Wedding photos....comment exchange

01/28/2009 05:33:49 PM · #1

I did a wedding right before Christmas. I am not at all happy with my results. I'm discovering that the formals are my downfall I think...mostly due to having inadequate lighting. I dont' think I'll be taking any more weddings until I get that lighting and learn how to use it.

This was a very low budget, disorganized wedding - however I did my best. The reception was really bad and boring, so there wasn't much I could do there. The photos appear somewhat soft to me in many instances. The lighting is not good.

I would really like to learn from this. Please take a look at THIS GALLERY and help me by commenting on some of the shots. I particulary am interested in which shots you like the most and dislike the most and specifics on why.

I would be happy to return comments if you leave your user name here so I know who's porfolio to go to. Thank you so much in advance for helping.

Nikon D200

01/28/2009 09:40:52 PM · #2

Hi Judy, don't worry about return comments. I left you with some honest critiques.

Overall, lots of these can be "Saved" with some PS work. You did well to not blow out the dress. Many of your black and white conversions need more work to increase contrast.

When working with crap backgrounds, either get in nice and tight and do more details or use DOF to advantage. Do not let the ugly take over the shot.

When you have a whole wall that is a mirror, you can't bounce off the ceiling. You'll have to use the mirror to advantage to create a directional light during the bounce off the mirror itself.

Pay closer attention to composition and poles/leading lines/etc. coming out of people's heads or competing with the line you are trying to create.

Take better control of your subjects when they are doing interesting things and position them to advantage with the stuff in the room. Conversely, if people aren't doing anything interesting on their own, have an idea and make them do something interesting for you. They'll probably be glad of the distraction.

Move, remove, and reposition objects into artful arrangements when they aren't already that way. Don't just shoot what is - shoot what *should* be.

Men in suits who are sitting should always sit on the bottom of their jacket - this helps with the line of the collar. It's uncomfortable, so crack a joke about it and get the natural smile from them. Hands are never in pockets for formals, it ruins the line of the suit. Jackets are always buttoned. Create geometric shapes with people's faces, and don't try to do too many things at once with a shot. Let the drape of the dress be it's own shot, and in some of the rest of the formals with the people can be in front of the bride.

None of these people look very comfortable. I suspect they were reacting your discomfort. Think back - what was your "patter" like?

You've simply GOT to get your people AWAY from the backgrounds - think like a studio setting - you always put your peeps several feet from the background and use DOF liberally.

I can see why you are disappointed in these shots - they aren't your best work. I've seen you do awesome work. I suspect you saw the conditions and were a little overwhelmed on how to cope. You shot this wedding like it was in a 5-star resort, but it wasn't -- the setting wasn't there. Those kinds of times are where you must create an illusion. Don't let empty pews creep into your composition like fallen soldiers. Don't like the background setting? Fill the frame with the subject!

Next time, let your natural creativity and bubbly personality take over.

01/28/2009 09:53:34 PM · #3

Holy cow, Laurie...you went above and beyond the call of duty!

Very helpful. Thank you so very much! The time you spent on those comments is greatly appreciated.

My I ask one more favor? If you had to pick your two favorites which would they be and why? I'm trying to learn what I do RIGHT as well :) Thanks!

Judy

Nikon D200

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

01/28/2009 10:07:59 PM · #4

Oops, I tried to say as I went along. :)

This one.
This one.
This one is a good candid moment.
Great shot of The Kiss.
This one got a great expression on the bride.
This one made the best of a difficult situation.
This one was on the right track for using local conditions in a favorable way.

Your lighting isn't as bad as you think it is. Exposure was in almost all cases spot-on. Moving people away from the backdrop will help with the harsh shadows you are noticing. The lighting does look a teeny bit flat in some and using your flash off camera might have helped, but you seriously did have very difficult conditions and after cropping, you will have a body of work that they should be pleased with.

Also, you don't mention what metering method you were using? Were you having trouble with focus hunt?

Sugarpie

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/28/2009 10:16:58 PM · #5

L2 is my new hero.

Marjo

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/29/2009 10:44:15 AM · #6

Originally posted by Sugarpie:

L2 is my new hero.

Mine too!

