Critical opinions sought

[Itsallicanafford]

Good afternoon, critical opinions sought so I thought PH would be the best place!
A little back story, my long term plan is to transition from my current non-photography related career into Wedding photography. I have set a 5 year time frame on this. The current point I am at is that I am enrolled in a business development course with an accomplished professional. This gives me great access to the business side of things as well as opportunities to attend weddings, 2nd shoot etc.
What I would really appreciate is some no holds barred criticism of my images with the mind set that I don’t want to just meet the expectations of my potential couples, I want to achieve a level which is multiple times higher than expected. At present, I am miles off the level I wish to get to.

My current plan for this year is to complete a couples shoot around once a month with willing friends. These shoots will be 1-2 hrs in length and I would like to improve with every session and I would greatly value all opinions and criticism. Please be as detailed as you can with your response and as this post is quite image heavy, maybe refer to the images by number rather than doing a reply to all of the post.
So, if you can spare the time, here is session 1, I will limit it to around 10 images from the session.
image 1

image 2

image 3

image 4

image 5

[Itsallicanafford]

Image 6

Image 7

image 8

image 9

image 10

[greygoose]

As a layman I would want the top of the arch in photo 4 and less paving stones. Some of them look a bit dark, image 5 is lit well.

[HRL]

Itsallicanafford said:

Good afternoon, critical opinions sought so I thought PH would be the best place!
A little back story, my long term plan is to transition from my current non-photography related career into Wedding photography. I have set a 5 year time frame on this. The current point I am at is that I am enrolled in a business development course with an accomplished professional. This gives me great access to the business side of things as well as opportunities to attend weddings, 2nd shoot etc.
What I would really appreciate is some no holds barred criticism of my images with the mind set that I don’t want to just meet the expectations of my potential couples, I want to achieve a level which is multiple times higher than expected. At present, I am miles off the level I wish to get to.

My current plan for this year is to complete a couples shoot around once a month with willing friends. These shoots will be 1-2 hrs in length and I would like to improve with every session and I would greatly value all opinions and criticism. Please be as detailed as you can with your response and as this post is quite image heavy, maybe refer to the images by number rather than doing a reply to all of the post.
So, if you can spare the time, here is session 1, I will limit it to around 10 images from the session.
image 1

image 2

image 3

image 4

image 5

Not a pro but just my opinions.

1 has too much wall. Nice idea but not quite right.

4 is slightly off centre and bugs my minor OCD.

7 is just a bit pointless IMO, it’s just grass and doesn’t really do anything for the couple.

Think the rest of the photos aren’t bad, perhaps 10 could have been zoomed in a little more and framed a bit better though.

HTH.

[thebraketester]

They are not terrible, but would I be happy to pay for them? No. They lack any cohesion. They all have distracting elements, or elements which detract from the subject matter. They look like “snaps” not professional photos.

You are entering a very saturated market, full of people who have years of experience already and do photography very very well.

[Blackpuddin]

The ones where the couple are apart look wrong for a wedding, like they've had second thoughts! Agree the field one is trying too hard to be 'natural', ends up looking a bit goofy. Close ups are the best ones for me.

[Itsallicanafford]

thanks Chaps for the initial responses, I knew I could rely on you

Please rest assured I am reading each and every comment and thinking of potential solutions.

Edited by Itsallicanafford on Saturday 23 March 16:41

[GravelBen]

For me (also not a pro) a lot of the backgrounds are too busy and distracting from the subject, especially where the people are right in front of quite featured walls.

You could try having them further away from the walls, and use a wider aperture to throw the walls out of focus. And/or find locations and compose shots to have simpler backgrounds.

To my eye the light is a bit flat and dull in some of the photos as well, obviously you have to work with the light that is there but a bit more massaging of white balance and contrast etc may help things pop better. One of the more impressive things to me about good wedding photographers is the results they can achieve in truly horrible lighting conditions!

[Scarletpimpofnel]

thebraketester said:

They are not terrible, but would I be happy to pay for them? No. They lack any cohesion. They all have distracting elements, or elements which detract from the subject matter. They look like “snaps” not professional photos.

You are entering a very saturated market, full of people who have years of experience already and do photography very very well.

If saturated why is the price so high (having paid for a photographer and videographer last year I was shocked!)? I'd say there is room for competition at different price points.

[Scarletpimpofnel]

OP, many photographers put the videos and still portfolios on line nowadays for the family to download or buy prints from etc. Try getting access to these for weddings you have been to (or know of) to get an idea of what others are doing and at what price points. Word of mouth is important for getting new clients. Use of drones can be an extra nowadays. Good luck.

[Tony1963]

Scarletpimpofnel said:

If saturated why is the price so high (having paid for a photographer and videographer last year I was shocked!)? I'd say there is room for competition at different price points.

I agree that the prices can be eye opening, however, if you want a pro, you’re obviously paying for someone who has to make a living from it. When you multiply their fee by weddings per year (winter isn’t a great season) and then take out such overheads as travel expenses, advert, equipment (2x everything), their pension and NI, income tax, time after the shoot spent on a computer, maybe a business premises…
I read an article by a photographer about five years ago who said to have the equivalent of a £50k job as an employee, she needed to be pulling in £150k per year. That's over £3k per week, if you take out four weeks for holiday.
It very quickly makes sense.
But is still scary.

OP, none of those photos you posted stopped me scrolling. One or two are almost there.
I’d probably spend lots of time trawling wedding photographers’ websites, saving the real eye catchers to a folder, then going to them frequently, understanding more about the reasons they work. You can add those thoughts to your own style.

Good luck!

Edit: I meant to also say that possibly a little fill-in flash for the closer portraits might help. If nothing else it can give little highlights in the eyes which always looks attractive.

Edited by Tony1963 on Sunday 24th March 11:50

[Simpo Two]

Tony1963 said:

Edit: I meant to also say that possibly a little fill-in flash for the closer portraits might help. If nothing else it can give little highlights in the eyes which always looks attractive.

Agreed; I almost always used fill flash for my weddings (about 150 of them). Used correctly it brings colours to life and avoids the 'muddiness' that ambient-only sometimes gives. Using very high ISOs which weren't available when I started may get you the right exposure but is in no way a substitute.

My website isn't used these days and I'm sure you'll find it looks very basic - but it was there to sell me and my photos, not web skills. Have a poke around; here's a sample page: http://www.blokewithacamera.co.uk/wedding-photogra... Best viewed on a proper screen, it's not designed for mobile phones.

Remember that you're not just selling your photo skills, you're selling yourself. You'll be in the thick of the action in a pivotal role. You need to be able to get on with everybody and know when to step in and when to step back. For reportage, which was my forte, position, anticipation and speed are everything. I found formal photos awfully dull and so did my clients.

Weddings are perhaps the hardest form of photography, but it's an area where, if you're good enough (not just at photography but at marketing and sales) you can actually earn some money. You also have to love what you do.[/footnote]

Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 24th March 19:49

[Itsallicanafford]

Good evening to you all. Thank you all for the continuing comments and links, they are very much appreciated.

Just to pick up the point of fill in flash. This is a good idea, I used to use it quite a bit when using DSLR's, since moving to mirrorless I have sort of neglected it. Will pick this up for the next session. I will re-edit a few of the above shots looking at cleaning up some of the compositions, especially centring image 4 and maybe using a different shot with more of the chapel. Also will look at light levels, might dig a little further into the raw files to look at brightening a few of the images. My next couples session is booked towards the end of April so will have session 2 posted up towards the end of April so hopefully looking forward to more critique.

[Simpo Two]

Itsallicanafford said:

Also will look at light levels, might dig a little further into the raw files to look at brightening a few of the images.

The greatest benefit of RAW files IMHO is the ability to get exposure, shadow detail and most importantly white balance just right. When faced with a high contrast shot I would often double process it - once for highlights and once for shadows - then blend the two together either by hand or with a layer mask technique.

The biggest thing I take issue with in your shots is that awful flint wall that overpowers the people with its weight and texture. WB looks a touch green too.

I've never used mirrorless with EVF but does it render histograms obsolete? I suspect not, but am not sure.

[Itsallicanafford]

Thanks Simon for the comments, much appreciated.

