Todays Wedding

mrk · 8 Apr 2006 at 23:19

3 of us here today, was suppose dto be another guy but guess not... Mate wa sthe best man so was shooting later on, in between myself and another mate were asked to do fun/candid style shots and be different because that's what the bride and groom like.
Was a very nice day and weather was said to be raiiny but ended up being sunny (but a bit chilly).

The bride as awesome (and beautiful ;o), the guests behaved and were also friendly, the organisation was awesome too (best man doing the organising), we had to do very little to organise any ggroups or gather people which was great. From now on I'm gonna shoot weddings with at least 1 other person, we work best that way and have the best time

Enough talk!

I'm giving them just over 100 shots from myself, other mate has a few hundred from his etc so the B/G will have a nice assortment of photos to enjoy we are certain of that, with 3 photographers present there has to be something to please everyone :mad:

heh

Some pics:

The rest of my favs

Used D70 + Nikkors: 80-200 2.8 / 10.5mm 2.8 fisheye / 18-70

Outdoors were all 200iso, indoors mixture of 500 and 400, pretty noise free, some fine grain in midtones and shadows but nothing to cause concern. The Royal Exeter Hotel was VERY dark during the shoooting there, later on it brightened up though.

Sleepyd · 8 Apr 2006 at 23:29

Technically I like 1&2, but I'm really liking the bridesmaid in 3 - so they're all good.

mrk · 8 Apr 2006 at 23:35

Thanks

The brides maids did get a fair few shots in but not all of them are online, just a pinch to keep numbers down

hoodmeister · 8 Apr 2006 at 23:38

Clinical wedding photography does nothing for me... These are lovely though - a real sense of mood & atmosphere about them

cyKey · 8 Apr 2006 at 23:47

I don't feel like fish eye is really the best thing to use at a wedding. I'm a romantic at heart and if I were to shoot weddings thats what I'm trying to capture. I just feel like its done for effect rather than atmosphere.

mrk · 8 Apr 2006 at 23:51

It's the effects and the funky playful feel they are after though

and without using one in a situation where normally someone would not use one, you never know what it's going to be like!

cyKey · 8 Apr 2006 at 23:56

mrk said:
It's the effects and the funky playful feel they are after though and without using one in a situation where normally someone would not use one, you never know what it's going to be like!

I appreciate that. But then theres also the idea of using something and then thinking it doesn't work upon seeing the results

I don't get the playful feel. You've got a women in her wedding dress posed nicely and then an uber wide angle fish eye effect why? It doesn't say playful at all to me.

mrk · 9 Apr 2006 at 00:02

Just somethnig different that's all, some will like it some won't, you should know that's the way it is around these parts by now \m/

Carrot · 9 Apr 2006 at 00:54

Like cykey, the fisheye shots aren't working for me, they've got a bit of a sinister look to them IMHO that doesn't sit very well with the feel of the rest the shots (which are great BTW

).

stu.artd · 9 Apr 2006 at 01:34

I'm not a wedding photographer, but I've been married so will speak from the other side of the fence

.

The photo of the bride posted above works well as a normal style wedding photo. I'd also say a lot of the other photo's work very well and I'm sure the couple will be pleased with your results.

The fish eye one posted above doesn't work for me, the bride appears as if her head/neck is being stretched/pushed back against the wall. I don't feel that fish eye effect is appropriate, but you know what your friends will like a lot better than I can guess. As you said, some will like it and some won't

I like the B+W one, DSC_5358_bw.jpg but would prefer it if all the train of the wedding dress was in the frame, maybe with the bride and the window filling the frame more. Brides do tend to love their wedding dress, but I can't see any photo's with the entire dress shown other than those from a distance.

cyKey · 9 Apr 2006 at 01:36

mrk said:
Just somethnig different that's all, some will like it some won't, you should know that's the way it is around these parts by now \m/

Um I do. You should know people like to comment around these parts too

mrk · 9 Apr 2006 at 01:40

There are many with full length dress in frame too, the ones online were the ones I liked a little more than the others, there are just over 100 in total though

MrSix · 9 Apr 2006 at 09:11

cyKey said:
I don't feel like fish eye is really the best thing to use at a wedding. I'm a romantic at heart and if I were to shoot weddings thats what I'm trying to capture. I just feel like its done for effect rather than atmosphere.