01/29/2009 11:51:18 AM · #7

I'm curious...can you guys see the comments she left in the gallery? I thought I had it set so that I would have to approve of the comments before they became visible. I love, love, love the comments - but not sure I would want the bride and groom to be able to read them?

She commented on something like 80 of the photos! That's amazing.

dassilem

Nikon D90

01/29/2009 12:12:06 PM · #8

I can't see the comments....
and I'm still looking at the photos..

dassilem

Nikon D90

01/29/2009 12:30:24 PM · #9

ok, I give, what are the rings made of...are they black?

Prof_Fate

01/29/2009 12:31:13 PM · #10

You need to use other apertures - looks like everything was shot at 5.6.
You need to move about more - get higher, lower, etc Every shot seems to be take from the same perspective. No variety.
You need to use more focal lenghts - 10 and 200 and everything in between - again, variety.

The receptions shots, well, your reception coverage needs some work - ISO 800 at 2.8 would be better than some of what I saw there - the 40D can be noisy at 1600 and you don't need much DOF - 2.8 is fine for 95% of reception work. The garter bit - the wall and dead ballons in the BG just sucks (sorry, it's just so sad looking to me). Could you have been on the other side of them to get the crown in the BG? Smiling faces, laughter, etc would look sooooo much better. (same idea for a lot of the other shots - you don't want it to look the the B&G are in an empty hall)
Church formals - yeah, I agree with you on the lighting and i'l throw in the posing isn't too hot either. Please, No fig leaf poses for the guys! On some you've got the B&G in the back row - it's their day so they should be front and center.

L2 has some great advice there and I'd agree -you've done better and you probably got thrown off kilter. Been there at times and may be again on 2/14. Get tight and shoot wide open to hide the venue/BG when it's not all that attractive.

Message edited by author 2009-01-29 12:34:05.

01/29/2009 08:48:22 PM · #11

Originally posted by dassilem:

ok, I give, what are the rings made of...are they black?

I believe the rings were ceramic.

01/29/2009 08:54:54 PM · #12

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

The garter bit - the wall and dead ballons in the BG just sucks (sorry, it's just so sad looking to me). Could you have been on the other side of them to get the crown in the BG? Smiling faces, laughter, etc would look sooooo much better. (same idea for a lot of the other shots - you don't want it to look the the B&G are in an empty hall)

Thank you for the advice. Looking back at the angles, some variety is needed, I agree.

As for the garter....by the time they did the garter almost everyone was gone. The only person they had standing behind the groom for the garter throw was a crying ringbearer. It was incredibly sad. It was either shoot the direction I did and get the stage, or shoot the other direction and get ugly tables with no people. I think my best angle there was probably up on the stage, similar to the dance shots. At that angle, you saw less of the actual hall. Could have been much better, but really not much to work with either. The one advantage I have from this wedding is learning to work better beyond the presented circumstances. There are a few shots I like, and most of those are ones that give a feel for more that what was actually happening. They create a moment instead of waiting and snapping one, if that makes sense.

Thanks again for taking the time to look. It's very much appreciated. My next wedding is scheduled for May so I'm looking forward to putting some of what I've learned into action and sharing the results.

Prof_Fate

01/29/2009 10:01:04 PM · #13

some venues are tough. There is one here that did a bridal show a few years back and I shot 4 weddings there. It was a former grocery store - large and architecturally un interesting. The floor was all white and black checkerboard - ugliest damn floor anywhere. and most angles showed a mostly empty hall. I don't miss shooting there at all.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

01/29/2009 10:47:50 PM · #14

I see you're getting lots of feedback, so I want to concentrate just on the technicals of the formals.

I see you are shooting formals *with* flash at 1/60th f/3.5 and ISO 1600. That means: 1) camera shake, 2) motion blur of the subjects, 3) too shallow DOF for the group, 4) grainy images, and 5) mixed lighting (both flash and ambient lighting are participating in the exposure). Every single one of these is a bad omen if you're looking for high quality images.

Shooting what appears to be on-camera un-diffused flash means that shadows will be hard and, when the camera is in portrait position, will be highly visible to the side of the people, like this one. Of camera flash with a shoot through umbrella would greatly increase the quality of the light.

Shooting at 1/60th would be okay, if ambient light were low enough not to show any camera shake or any motion blur on the subjects (solution: drop the ISO and let your flash freeze them instead). Dropping the ISO will have the added benefit of limiting the noise.