I like the idea of double processing the raw files. I have used that technique to blend two images which were exposed differently in camera through auto bracketing but with the dynamic range of modern cameras, there is no reason why you can just work with a single raw file as you suggested.

In regards to white balance, I’m shooting fully manual for everything apart from this, which is set to auto. Will research this in more detail.
You can set up histogram to show in the EVF, again a bit more research on this would help from my end. My current set up for the EVF is that it shows a 2 second preview of the image with highlights blinks. A quick tap on the shutter clears this. I use the canon R system, it tends to under expose slightly when compared with the EVF read out so I’m mindful of this when choosing the exposure.

[Simpo Two]

Itsallicanafford said:

I like the idea of double processing the raw files. I have used that technique to blend two images which were exposed differently in camera through auto bracketing but with the dynamic range of modern cameras, there is no reason why you can just work with a single raw file as you suggested.

It's a kind of HDR but you have complete control over how it happens, and you don't have to keep turning autobracket on and off (you'll have plenty else to deal with!). Bracketing (ie more than one shot) won't work if the camera or the subject is moving - which at a wedding they invariably are.

Itsallicanafford said:

In regards to white balance, I’m shooting fully manual for everything apart from this, which is set to auto. Will research this in more detail.

I use Auto WB too; I find it gets very close and from there it's easy to tweak a bit in the software of your choice. I would often make it slightly warmer than neutral to improve skin tones. For exposure I use aperture priority auto, typically at f3.5 indoors both for a pleasing DOF and also a longer flash range.

Itsallicanafford said:

You can set up histogram to show in the EVF, again a bit more research on this would help from my end. My current set up for the EVF is that it shows a 2 second preview of the image with highlights blinks.

Highlight warning is very useful - sometimes you need a blown highlight, eg a small window in a barn, to get the important part of the image right, but if half the wedding dress is flashing you need to do something... I worked fast and moved around a lot so auto exposure, histogram check and then +/- EV to move it left or right if it needed adjusting was the method I developed. But there are many ways to work a camera and you will have and develop your own style and way of doing things.

And you're buying a narrowboat too...!

[Itsallicanafford]

Thanks for the responses, great points raised. I just clicked that we have discussions going across 2 threads! Yes, wedding photography and then lazy days editing while afloat, what could be better? Someway to go to achieve these aims but I am going to work hard to achieve both. Thanks again for the responses.

[Derek Smith]

I think the important question with regards wedding photography is whether the couple like the results. Your are not there to indulge your whims, but satisfy those who employ you, even if you are doing it for free. Be radical by all means but do your job first.

I've assisted with wedding photography a few times and the chap won competitions and awards, once even getting him a year's employment with Shell, photographing various installations around the world. Those images were inspiring. His wedding images were, in the main, staid. I challenged him, suggesting most were boring and he said it is what the couple wanted and it was what he delivered.

I went with the proofs to a couple of wedding receptions, this in the days of film - he used two Mamiyaflex 6 x 6 TLRs - and everyone said nice things about his flights of fancy, but no one bought them, even the couple, everyone wanting groups, the happy couple and all that. It's probably what most of those of us who are married have. I confess my wife and I have, apart from one radical image of the wedding ring and our hands over the order of service with confetti falling. Real extreme imagery, or what?

If the customers like them, you've done your job. Praise indeed. It's not up to the photographer to educate their customers on what is a fabulous image.

[Derek Smith]

I like them.

[Simpo Two]

Derek Smith said:

I think the important question with regards wedding photography is whether the couple like the results. Your are not there to indulge your whims, but satisfy those who employ you, even if you are doing it for free. Be radical by all means but do your job first.

It's a good point - the best way to get a bill paid is to deliver what was expected (or better of course).

However for me it was not so much a case of 'Tell me what you want and I will do it' but more 'This is what I do; if you like it, let's proceed'. I had my own style and way of working first, that was what attracted enquiries, then it was tweaked if required to suit the couple. Very soon I knew more about how weddings worked than they did and it was easy to suggest things they'd never thought of. So yes, a wedding tog is a supplier, but they have to lead more than they follow.