Wedding pictures opinion

[curtisl]

I done some photos for a friend of mine on NYE. Now I hate doing weddings due to the pressure of the day and it makes me very hot!!

Can I ask that you have a look at the ones that I have put together and let me know what you think. I cant crit my own shots as I think they are all st which is something that I need to work on this year I think. They are on a PDF file linked from my website so I appreciate your patience.

http://www.leecurtisphotography.com/files/9594/dan...

[Lois]

Well for starters you "did", not "done". Sadly the photos wont load on my laptop.

Edited by Lois on Monday 2nd January 11:43

[crmcatee]

curtisl said:

I hate doing weddings due to the pressure of the day and it makes me very hot!!

Lee Curtis Website says said:

I am also available for Weddings

[Simpo Two]

I think most of the basic shots are OK but the first thing I notice above anything else is that they all have a strong sepia/weird colour cast. Might be OK for a few but it gets awfully wearing after a while, a bit like having ketchup on everything. Second thing I notice is that the shadows are awfully dark - deliberately?

Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 2nd January 11:57

[MikeGTi]

They all seem to be either very soft or slightly out of focus - or is it just me?

[curtisl]

crmcatee said:

Ha. You got me!! When I set my site up it was a portal to generate some work and I was coming off the back of two weddings so that was my path. My path has changed now so the less weddings the better, saying that tho. I am co-shooting two next year already. I don't have to love what earns me the money to finance new lenses to shoot the stuff I do love.

[baz7175]

Have to echo Simpo, the colour cast seems to go from sepia to a reddish tint which doesn't really add anything to the pics (for me at least).

After shooting 4 weddings in quick succession a few years back I learned quickly that women + camera in their face = screaming about their chin(s) when looking at the pics later....it's made me overly cautious of womens chins in pics ever since ha ha...

p.s.

curtisl said:

I don't have to love what earns me the money to finance new lenses to shoot the stuff I do love.

Best hope no prospective clients hear that, or you won't get many more coming your way

Edited by baz7175 on Monday 2nd January 12:46

[curtisl]

Thanks baz and simpo. I am going to re-edit most if not all. It was more challenging due to the fact that my little girl was with me, climbing all over me and hanging from my leg most of the time.

I accept the fact that I am not suited to weddings. And I will stick to motocross, which is what I am hopefully better at.

[MartinP]

The post processing does vary a lot across the set, I'd suggest backing it off quite a bit and keeping a generally consistent style across the set.

Not sure if this was the type of thing you were trying to achieve, but take a look at Ed Peers work: www.edpeers.com/2011/weddings/alex-mike-london-pal... It's not a popular style amongst wedding togs, but if a client wants it, then they don't have a big choice of photographers to go to... This look can be achieved with a colour balance adjustment layer to tweak the toning of the shadows and highlights.

If you can, I'd suggest sticking to shooting the type of photography that you enjoy - it definitely shows, your motorcross images are so much better.

[jimmy156]

MartinP said:

The post processing does vary a lot across the set, I'd suggest backing it off quite a bit and keeping a generally consistent style across the set.

Not sure if this was the type of thing you were trying to achieve, but take a look at Ed Peers work: www.edpeers.com/2011/weddings/alex-mike-london-pal... It's not a popular style amongst wedding togs, but if a client wants it, then they don't have a big choice of photographers to go to... This look can be achieved with a colour balance adjustment layer to tweak the toning of the shadows and highlights.

If you can, I'd suggest sticking to shooting the type of photography that you enjoy - it definitely shows, your motorcross images are so much better.

Is that EdP of here? That for me is a really nice style for wedding photography, informal yet professional and, as you say, very consistent processing across the set so the whole things works together really well. I have seen some photographers who go too far with there own "style" for wedding stuff, and the pictures end up being about the photographer and not about the wedding, if that makes any sense. I would say these have an excellent balance of a distinctive style, yet are still wedding photos that do what they should and capture the day.

