better composition than the original, but still a blown out dress, blurry eyes and uneven lighting

7- Much much better than 4.  A bit too centered, but not so bad.  The window isnt as bright, the lamp isnt there.  Seems like you had a slow shutter speed as her hand is blurry.  And keep the bouquet fully in the picture, you cut off part of it.

11- Still blurry on the eyes and face, the lighting is a bit flat.

I'm CCed out...

Is is how you uploaded the images that is making them off?  I would not expect to see this type of work with basic issues from a professional paid photographer, so I'm thinking there is another issue somewhere... my crappy work monitor maybe?


----------



## bennielou (Feb 23, 2010)

red1013 said:


> Lighting is quite nice.
> #11 seems soft.


 
Thanks Red!  Yes, 11 is a bit soft. :-(


----------



## bennielou (Feb 23, 2010)

dzfoto said:


> What I dislike: too much over postprocessing on skin, it is too soft; This could affect natural skin tones, which look a bit odd for me;
> 
> What I like: dynamic photos as 5,13,14 (and NOT so static, staged, arranged as No. 9)
> 
> ...


 
Hi Donatas,
Your English sounds pretty good to me! 
The skin work is something I'm known for, and some brides hate it, while others seek me out specifically for it.  Photographers have about the same ratio.
Thanks for the kind words on the lighting.  Thanks also for giving the thread a look over and for your thoughful critique.


----------



## bennielou (Feb 23, 2010)

sterlingp said:


> Very beautiful bride. I like them all but my least favorites are the ones of the bride surrounded by graphiti. My fav is the one of her going up the stairs, and the full length of her looking out the window. With the graphiti ones I just feel placing a bride in front of such vandalism and dirtiness isn't my cut of tea. A bride in white is suppose to be pure, and innocent. Maybe the bride is into graphiti I don't know.


 
Thanks for the comments.  Yes, I think she's super beautiful too.
Actually, she's a wedding/portrait photographer as well, and since we weren't from Tennesse, she took us to her favorite spots.  She really loved the graffitti area.
Thanks again!


----------



## bennielou (Feb 23, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> Great looking bride, looks like she is really fun to work with!
> 
> Not sure if its me, but many of them seem to be soft / slightly out of focus.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Big Twinkie,

Thanks for taking the time to look and to comment.

Actually, beside #11, all are quite sharp. There are no blown areas, so I suppose it could be your monitor.  (I calibrate weekly) 
The uploading process does have a tendency to soften them up somewhat, but it's not far off.
I'm pretty solid on "basic" photography.   Or at least brides around here think so...I'm fully booked for 2010.
Or maybe you just don't like my style, which is cool.  But I really do appreciate you taking time to comment.


----------



## bigtwinky (Feb 23, 2010)

I just got home and I had to check again on my calibrated monitor, and great to see that many of the blown issues were due to my work monitor. 

The softness issues are there, but like you said, this is often due to uploading and such.

Your style is your own, which is cool.  I like some of your shots, but the rest are probably just artistic differences. 

And just a quick note (and not directed at you) but I know a few people who are booked for the next little while and I dont consider them great photographers.  Enough to get them above Uncle Jim with his P&S camera, but not enough to actually be considered a photographer.


----------



## bennielou (Feb 23, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> I just got home and I had to check again on my calibrated monitor, and great to see that many of the blown issues were due to my work monitor.
> 
> The softness issues are there, but like you said, this is often due to uploading and such.
> 
> ...


 

I went to your site, and we are definately different. Different is cool. More choices for brides. 

It again it is down to personal preferences. All I know is I'm working, and have been for many years now. I'm awarded, published (mags, campaigns, an Art Album "Spectacular Weddings of Texas" available at Amazon and Barnes and Nobles), and booked. -Not trying to be a braggart, I just feel the need to defend myself. And you may have all those things on your slate as well. I don't know.

Again, some people like my work, while others hate it. 
It's ok if you hate it. Really. 
I'll still be working. Hopefully we both will. Different strokes, ya know?

I will say that I feel the need to defend myself with your posts. They are extremely passive aggressive, IMO.

In one post you insinuated that I didn't have basic skills of a paid photographer. In this one, you have stated that booked photogs aren't good photographers.

I don't want to argue, and I don't want to dance around all the insinuations. You think I suck, and I'm fine with it. We are extremely different. We couldn't have more polarized styles. And again, that's cool.

Hoping you have a terrific booking season!
Cindy


----------



## sterlingp (Feb 23, 2010)

"Thanks for the comments. Yes, I think she's super beautiful too.
Actually, she's a wedding/portrait photographer as well, and since we weren't from Tennesse, she took us to her favorite spots. She really loved the graffitti area.
Thanks again!"
  I don't know how to repost a quote so I just copy & pasted it.....
About the graffitti ones, I knew she had to have some connection with the art of graffitti.  I know she probably loves those then!!!!


----------



## sterlingp (Feb 23, 2010)

bennielou said:


> sterlingp said:
> 
> 
> > Very beautiful bride. I like them all but my least favorites are the ones of the bride surrounded by graphiti. My fav is the one of her going up the stairs, and the full length of her looking out the window. With the graphiti ones I just feel placing a bride in front of such vandalism and dirtiness isn't my cut of tea. A bride in white is suppose to be pure, and innocent. Maybe the bride is into graphiti I don't know.
> ...


 


ahhhh i figured out how to quote the post now.....


----------



## Restomage (Feb 23, 2010)

Great set! You're not from the UK by any chance are you?


----------



## bennielou (Feb 23, 2010)

Restomage said:


> Great set! You're not from the UK by any chance are you?


