Reading mode: Light Dark

I shot my first wedding ever with a 3 day old D90. How it went:

Go to last post
Considering that you shot this with the 18-105 kit lens and nothing more and this is your first wedding, I'd say these are pretty good (I've never dragged my D40 + lenses to a wedding, even as a guest).

My critique is that the flash looks a little harsh on the couple in a few of your shots. Were you using a flash diffuser on your SB-800?

Also, take any negative comments from someone without a linked gallery with a very large grain of salt. Said person probably doesn't have enough self confidence to show off their work, and compensates by trying to make others feel insecure about their work that they're gutsy enough to show on this website.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/swpars
 
they look great! Ditto on photoshopping the light under the grooms nose in the cake cutting picture.

But other than that they look really good. Especially for a first time. When I was married 9 years ago I hired an apparent "professional," and I have some pretty average pictures. After seeing your pictures I should have hired you ;)
 
Well... not bad photos... but you do need to spend some time editing them afterwards.. the aforementioned red dot on the grooms nose.. etc.

also, for your next wedding shoot, you'll want to work on your angles.. that cake cutting scene looks like something out of Halloween 3 with that knife the way it is... a better shot is the knife already in the cake cutting through.

Same for the photo of the bride and the window... you should have been higher (not crouched down looking up).. and off to her left behind a bit more... and ask her to smile a bit.. she looks like she is hating things at that moment.

But.. not bad... enjoy the experience!
 
It looks like this was great experience for you, I'm pleased to see you ran with your now camera and didn't find a need to dig the old dinosaur out of the bag. You've got some good shots, and certainly had some awkward light to deal with.

I'm typically heavy on my crits, but don't be disheartened, its all aimed at onward and upward!

1 - Good location shot, awkward light - some blown hightlights which would be difficult to avoid. You could do a persective correction on this shot - but it would lose some width and I'd say the outer two windows are too important.

2 - I think you had to be there to appreciate this shot - its a bit confusing to me as I don't know the place, though it does look like a nice set-up. Although its a nice reference shot, it doesn't say wedding in any way - no cake - no guests...

3 - Nice shot. One of the best. Tighter in would have been better still. I see this in terms of a cover shot, would be easy to put type in that sky area. As a straight album shot I'd crop it to get them more centered horizontally - and far less sky (a lot of folk on here gasp in amazement at the mere thought of using a centered composition - but it is ideal here). Suggested crop (depends on how large it is to be printed!). As mentioned elsewhere, correcting the horizon is important for this type of image.



4 - another good one, would crop as above

5 - Now in this one she is too centered. See what you make of this crop.



I would actually argue that my composition is more centered than yours - as I see her mass to include here arm - but regardless, I feel this crop is better for two reasons. First, it excludes some of the distracting clutter to the right. Second, it gives a better feel for her looking out of the window, a better balance to the shot.

6 - This one feels more like set design than a wedding shot, though I can see why you included it.

7 - I'd crop a lot off the left, but nice pose.

8 - The woman in the background reminds me of when my teacher used to tell us to dot our eyes! Looks painful. Not my fave shot of this set, too cluttered, but a nice human study image.

9 - Excellent setting shot, I think this will prove to be a powerful memory shot for the couple, they'll be able to hear the music in year to come when they look at this one.

10 - Similar to the early one, but I prefer this version. I think it would be worth correcting the perspective on this one.

11 - awkward lighting, but a good moment, and as mentioned elsewhere, clone out the bogey.

12 - Shame about the movement, but nice shot otherwise. Maybe have a play with the WB from the raw file, quite yellow at present.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leechypics/

Make your own mind up - there are no rules in this game.
 
I did a wedding too and it is not easy. One learns every time and I am sure that the couple were more than pleased. Good luck for the future and well done.

What was the comment about the car crash?
--
Raymond

Box Brownie, Zeiss Nettar, Practica, Fuji DX10, Fuji S602, Fuji 9500, Nikon D80 18-200 VR, Nikon 18-135, Nikon 50mm 1.8D

Printers Epson 2100, Canon MP600
 
Oh boy... Another one of those... ;)
BillCarr said:
Please tell me you "shot" this wedding as a guest, and not as a paid
professional.