Shooting at f/3.5 for a group is hard. You have to line them up perfectly or some of them are bound to be out of focus. For example, this photo has everyone nicely spread out (I kinda like the space in the arrangement), but at f/3.5 those people who are most forward or backward from your focus point are very likely to be out of focus. You can see, in this example, how I'm bringing everyone in close to the center to try to maximize my f/4 DOF. This one, I purposely spread people out, so I bumped up my aperture to f/5.6 and hoped it would be enough. (I was also at 24mm focal length, which helped extend my DOF) Anyway, the point is ... keep your DOF in mind as you switch gears and start shooting groups (every now and then I have to kick myself when I shoot a bunch of candids at f/2.8 and forget to switch the aperture when the group portraits begin).

But I want the primary focus of my comments to be on the lighting. Because you are shooting at such a high ISO with such low shutter and aperture settings, it means that your ambient light is playing a huge part in the exposure. I think you need to decide... are you shooting ambient light, or are you shooting flash? If shooting ambient, then turn your flash way down so that it is only playing a "fill flash" role (that will reduce the harsh shadows). If shooting flash, then drop your ISO or increase your shutter speed so that the ambient light is reduced.

What's wrong with shooting mixed lighting? Well, if your ambient light is yellow tungsten, and your flash is daylight balanced, then you're going to get some really weird coloring on your subjects. Plus, with the ambient light contributing to the subject exposure, it means that slow shutter speeds will not stop motion. (subtract out the ambient light with a low ISO so that only your flash lights the subject, and the flash will freeze them regardless of shutter speed)

Second, if you can get your flash "off camera" you can get incredibly better results. Look through the rest of this album. All of these shots are straight out of Lightroom with no editing (and only minimal Lightroom adjustments). The things that sets these images apart are: 1) off-camera flash (look at the soft shadows on their faces), 2) a balance of ambient light versus flash by controlling ISO and shutter.

I'm not really doing anything fancy for the off-camera flash. I happen to be using Radio Poppers to control the off camera flash, but you could just as easily use a sync cord and save a lot of money. So what makes my flash look good? It's that I'm shooting through a translucent umbrella and the flash is slightly off to one side so that the light is directional instead of flat light.

If you feel like you can't afford the cost of getting your flash off camera ... think again. Here is a strobist kit for just $223. It comes with a flash, light stand, sync cord, umbrella, carrying case, and various other little goodies. EVERYTHING you need to set up a portable studio. That's just $223 ... that's less than the cost of a Canon flash.

Anyway, I'm sure I'm rambling and maybe not making sense. If you have any questions, feel free to ask, I love to help.

Message edited by author 2009-01-29 22:49:23.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/30/2009 12:10:38 AM · #15

Originally posted by dwterry:

I love to help.

And hopefully, so many of these good comments from all of you will be helping more than just myself. Some really good stuff in all of the comments - from posing and venue to lighting to post processing. All very very helpful.

Thanks very much to all of you for taking time for such in depth help!

My next purchase is actually going to be some off camera lighting. I did purchase a flash bracket before a wedding last year but never liked the results I got when I practiced using it. For on camera flash, I have an omnibounce cover and generally have the flash pointing up instead of directly on the subject. Time to move ahead!

Judy

Marjo

Canon EOS-7D

01/30/2009 08:21:31 AM · #16

Originally posted by jpochard:

Originally posted by dwterry:
I love to help.

And hopefully, so many of these good comments from all of you will be helping more than just myself. Some really good stuff in all of the comments - from posing and venue to lighting to post processing. All very very helpful.

Thanks very much to all of you for taking time for such in depth help!

My next purchase is actually going to be some off camera lighting. I did purchase a flash bracket before a wedding last year but never liked the results I got when I practiced using it. For on camera flash, I have an omnibounce cover and generally have the flash pointing up instead of directly on the subject. Time to move ahead!

Judy

Judy, Thanks for seeking advise. The feedback is great! We should get together and practice/experiment with my lighting equipment. It will give you an idea as to what you need to purchase.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 08:27:11.

tiffanyleski

Canon PowerShot A70

01/30/2009 08:54:55 AM · #17

Originally posted by dwterry:

Slightly off subject, but I was just looking through your wedding portfolio on your website, David. You have some really gorgeous work! I'm not sure I saw a picture in there that I didn't like. If my fiance and I are ever in your area, I'll be calling you for a shoot. :)

dassilem

Nikon D90

01/30/2009 09:37:19 AM · #18

Originally posted by dwterry:

... I love to help.

and help you DO!!
I always love learning from you.....You should 'teach'...as you don't talk over heads, and if 'I' can follow what you are saying ANYONE can....

now if I can just incorporate it into my shooting!

Prof_Fate

02/01/2009 03:45:14 PM · #19

Originally posted by dwterry:

I see you are shooting formals *with* flash at 1/60th f/3.5 and ISO 1600. That means: 1) camera shake, 2) motion blur of the subjects, 3) too shallow DOF for the group, 4) grainy images, and 5) mixed lighting (both flash and ambient lighting are participating in the exposure). Every single one of these is a bad omen if you're looking for high quality images.

ISO 1600 on a 40D won't cut it, so on that point we do agree. I can't disagree more strongly to the rest though. I consistently shoot formals at 1/10 to 1/20 second shutter speeds HANDHELD, and get spectacular results. Using an IS lens of course (17-55). A tripod is still better, but not a necessity. The point of such a low shutter speed is to capture the ambient light -that is one way to reduce shadows. I use a monolight and 2x2 softbox about 10 feet in the air behind me.

Originally posted by dwterry:

Off camera flash with a shoot through umbrella would greatly increase the quality of the light.

It will, but you lose a LOT of light out the back open side of the umbrella, hence my suggestion of a softbox.
Focus wise F4 to 5.6 should be plenty. I rarely shoot over F4 for groups in churches, and still get more of the BG in sharp focus than I'd like.

Point being there is more than one way to skin a cat or shoot a wedding. I don't find speedlights powerful enough for formals, but some do. I don't have issues with mixed lighting for formals even with slow shutter speeds - it's called custom white balance.

here are some images taken using the above methodology. First 2 are from 4 weeks ago. First three are LR, the other two DPP/PS. The fourth one was lit with speedlights and proves you can use this method even in backlight situations. The last one is from november 2007 when I was still working out the way to do this.

Message edited by author 2009-02-01 15:48:11.

Bebe

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/01/2009 03:56:23 PM · #20

Originally posted by Marjo:

Judy, Thanks for seeking advise. The feedback is great!

I second that! Many thanks to everyone who gave advice - I'm soaking it all up as well.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

02/01/2009 05:27:21 PM · #21

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by dwterry:

I see you are shooting formals *with* flash at 1/60th f/3.5 and ISO 1600. That means: 1) camera shake, 2) motion blur of the subjects, 3) too shallow DOF for the group, 4) grainy images, and 5) mixed lighting (both flash and ambient lighting are participating in the exposure). Every single one of these is a bad omen if you're looking for high quality images.

ISO 1600 on a 40D won't cut it, so on that point we do agree. I can't disagree more strongly to the rest though. I consistently shoot formals at 1/10 to 1/20 second shutter speeds HANDHELD, and get spectacular results. Using an IS lens of course (17-55). A tripod is still better, but not a necessity. The point of such a low shutter speed is to capture the ambient light -that is one way to reduce shadows. I use a monolight and 2x2 softbox about 10 feet in the air behind me.

My point may not have been adequately expressed.

My guess is that the reason she was shooting ISO 1600 was due to the low light. So what does bumping to ISO do for you? It lets the ambient light become the "main source" light for the subject. And if ambient low light is your main source of light, then you're bound to get camera shake and subject movement.

I will shoot slower shutter speeds, but generally only when I'm using flash to freeze my subjects. IS will do nothing to freeze the subjects and kids (and even some adults) are notorious for moving while shooting.

So the point I was trying to make was to lower the ISO and let the flash become the "main" source of light.

The other issue with ambient light being the main source of light is the color of the light. Especially if you're also using flash. Unless you put a gel on your flash to match the ambient light, you end up with mixed lighting and that doesn't go over too well either.

P.S.
Full EXIF data is available on the pictures I posted. I try to be as helpful as possible. It would be awesome if you would add EXIF data to your shots as well. That way we can all learn.

Message edited by author 2009-02-01 17:29:17.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III