Agreed, the first one is definately the best of the three, classic bride-looking-over-the-shoulder photograph, always a winner.

The second one does nothing for me either, the distortion makes the brides hips look huge and she won't be flattered by that.

The last one is a tiny bit under-exposed and the facial expressions of the subjects are a little too un-prepared, i.e. the bride is obviously mid sentence and the others are doing a half smile that is neither here nor there.

I know you were going for a contemporary candid style, but that's not an excuse to snap people with silly facial expressions, before you try that escape clause.

*edit*

They could all do with some fill flash too - the first shot would be brought to life if she had a little bit of catchlight in her eyes, it makes the shots feel more alive.

SDK^ · 9 Apr 2006 at 10:55

The second fish eye photo definitely doesn't work, even when rotated.

mrk · 9 Apr 2006 at 14:32

MrSix said:
Agreed, the first one is definately the best of the three, classic bride-looking-over-the-shoulder photograph, always a winner.

The second one does nothing for me either, the distortion makes the brides hips look huge and she won't be flattered by that.

The last one is a tiny bit under-exposed and the facial expressions of the subjects are a little too un-prepared, i.e. the bride is obviously mid sentence and the others are doing a half smile that is neither here nor there.

I know you were going for a contemporary candid style, but that's not an excuse to snap people with silly facial expressions, before you try that escape clause.

*edit*

They could all do with some fill flash too - the first shot would be brought to life if she had a little bit of catchlight in her eyes, it makes the shots feel more alive.

There is no escape clause but what there is is a problem with being able to comment in a sensible manner (if you have any..) when you do. My job wasn't to get anything too formal, it was to grab a diary as the time went on, as people did there thing. Sure I have the bride and groom in formal poses and dead on angles but that's all well and done, the rest are all "different" shots that hoold a different value to the people there and to those who had a quick look at them before I left.

They are exposed well enough, adjust your screen if they look too dark. The light is near enough spot on with how the outside was at the time.

SourChipmunk · 9 Apr 2006 at 14:56

The colour and clarity are well good, but I have never been keen on the whole MTV concept of tilting the camera. It is rather annoying and can never have good results. Just my 2p.

Nice pics in all-in-all, though.

MrSix · 9 Apr 2006 at 15:31

MrSix said:
I know you were going for a contemporary candid style

mrk said:
My job wasn't to get anything too formal, it was to grab a diary as the time went on, as people did there thing

mrk said:
Sure I have the bride and groom in formal poses and dead on angles but that's all well and done.

MrSix said:
Agreed, the first one is definately the best of the three, classic bride-looking-over-the-shoulder photograph, always a winner.

Don't feel that you have to dissagree with me all the time Robster, because sometimes you try so hard that you end up agreeing!

Now you wouldn't want to do that, would you?!

mrk · 9 Apr 2006 at 15:38

You don't make sense...

I took some formal ones just because I had the chance to anyway just ncase one of the other guys didn't get that shot but my main ones are all informal spontaneous ones.

Your comments usually leave little to be desired no matter what thread you post in (then later on you end up apologising when people start pointing out your faults only to start it all over again x days/weeks/months later, you've done it many many time sbefore in this sections history) yet your own images lack the content of your comments in other peoples threads the majority of the time - sorry but that's the way it is by the looks of it. probably best to put that amount of concentration into improving your own pics instead of picking out what could be negative in everyone elses work I think before you do the nitpicking mate.

MrSix · 9 Apr 2006 at 15:39

Was waiting how long it would take before you got personal

So judging by your excellently articulated and gramtically correct response, you shouldn't make a 'negative' comment about somebody elses work, unless you yourself are better than them in the first place?

I make perfect sense, thank you very much.

mrk · 9 Apr 2006 at 15:42

It's not personal dude, it's observational fact

And no, that's not what I mean, it's just your comments in particular are always way too over the top, not in a single thread but a variety of them thinking back to previous threads but then there is the point to make whch would be quite valid, what looks good to you might not look good to everyone else and vice versa

- you just don't understand that by reading yout comments it seems sometimes. You spend so much time telling people how to do things better but on your own images don't show that you did the same usually, that's just what I meant.