Saying you "shot a wedding" is not the same thing as shooting AT a
wedding. The former is done by compensated professionals, with
lighting and backup bodies and experience and ... don't need
reassurance about their photos.
Click to expand...
 
generally you did pretty well. some of have compostitions that are quite good.

that is the good news. the shots indicate that you do have the ability to sense the scene.

the bad, maybe not so bad, considering. some of the problems can be laid at the foot of using brand new equipment to do a wedding without any familiarity time.

you very probably were not using the flash to full advantage. some of the flash shots show a harshness or shine in lighting indicating that the flash was full on and not diffused. the flash has a diffuser or you could have used a ominibounce from stofen. there are other diffusers. my suggestion is you get at least one.

the 2 beach pics with couple standing with their backs to the water. ok in idea but the lighting could be better. the first pic they are too dark. the shot needed fill flash to brighten up the subjects. also the current compostion includes far too much sky. it is needed to remember what the subject is: the wedding couple. with the water shots you are implying that the couple and the beach and the sky and the water are all the subject, and equally important. this could be cured in the camera with a better composition and use of lenses or zoom.

also, it would be better if you did some cropping in the pc with some of the shots, or at least consider it.

you dinner table shot is a good idea. but the technical executuon could be improved. in looking the shot there is an obvious softness in the image. i am guessing no tripod and the shot was taken handheld. this type of shot begs for the tripod and cable release. do not say that you used a VR lens, it doesn't matter. you need the tripod. there is a good reason wedding pros haul a tripod to weddings.

on VR- do not trust it too far, it helps but the use is really for personal pics. this is a wedding, it is serious use and is for the money. you do not do weddings for fun of any kind. this is serious business. and NO EXCUSE is good enough for not getting or not even taking the needed shot. you cannot say that the VR helped but it is still slightly fuzzy. the wedding couple absolutely is not interested. you have got to shoot good enough so that every shot has the capability of being enlarged to 8x10 or 16x20 or even 20x30. it does little good to get the good shot THEN find out you cannot make any larger that 8x10.

3 dirty rules of composition. 1. what is the subject? decide what you are trying to take a picture of before the shot. 2. what elements are in the picture that enhance the subject? and how can i add more if needed or put them in the shot to help the subject? 3. what elements are in the shot that detracts from the subject? and how can i remove any object or things that do?

your 2 water/beach shots are going against rule 3.

in any event, good luck on any future wedding photography. considering an unfamiliar camera and gear you did good.

gary
 
Great shots!

How high was your ISO for the restaurant shot where everybody was seated at the tables and the wide shot of the church?

I'm asking, because they don't look noisy.

--
'A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where
fifty-one percent of the people may take away the
rights of the other forty-nine. '
-Thomas Jefferson

'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on
lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb disputing the vote.'
-Possibly Benjamin Franklin
 
Good for you to just go out and do it!

Even after all the people who were trying to "help" you by discouraging you in your first thread, leave it to the "pro's"...... after you clearly stated the bride and groom wanted YOU to do it and it was all good.

I find that having confidence is more than half the battle with most challenges a person might face, and you seem to have that covered. Nice work.

--

http://www.chitownrider.com
 
Thanks. The wide shot of the church was ISO 500 and the shot of the people sitting at the tables was ISO 400.
UltimaOnliner said:
Great shots!

How high was your ISO for the restaurant shot where everybody was
seated at the tables and the wide shot of the church?

I'm asking, because they don't look noisy.

--
'A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where
fifty-one percent of the people may take away the
rights of the other forty-nine. '
-Thomas Jefferson

'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on
lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb disputing the vote.'
-Possibly Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...
 
Thanks a lot for the comments. I pretty much agree with everything you mentioned. I'll definitely be doing some fine-tuning with pp now that the d90 raw issue has been resolved. The lighting in both venues was quite awkward, and I'm infinitely thankful I had the d90 ready for battle because I think the d70 would have struggled a bit with the high iso shots. The photo you mention that looks like a set design (number 6)... I like this one because the bride is the only person really in view while everyone else is dark.

Julia
jkjond said:
It looks like this was great experience for you, I'm pleased to see
you ran with your now camera and didn't find a need to dig the old
dinosaur out of the bag. You've got some good shots, and certainly
had some awkward light to deal with.

I'm typically heavy on my crits, but don't be disheartened, its all
aimed at onward and upward!

