Wedding with OM-D

Started Apr 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
Loga
Contributing MemberPosts: 755Gear list
Like?
My answers :)
In reply to Loga, May 1, 2013

So... after my lost reply yesterday I managed to recreate it, and I cheated the watchdog of the site too. It is not too nice from dpreview not to give the chance to log in again and continue editing your reply...

So!

As I already wrote, you raised up some good points in your post, however, I there are some I can't accept, or I want to reveal the original concept that you may not noticed. Of course, I am just a hobbist, however, I can't accept that except the first picture all of them are just snapshots from a guest. In fact, I did not have a concept, or I did not try to create a whole report as I mentioned in my OP (and that could be the reason why certain moments and moods are missing - as you pointed out). It is true, that I did not wanted to take pictures _as THE photographer_, but as a guest. There were two guys who acted this role, and in most situations I had to take care not to stay in line of fire So maybe it is better to watch my pictures as they are: a series of a guest. But snapshots? A few, but not every of them but one. I checked your edited versions too, in one picture I like the narrower crop (where the bride throws the flowers), but adding PP blur would be a last resort for me. I can't really say I like what you did with the curves, even if had been done dirty and quick: I feel they become artifical as one pointed out too. But it is a good idea to spend more time with PP and try to make them better!

Jorginho wrote:

The Leica has such a lovely bokeh but I see it virtually nowhere.

The 25 1.4 was my least used lens from the three. I prefer the FOV of 14 and 45, and when I shot with the 25 I did not intended to exaggerate its bokeh all the time. You are right, that the 'girl at the bridge' could have more background blur though.

To me more specific, a lot of comments on quite a few pics:

Pic 2: overexposed, I see the car and then, oh wait...I see two people waving. I also see some guy not dressed appropriate for the party (;-)) walking by...The thought is good, the execution not and this pic to me has no place in a nice series of a wedding.

Sure, actually this picture was a request of my girlfriend I told her that it is almost impossible, and it was (exposure differences, reflections). In post-process I tried to get back the original idea, but maybe I could do it better. Anyway, you are right that it can't be part of a serious wedding series. I just thought it is fun.

Pic3. I would focus much more on the girl, zoom in (come closer in the case of primes). The light is too harsh and contrasty with the dark background for my taste. You could have made a lot more of that scene I think

Why? My intention was to show the temple as well. Don't get what's wrong with that. You are right about the light, it is harsh, but in the other hand it emphasizes my modell, and make this picture a good environmental portrait IMHO. So it is OK for _my_ taste.

Pic4: get lots closer and fill this with a flash. The subject is too far away and completely overrun by the light outside. Better to try to be at a 90 degree angle from the light I think. The thought is a good one, an exciting moment entering the church.

No. No way. Here you don't get the idea and the mood. This picture is intended as it is: harsh light from outside, you can intimate the bride but can't see her in details, and wanted to make a contrast between the sunny day outside and the cold and intimate inside of the temple. Maybe you may add a _little_ light to the inside, but not the way you did. That is a completely different picture and has nothing to do with I wanted to tell.

Pic5: What is the subject here? keep the horizon straight or straighten it in PP. Looking at peoples back that are prominent is not very helpful in general. You do this in a pci with dancers too: the main subject is theback. It is like taking a macro of a fly and focussing on its rear end rather than the eyes...

The subject is the _ceremonial_, with the priests and the pair. Somebody must show his/her back, and when I wanted to show the ceremonial with the priest, I think, I did a good choice. There is no such rule that you must _always_ show the front of your subjects. And this is one can be justified _as a part of the whole series_.

Pic6: Both should be in focus to be perfect. Other wise a great moment and a good enough pic. Would have liked to see it with a 30 degree angel or so. But this is okey.

Pic 7: No expert as I said, but a fill flash would do great. The light behind them is too distracting for me.

This time I completely agree. I was not experienced enough to estimate the back light before I ran in front of the pair Anyway, I was nervous to do that and barely dare, because I had to go in between the pair and the priests while the ceremony was going. My hands was shaking, and despite the marvellous IBIS I managed to blur the whole picture So not a perfect picture at all. However, I am sure that no other photographer has this composition, and maybe the pair will enjoy it. Agreed, a heavy post-process is needed here.

Pic8: close up! We only need to see the eyebrows, to the chin I think. Otherwise fine. Again. I see them kissing and I see others kissing. I understand that some pics need to get the atmosphere but it is not these kind of pics I think.

Different opinion here. I like this picture because it's not just a snapshot showing the bride kissing with someone, but in the same picture there is the mother of the bride getting the best wishes as well! (And yes, for the audience outside the event it is just 'I see others kissing too', but for the pair it is a good photo I think). I also like the tree that framing the picture.

Pic9: Background spoils this one. I would have focussed on her and the three women eager to get married themselves. Her in focus and the rest blurred is really good though. If I only look at those and single them out form the other information in that pic, I actually love it.I miss her legs though.

Here your crop is really good. I like it a lot. Thanks for it. In the same time I like the original too. It is maybe a matter of taste here: I like scenes with a lot of space, this is why I prefer the 14mm. The scene you made with crop could have been better taken with the 25 1.4! And the concept of yours is very good!

Pic10: no purpose for this one. I understand that you picture this to see how others shot them etc. A situation. But it is not compelling.

Mhm, okay, I accept this one. As the _eye of a guest_, I think it is okay.

Pic11: flowers  at the back are nice, the kids e  cbehind them again blow this shot for me. But it is difficult. You were at f2 so f1.8 would not have helped a whole lot. I can't say another angle would have been better. Also I am not sure getting closer would have helped with the composition, because the composition of the two is good. It would have made the back ground blurrier. I would have tried to get them in such a way that I could get them and a background of somewhat blurred flowers. But you were not THE photgrapher, so you'll have to take it as it comes I guess.

Pic12: Nothing wrong with this shot that you can help I think. Background is unromantic to me. Again there may have been little choice. A FF cam with a fast lens would have blurred it more I think. The light is not very nice either.

Completely right. The environment was not romantic at all! It was a very ugly coast, with dirty and green water, and buildings and statues back from the '60s, '70s of the socialist culture. Not a good place to take romantic pictures... However it was not my choice 'cos I was not THE photographer.

Pic13: get in closer I'd say, mainly because I hate the that background. A steal bridge?? Use f1.4 in these situations so there is some background but we cannot tell it is some awful looking bridge (for a wedding). Again: it seems like the place was not too romantic? More green and trees and flowers in a nice garden would have been nicer and were not helpful to you I think

And this bridge was the most interesting and appealing background here I found! Imagine the rest... You are absolutely right about the f1.4. The truth is that I did not dare to use it. I was afraid the lens won't be sharp enough, but that was a bad idea. Even if it would have been a little less sharp, blurring the background was more important here.

.

Even though I am not feeling to well today hence I can spend some time on this I'll stop here.

Again: correct me if I am wrong, because i am no expert!!

I did where I felt I have to show my original concepts, thoughts and possibilities. Nevertheless, it was very useful to get your opinions, and watch my arranged photos by you! In the future I will be more brave to use PP background blur if needed. Thank you very much for taking your time, and let me see other concepts, thoughts. It was very useful!

Loga

 Loga's gear list:Loga's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
OkeNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow