Wedding Stills

[Russinating]

Well, as some of you may have remembered from my previous topic I run a wedding videography business where we offer high-definition stills from the film for the couple.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share some from our recent wedding! And just because they're from video doesn't mean they don't share the same rules of composition etc as photography so please feel free C&C

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Obviously they're shrunk in size as usual!

 

[martinturner]

1. Light is blown out on the right hand side. Also the shot may have been better to have included the lovely beamed roof.

2. The black shadow bottom left is distracting, and would have like a slightly better angle to get the bride to be's face more in the shot.

3. Nice shot, but I think the crop is too tight and all their heads should be lower down in the shot.

4. Excellent!!! although I would clone out the white shoulder in the bottom left.

5. Lighting was tough for you anyway, but again a bit blown out and that head is very distracting.

6. Not sure what is going on or what your goal was for this, compositionally could be fun for some group shots?, although don't like such a wide crop, as you cannot see the arch fully.

7. Nice, but again ... what is going on? The B&G will no doubt like this one as they know what everyone was looking at.

8. A bit creative and a bit different to the normal clichéd shots.

9. You should have been the other side, although an okay evening shot.

My honest opinion, is that I would be disappointed if I had paid money for these. It may be that there are many others that make them 'as a set' better, although if these are your showcase ones then I would expect better.
I am sure the video works a lot better, although I am not convinced about 'stills'.

Apologies as not my intention to offend. I am also not sure of your restraints working with video and taking stills.

 

[D.P.]

Completely agree with martin. Some exposure and composure problems.
e.g., 1: LHS is totally blown out, composition with the roof would be nice. 2: missing the guys head, big shadow on the left.
etc, etc.

Can't comment on the video which I'm sure is better but I sure hope you don't charge extra for these stills.

 

[Russinating]

Ok, when I said video follows the same rules as photography, that's true, but it also has rules of its own on top!

ie. I don't see how the LHS of #1 being blown out is a problem - the focal point is exposed correctly and the other side is too dark - what else could be done?

Also cropping the top of heads is a stylistic choice for the film, as is done widely in cinema/tv, hence why it's been done here.

6. Not sure what is going on or what your goal was for this, compositionally could be fun for some group shots?

Just showing what a beautiful day it was. Remember, we're not the photographers. We don't film the group shots as it's pointless as the photographers there doing his job. The stills are usually just representing a different angle to the photographer or something they may not have from them (for instance, the photographer was behind the altar during the ceremony so anything from my angle will be completely different to what they've already got).

Nice, but again ... what is going on? The B&G will no doubt like this one as they know what everyone was looking at.

Was a group photo session from an upstairs window in the house - so they were just looking at the photographer. Again, just a different angle.

You should have been the other side, although an okay evening shot.

I was.. you can see me on the left . This is from my colleagues view point which was better for this spin, especially with the circle of light matching. Also their photographer was on the other side as well (you can see him too) so not much point in giving them 2 identical shots.

As for the repetition of shoulders in shot etc.. we're very much documentary - we hardly speak to the couple at all during the day and are usually filming from the back to be as inconspicuous as possible. Hence naturally we'll always have something between us and the subject (most couples don't want to see 2 big video cameras in their face as well as the photographer all day).

Can't comment on the video which I'm sure is better but I sure hope you don't charge extra for these stills.

May I ask why that is? We charge £25 for the stills - they get a CD of them (between 50-80, full size obviously (the ones here are ~30% original size)) and have them hosted online for friends etc to login and view. We think it's an absolute bargain.

As for things like having the roof in, yes I agree it'd be nice, but again film's just different that way. The lens isn't wide angle enough to get both in as it is, and the shot that that stills taken from actually starts with a tilt down from the beams.

Thanks for all the comments guys! Just remember we're not the main photographers

 

[martinturner]

You asked for critique though? I still stand by what I have said. Regardless of whether it is 'how its done on video/film', they still have to stand on their own merit. You are acting as a 'business' not an amateur, hence why my critique may be a bit stronger than someone doing a wedding as a favour. Anyone looking at these shots will say the same things, they offer nothing over what your guests would have taken with their cameras.

I fully understand you wanting to maximise on your video business, although personally, it may be only £25 ... but after shelling out on a professional photographer as well as your video services I would be miffed if I spent £25 to then receive these.

Sorry

 

[Russinating]

Everyone to their own I guess! I can honestly say that all our couples who've asked for stills have been very happy with the results though. Don't see why you'd be dissapointed though seeing as half of your comments were positive

Also, seeing as you have to pay photographers £300+ for a DVD of their photos on top of their service charge, £25 really isn't a lot for what is essentially the same thing surely?

It may be because the couples see them alongside their main photos. The main photos do their job - group shots, a few perfectly composed (hopefully), maybe even some candids if their lucky (although we haven't worked alongside ANY photographers that have done this to our knowledge.. all setup). And then ours do theirs - candids, ones the photographer will have missed/not got/got from a different angle.

I disagree that ours offer nothing over guest shots though. We'll usually be better placed, can pick and choose from 25 frames every second and obviously aren't bleeching everything out with god awful direct flashes .

And don't be sorry! You're welcome to your opinion, just as we and our couples are!

 

[peterattheboro]

Hugh Grant got married again?

 

[rG-tom]

what kind of photographer would release a dvd of original images from a wedding for only £300?!

I think the others are being a bit harsh, as you say they're NOT designed to be a replacement for photographs taken by a professional photographer, and for £25 they're a nice addition (although is there anything stopping them from taking their own still frames from the video you give them?)

Tom.

 

[Russinating]

although is there anything stopping them from taking their own still frames from the video you give them?

Depends on the source. Most couples only want SD DVD's as they don't have HD equipment (or just want 1 to future-proof). Even with Blu-ray there would be some compression involved whereas we obviously have the raw footage.

Aside from that, I don't think your average Mr and Mrs Bloggs would know how to take a still from a video, and even if they did is it worth it for the sake of £25? Maybe, who knows - not that we'd mind people taking their own stills anyway! The £25 is just for the time it takes for us to select, process, burn and upload etc.