1 - Good location shot, awkward light - some blown hightlights which
would be difficult to avoid. You could do a persective correction on
this shot - but it would lose some width and I'd say the outer two
windows are too important.

2 - I think you had to be there to appreciate this shot - its a bit
confusing to me as I don't know the place, though it does look like a
nice set-up. Although its a nice reference shot, it doesn't say
wedding in any way - no cake - no guests...

3 - Nice shot. One of the best. Tighter in would have been better
still. I see this in terms of a cover shot, would be easy to put type
in that sky area. As a straight album shot I'd crop it to get them
more centered horizontally - and far less sky (a lot of folk on here
gasp in amazement at the mere thought of using a centered composition
  • but it is ideal here). Suggested crop (depends on how large it is
to be printed!). As mentioned elsewhere, correcting the horizon is
important for this type of image.

4 - another good one, would crop as above

5 - Now in this one she is too centered. See what you make of this crop.

I would actually argue that my composition is more centered than
yours - as I see her mass to include here arm - but regardless, I
feel this crop is better for two reasons. First, it excludes some of
the distracting clutter to the right. Second, it gives a better feel
for her looking out of the window, a better balance to the shot.

6 - This one feels more like set design than a wedding shot, though I
can see why you included it.

7 - I'd crop a lot off the left, but nice pose.

8 - The woman in the background reminds me of when my teacher used to
tell us to dot our eyes! Looks painful. Not my fave shot of this set,
too cluttered, but a nice human study image.

9 - Excellent setting shot, I think this will prove to be a powerful
memory shot for the couple, they'll be able to hear the music in year
to come when they look at this one.

10 - Similar to the early one, but I prefer this version. I think it
would be worth correcting the perspective on this one.

11 - awkward lighting, but a good moment, and as mentioned elsewhere,
clone out the bogey.

12 - Shame about the movement, but nice shot otherwise. Maybe have a
play with the WB from the raw file, quite yellow at present.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leechypics/

Make your own mind up - there are no rules in this game.
Click to expand...
 
Gary is right. You would do well to take the advice he offered. He's spot on. As for your original post before the wedding I still say it is far too risky to go into a wedding with unfamiliar equipment. You did a decent job and the couple should be happy with the results but I would not do it or recommed it.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Richard

--
Equipment: 1 camera, 1 lens, 37 years
http://www.pbase.com/rgthompson
 
Hi,

I think it's great that you gave this a go with your new camera, it's a high pressure situation. All those 'professional only!' types need to remember that every bride isn't a bridezilla, if the couple wanted you and were willing to live with the odd mistake then you should be happy (and so should your critics here).

I'm not going to add too much CC to the things said by other posters, just adding a bit that wasn't mentioned. You will want to practice a bit with some different lighting techniques.

The first dance picture looks too much like on camera flash with a point and shoot: try bouncing your flash off of a wall or ceiling (or both) to create a directional light source. You can use your bounce card (or another bounce surface) to fill.

The beach shots could use just a kiss of fill to get into the eye sockets and brighten the faces. There is nothing to bounce off of here so off-camera flash would probably be needed (you could ask a the ring bearer to point it at the couple like a laser!). This would allow for a bit longer exposure to give some drama to the drab sky. A little CTO gel would warm up the skin here.

I don't know if you used a polarizing filter for the outdoor shots but that might have helped with the sky a bit. You would have had to turn a bit to get the sun to 90 degrees left to get the most of your polarizer.

The interior meal shots would have been easier on you at a higher ISO (if everything I've read about the D90 is true). You might have been able to pull of a much sharper image @ 8 or 16 hundred.

Hopefully I've found a couple of things here that you can think about.

Good shooting

eddyshoots
 
great job, very well done for a first timer. Glad you had the courage to post the pics after so many negative remarks in the original thread. In addition to all the valuable suggestions previous posters had already given you, I can only add one thing - don't be afraid to get your ISO higher when shooting indoors, even/especially when using flash. Look at the cake shot - see how dark the background is? Looks almost like it was taken with a P&S camera. If you were somewhere at ISO 800-1200 (D90 can take it), and still used flash - you'd manage to render a lot more details in the background and the entire picture would have looked a lot more balanced.. more "professional" :-)

PS: Love all the no-flash shots, the mood was captured so well! Congrats on a great job.

