A few from Saturday's wedding

Raymond Lin · 14 Jul 2008 at 23:20

teaboy5 · 14 Jul 2008 at 23:26

Hmm i am going to be honest.

I dont like the effect on one at all. Its just to overexposed, maybe if the walls on each side where cropped out it might do the trick.

Also number two seems a little soft to me?

And 3 the dress is far to overexposed, well at least on my screen it seems to be.

Number 3 should be easy to fix if you have the RAW images, or was this effect you were going for.

Blackvault · 14 Jul 2008 at 23:37

teaboy5 said:
Hmm i am going to be honest.

I dont like the effect on one at all. Its just to overexposed, maybe if the walls on each side where cropped out it might do the trick.

Also number two seems a little soft to me?

And 4 the dress is far to overexposed, well at least on my screen it seems to be.

Number 4 should be easy to fix if you have the RAW images, or was this effect you were going for.

Thats what I have just been saying to Raymond on msn. Number 4 is over exposed and if he wants a glow effect then use a glow effect like that can be found in CS3.

teaboy5 · 15 Jul 2008 at 00:03

oops i meant the dress in shot 4

Morba · 15 Jul 2008 at 11:41

for me, 4 would be better without the chair.

Virdi · 15 Jul 2008 at 11:52

Very nice snaps - Good work!

domthecondom · 15 Jul 2008 at 12:51

hmm the first one is overexposed in my opinion, and yeah deffently number 4 would be better without the chair.

nice pics tho

Raymond Lin · 16 Jul 2008 at 08:42

domthecondom said:
hmm the first one is overexposed in my opinion, and yeah deffently number 4 would be better without the chair.

nice pics tho

The first one is done on purpose, it's not overexposed (the people in it are fine), the walls and ceiling is pure white, after applying the action is what you get. I like it like that anyway, it frames the people and what they are doing within it.

As for the last one, i do agree it would be better without the chair but too late to change that now. Unless you haven't noticed, these are candids, i try not to "interact" with the bride through out and let her do her thing while i just capture pictures through the day.

domthecondom · 16 Jul 2008 at 10:54

the faces are pale though, thats just my opinion

Sagalout · 16 Jul 2008 at 10:58

Number 4 is a great shot - really captures a moment

gadgets · 16 Jul 2008 at 23:01

Raymond Lin said:
The first one is done on purpose, it's not overexposed (the people in it are fine), the walls and ceiling is pure white, after applying the action is what you get. I like it like that anyway, it frames the people and what they are doing within it.

it may have been done on purpose but it is over exposed i can hardly make out the people in it.

looked at your gallery and flikr and there seems to be a bit of a trend as all the photo's seem to be very bright.

fluffmct · 16 Jul 2008 at 23:10

I gotta disagree with the others about 1 - the overexposed feel can look awesome when it's done purposely and tastefully and I think you pulled it off there.

Raymond Lin · 17 Jul 2008 at 00:20

Some more random ones.

D.P. · 17 Jul 2008 at 10:20

I don't like most of these, either over exposed, soft or just look like a snapshot. however, the 2nd last one with the 2 children is a great capture. The last one is also quite nice, but it would be better if the composition was lower so more of the over-exposed distracting window is cropped out and you see the feet of the wedding couple.

The first pictures is definitely over processed and over exposed- whatever effect you were trying. The peoples faces are washed out and overly bright without details. The framing effect doesn't work because there is too much white, and the door frame doesn't make a square due to perspective. And the top of the white "frame" has details. And on the floor the sunlight has made an over exposed square right in the center of attention. Personally, I think you should be shooting with film to achieve these effects. Digital just doesn't behave nicely with over-exposure.

Im no expert though!

Raymond Lin · 17 Jul 2008 at 10:33

Frames don't have to be square :confused:

and the lack of details in the "door frame" is because it isn't a door frame, its a hole through the wall into another room.

In regards to the last one with the over exposed windows cropped out....that would mean the B&G losing their heads. The exposure is correct for that shot, in the original there is no details in the sky anyway, was a grey cloudy day and if i had metered for the sky, eveyone inside would be silloette.

As for looking like snapshots...they are meant to be candids and not posed.

Tough audience this !

domthecondom · 17 Jul 2008 at 11:10

i like the last 2 pics

nice

gadgets · 17 Jul 2008 at 23:09

Raymond Lin said:
Tough audience this !

you asked for comments!

and i stand by what i said they are over exposed, you can see none of the detail in her dress, it mights as well have been a white bed sheet

Raymond Lin · 17 Jul 2008 at 23:21

gadgets said:
you asked for comments!

and i stand by what i said they are over exposed, you can see none of the detail in her dress, it mights as well have been a white bed sheet

I personally think the expression on her face and the energy in the photo is more important than the details in her dress, which is not what that photo is about, technical sharpness and clarity is not always top of the list, especially when it comes to candids. Besides, the exposure on her face is fine.

Anyway.

gadgets · 17 Jul 2008 at 23:34

Raymond Lin said:

this is another example, you have exposed for the waitress dress but not the subject i.e. the food on the tray.some of those are so bright they blend with the tray.

what metering are you using?

Raymond Lin · 17 Jul 2008 at 23:40

I've toned it down for you (and the original post), took down the exposure a bit more (the difference in numbers is tiny) so you can see every piece, you really prefer this one?

p.s its not a tray, its a ceramic plate.