 
Hi Restomage,
Thank you so much for the kind words.  Actually, I'm over the pond in Dallas, TX.  I promise, It's not all cowboy hats and oil wells!
Thanks again,
Cindy


----------



## bennielou (Feb 23, 2010)

PS Sean,  I went to your site, and it's really great.  You have wonderful stuff there.


----------



## bennielou (Feb 23, 2010)

sterlingp said:


> "Thanks for the comments. Yes, I think she's super beautiful too.
> Actually, she's a wedding/portrait photographer as well, and since we weren't from Tennesse, she took us to her favorite spots. She really loved the graffitti area.
> Thanks again!"
> I don't know how to repost a quote so I just copy & pasted it.....
> About the graffitti ones, I knew she had to have some connection with the art of graffitti. I know she probably loves those then!!!!


 
Hi and thanks.
She really does love those the best.  She has turned all her avatars into the graffitti ones.

I'm a lot older than you (I'm guessing), but I myself kind of like the irony of a virginal bride in a location that is totally the opposite.  Just a different thought on things.  Myself though, I'd totally go for the trad ones.


----------



## Restomage (Feb 23, 2010)

bennielou said:


> PS Sean,  I went to your site, and it's really great.  You have wonderful stuff there.



Awesome thanks for the compliments! I'm still working on it...


----------



## bennielou (Feb 23, 2010)

Restomage said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > PS Sean, I went to your site, and it's really great. You have wonderful stuff there.
> ...


 
Looking good my man!  How old are you, if that isn't too personal.  Your avatar looks quite young.  Your shots are beautiful for any age though.  Good going.  You are one to watch.


----------



## Restomage (Feb 23, 2010)

bennielou said:


> Restomage said:
> 
> 
> > bennielou said:
> ...



20 years old, been shooting at this level for a few months.


----------



## bigtwinky (Feb 23, 2010)

bennielou, I sent you a PM.

But I did find your website and I must say that the work you posted here does not represent the work you have up on your own site, which is outstanding.  Shame that whatever you used to upload borked the softness of the image.


----------



## bennielou (Feb 24, 2010)

Hi Pierre,

I got the PM and responded. Thanks. I honestly do appreciate your CC.

Anyhoo, yeah, when I post to my site, It's full size, so it's sharper. When I upload on the net, I'm going though Photobucket, which makes them a bit soft. I'm totally open to any suggestions you guys have for an upload site that won't mess with the photos as much.

Hugs!


----------



## bennielou (Feb 24, 2010)

Restomage said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > Restomage said:
> ...


 
And that's exactly why you are one to watch.  You are just going to keep growing and growing and you are darn good already.  I can see from your site, you already have a style working, and that's something most people can't do for a while.
Post more stuff!


----------



## bigtwinky (Feb 24, 2010)

I first used photobucket but I had the same issues you are having in that it borks with the image.

I use flickr and I don't have any issues with them


----------



## bennielou (Feb 24, 2010)

Thanks Pierre,
I'll sign up with Flickr and use that next time.

Oh, and I'm totally going to put Bork into my vocabulary!


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 24, 2010)

> Anyhoo, yeah, when I post to my site, It's full size, so it's sharper. When I upload on the net, I'm going though Photobucket, which makes them a bit soft. I'm totally open to any suggestions you guys have for an upload site that won't mess with the photos as much.


I never had a problem with Photobucket.  I think the problems occur when people try to upload images that are larger (pixel size or file size) than what they require, so it automatically get's resized.  If you resize & compress your files before uploading them, it shouldn't be a problem.  Although, I haven't used them in years...heck, I can't even see anyone's images that are hosted there because my firewall blocks them all.



> I'm totally open to any suggestions you guys have for an upload site that won't mess with the photos as much.


Why not just host them on your site/server?
I created a folder on my site just as a place to host images that I want to display on forums/blogs etc.  It's not something that shows up when people browse my site, it's just a place to host image files.


----------



## bennielou (Feb 24, 2010)

Hi Big Mike and Thanks!

Photobucket has it's good and bad points. They recently came up with this massive size upload/downsize thingie which saved me time. Unfortunately the quality was down. The photos have always suffered from uploads. The "Pro" site is a bit better, but it's still a photo killer. I also noticed after a client warned me, that they are selling MY photos on coffee mugs, playing cards, etc, so I'm pretty upset with them.


I don't think I can use my server. If I can, I don't know how. I'm on Blu Domain.  Do you have any ideas or tips to do this?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## bennielou (Feb 24, 2010)

Oh, and just to say, I'm uploading 18mg photos.  Maybe that is the prob.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 24, 2010)

When I upload a file for web viewing, I resize it to about 800 pixels wide (or smaller) and I  save it as a JPEG at a quality/compression level of about 60-70%.  This brings most images down to about 100-200 kb.  Very small file size.

As for putting them on your server, do you have a control panel for your site?  I don't know anything about Blu Domain, but the host companies that I've had, all have a control panel that I can use to access all the site's files & folders.  
If so, just go onto that and create a folder in the public access area (I called my folder 'host').
Then I just upload the web ready images to that folder using either the control panel or an FTP program.  Then I just copy the URL of the images and paste that into forum threads.


----------



## bennielou (Feb 24, 2010)

Way over my head Mike!
Yes, I think I have a Public file already.  I just don't know how to use it.  I'll definately try to figure it out.  Thanks for the head's up.

When I used to manually upload, I was saving at 80 percent 750 pix, with USM.  The problem was still the upload site.  Ugg.  I wish people could see how the files really look.

But thank you and I will definately try it.


----------