--
Vadim
http://www.vadimonline.com
 
You need to factor in Julia's experience as a photographer.

Julia isn't a born photographer, she hasn't any real experience of portrait photography, and her best images are underwater shots from Montserrat (which are very nice). She went into this assignment as a favour to her friends - everyone did it with their eyes open, and it looks like everyone had a good time and are happy with the results.

I upgraded from a D70 to a D300 recently, and found the difference amazing. It delivers quality without effort. I know I never pushed my 70 to the limit, and I doubt I'll push the 300 either - but faced with a situation like this I would not hesitate in which camera to use, to the point where I'm reluctant to even take the 70 along as a backup.

The 90 is a natural progression from the 70, and I'd be amazed if anyone would miss a shot or do worse with an instant upgrade like this for two reasons.

1. The kind of photographer who did little to customise the 70 will find the 90 is set up better out of the box.

2. The kind of photographer who fully customised the 70 will hopefully have the understanding an knowledge to quicky adjust the 90 to their liking.

Now the final group, who could come unstuck, are the 'set it to -0.7' brigade. The kind of photographer who blindly copied advice without understanding any of it. The same advice is only slowly emerging for the 90, so those people could well flounder - but those people know who they are, and wouldn't gamble on a better camera at short notice anyway.

D70 to D90 - I reckon its a win win, I'm yet to hear anything which I would consider a negative - if you don't like the larger file size you can crank it down a notch. Even the built in video is better than that on the 70...

The 70 is still a capable camera, and a good photographer will use it to good effect in any situation - but progress makes better pictures easier for the less experienced, which is what this place is all about.
Richard G T said:
Gary is right. You would do well to take the advice he offered. He's
spot on. As for your original post before the wedding I still say it
is far too risky to go into a wedding with unfamiliar equipment. You
did a decent job and the couple should be happy with the results but
I would not do it or recommed it.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Richard

--
Equipment: 1 camera, 1 lens, 37 years
http://www.pbase.com/rgthompson
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leechypics/

Make your own mind up - there are no rules in this game.
 
Thanks, though I'd have to say some of my best shots were underwater using the Nikonos macro setup. (yes, film...gasp) Those are on my deviantart page though, not my flickr.

I updated the links in my original thread to some re-cropped photos. Also adding one more to the set... Thanks again everyone for all of the comments. It really does help.


jkjond said:
Julia isn't a born photographer, she hasn't any real experience of
portrait photography, and her best images are underwater shots from
Montserrat (which are very nice). She went into this assignment as a
favour to her friends - everyone did it with their eyes open, and it
looks like everyone had a good time and are happy with the results.

I upgraded from a D70 to a D300 recently, and found the difference
amazing. It delivers quality without effort. I know I never pushed my
70 to the limit, and I doubt I'll push the 300 either - but faced
with a situation like this I would not hesitate in which camera to
use, to the point where I'm reluctant to even take the 70 along as a
backup.

The 90 is a natural progression from the 70, and I'd be amazed if
anyone would miss a shot or do worse with an instant upgrade like
this for two reasons.

1. The kind of photographer who did little to customise the 70 will
find the 90 is set up better out of the box.

2. The kind of photographer who fully customised the 70 will
hopefully have the understanding an knowledge to quicky adjust the 90
to their liking.

Now the final group, who could come unstuck, are the 'set it to -0.7'
brigade. The kind of photographer who blindly copied advice without
understanding any of it. The same advice is only slowly emerging for
the 90, so those people could well flounder - but those people know
who they are, and wouldn't gamble on a better camera at short notice
anyway.

D70 to D90 - I reckon its a win win, I'm yet to hear anything which I
would consider a negative - if you don't like the larger file size
you can crank it down a notch. Even the built in video is better than
that on the 70...

The 70 is still a capable camera, and a good photographer will use it
to good effect in any situation - but progress makes better pictures
easier for the less experienced, which is what this place is all
about.
Richard G T said:
Gary is right. You would do well to take the advice he offered. He's
spot on. As for your original post before the wedding I still say it
is far too risky to go into a wedding with unfamiliar equipment. You
did a decent job and the couple should be happy with the results but
I would not do it or recommed it.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Richard

--
Equipment: 1 camera, 1 lens, 37 years
http://www.pbase.com/rgthompson
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leechypics/

Make your own mind up - there are no rules in this game.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top