OP i cant really add anything to help you as have no experience of doing weddings, other then as a drunken guest. But to me it looks as if you were pretty close to achieving what you were trying for, but the images are a little too processed for me, and some are a little soft/motioned blured. Were you using flash? It doesn't look as if your were and I would say some nicely bounced flash would have helped these shots a lot.

TBH if you had your little one with you this is going to make it almost impossible to be in full "photography" mode. I find i cant multi-task with photography. I'm either taking photo's or i'm doing something else. This is why taking photo's as a guest at a wedding is so difficult, cos you either end up in full photographer mode and annoy the paid wedding 'tog, and probably your OH , or you take a few half hearted photo's and get annoyed that they are no good.

[miniman]

MartinP said:

Not sure if this was the type of thing you were trying to achieve, but take a look at Ed Peers work: www.edpeers.com/2011/weddings/alex-mike-london-pal... It's not a popular style amongst wedding togs, but if a client wants it, then they don't have a big choice of photographers to go to... This look can be achieved with a colour balance adjustment layer to tweak the toning of the shadows and highlights.

A fabulous set of photos indeed. Of course, the subject matter makes a huge difference - a lot of the appeal is in the attention to detail in the venue, clothing, accessories and the general feel of the day.

[MartinP]

jimmy156 said:

Is that EdP of here? That for me is a really nice style for wedding photography, informal yet professional and, as you say, very consistent processing across the set so the whole things works together really well. I have seen some photographers who go too far with there own "style" for wedding stuff, and the pictures end up being about the photographer and not about the wedding, if that makes any sense. I would say these have an excellent balance of a distinctive style, yet are still wedding photos that do what they should and capture the day.

Don't think that's EdP from here. Ed Peers is one of a number of wedding togs who's blogs I follow, his general style of work is what I aspire to achieve, though not his post processing which isn't really to my taste.

[Simpo Two]

Remember that there are two issues here that need to be kept seperate:

1) Getting the RAW shot in the bag (exposure, focus, composition, expression, action)

2) Processing it.


I process to look as realistic as possible first, and any 'effects' can be applied later if required.

[curtisl]

I posted the set in here because I wasn't happy with them at all but from the OH. I got the usual 'they're good' reply, but I know if I am happy with the finished product. The couple said that they like them but I have said that I will give them another set, re-edited to see if they prefer them. I think in some of the shots I was over compensating the pp to distract from the focus issues.

These are not excuses but I would have preferred to have more time to compose a shot or at least that the settings were more suitable for each shot. My normal wedding exploits do not involve having my mental girl craving my attention.

Thanks for your honest opinion and the set on that link is probably the best set of wedding shots I have seen. If my shots came anywhere close to that, I'd shoot them everyday!!

This is another wedding set where I was kid free.
http://www.leecurtisphotography.com/weddings

[andy-xr]

Kid free wins I think! The subject matter in the first is a slight issue, as in, you can only photograph whats in front of you. Admittedly you can manipulate whats in front of you through rapport in some cases (excluding candids) but comparing the two is a little futile.

The first one you've put up has some harsh expressions, some that feel a little too close, and some that aren't flattering.

I think I'd be tempted to put them all back in LR and choose a white balance, exposure and fill setting that suits everything, then start on colour. Once thats sorted, some light editing (that shoulder wart jumped out) and dial back on the contrast (look at the old ladies skin)

One thing that might soften these out is an empty layer with a white brush at around 40% opacity, blur the white and change the blend mode to Soft Light, then drop the layer to around 20%. You'll get a nice light haze rather than a brash upfront whack in the face.

The focus issues you've had I have no idea what to do with, there's definitely some binners in that pdf, sorry

[Simpo Two]

I'd be tempted to go back to the RAW, bin the duds, then set everything on default and hammer them into shape from there. There won't be a 'one setting fits all' answer. Head for 'natural' before you start piling on the mascara and aftershave