Experimental wedding shots

Weetobix

Weetobix

Messages
787
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
At a wedding a couple of, I had the opportunity to do a couple of shots I'd not tried before (at least not at a wedding, I'd played around with them in my back garden)
Shots 1 & 2 are 50 image composites shot at f1.2, using the Brenizer method. (Shot 2 came in at 30,000 x 15,500px!)
Shot 3 is an 8 second exposure on the tripod

Opinions?
Cheers


laura_phil (1 of 3) by James Bailey, on Flickr


laura_phil (2 of 3) by James Bailey, on Flickr


laura_phil (3 of 3) by James Bailey, on Flickr

Click for bigger!
 
Hi

By no means a wedding tog but wanted to ask about the angle of the first. Just feel if the couple had taken a step to their right or you'd moved to your right it would have been a better angle. Avoided the roof camera left too. I'd possibly think about having them a bit closer to the camera too.

Just my opinion, mind. I do think it has a lot of potential though!

Shaheed
 
Love the 1st, not too fussed on the 2nd (something just doesn't feel right about it), and the only thing that I dislike about the 3rd is the gap in the sparkler light to the right of the bride and groom. I'm assuming this is where you've dragged the sparkler around and it's been brought behind yourself hiding it from the camera. Would have been much better to keep the sparkler in view of the camera at all times. (Except when going behind the bride and groom obviously). :D
 
Hi both - thanks for the input!
A bit more practice with them and I'll get there I think. The sparkler gap is a problem. the only way I can think of fixing it is by running backwards for that bit of the exposure - I may have to increase the exposure length as it's hard enough doing it normally in the 8 seconds!
The nice thing with the composite shots, is they're at such a high resolution we can crop off as much as we like - these two are just full size crops. The other thing about the Breziner method is you need the first photo to fill up the frame of your camera (so you don't get merge lines halfway down the bride!), so the couple couldn't have stood any closer to the camera without me changing down to the 50mm and losing some DoF.
Thanks for the opinions again :)
 
Last edited:
Weetobix said:
Hi both - thanks for the input!
A bit more practice with them and I'll get there I think. The sparkler gap is a problem. the only way I can think of fixing it is by running backwards for that bit of the exposure - I may have to increase the exposure length as it's hard enough doing it normally in the 8 seconds!
The nice thing with the composite shots, is they're at such a high resolution we can crop off as much as we like - these two are just full size crops. The other thing about the Breziner method is you need the first photo to fill up the frame of your camera (so you don't get merge lines halfway down the bride!), so the couple couldn't have stood any closer to the camera without me changing down to the 50mm and losing some DoF.
Thanks for the opinions again :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've done a couple of Brenizer shots before - which lens were you using. To be fair its till a great shot!
 
Weetobix said:
Yeah, I can see what you mean. I was so busy concentrating on getting the collage right I didn't really notice. Hindsight is a wonderful thing
Click to expand...

It's still a great shot!! Like I said it really is not picking!! I know how tricky it is (for me anyhow) to nail those brenizer shots.
 
I like what you've done (notwithstanding the above) but I'm not sure 1 & 2 count as Brenizer?

I thought the point of the Brenizer method is to create really shallow DoF, therefore I'd personally want the background more OoF and some foreground shape too (to add to the 3d appeal)

The 3rd is well executed, but I'd have added a touch of OCF to light the couple, then it'd have been really special.
 
Phil V said:
I like what you've done (notwithstanding the above) but I'm not sure 1 & 2 count as Brenizer?

I thought the point of the Brenizer method is to create really shallow DoF, therefore I'd personally want the background more OoF and some foreground shape too (to add to the 3d appeal)

The 3rd is well executed, but I'd have added a touch of OCF to light the couple, then it'd have been really special.
Click to expand...


Cheers Phil, I see what you say about having some extra foreground detail, but I'm not sure what I could have done to get the background more oof as these were both shot with an 85mm at 1.2
 
They're all really interesting but the sparkler shot is the standout shot for me. I've never tried a Brenizer style portrait. Do you stay in one spot and rotate the camera or do you move it laterally? It looks like the former, and as if it has introduced some rather odd distortion in both cases. Maybe that's normally avoided by careful choice of background? Or correcting during the image stitching?

In the sparkler shot it wouldn't be too hard to clone in some of the trail in the most obvious gap, I think.
 
Weetobix said:
Cheers Phil, I see what you say about having some extra foreground detail, but I'm not sure what I could have done to get the background more oof as these were both shot with an 85mm at 1.2
Click to expand...
Then it's simply getting closer to the couple, which increases the difference between subject to background.

But to be fair, I'm on my phone and I might feel differently when I've seen them properly.
 
juggler said:
They're all really interesting but the sparkler shot is the standout shot for me. I've never tried a Brenizer style portrait. Do you stay in one spot and rotate the camera or do you move it laterally? It looks like the former, and as if it has introduced some rather odd distortion in both cases. Maybe that's normally avoided by careful choice of background? Or correcting during the image stitching?

In the sparkler shot it wouldn't be too hard to clone in some of the trail in the most obvious gap, I think.
Click to expand...

Yeah, with the Breziner method you shoot the couple first, then shoot the surrounding area with a fixed aperture, focal length and exposure from the same spot, then stick together for a panoramic type view. I find lightroom does this exceptionally well.

I've thought about cloning in some sparkler trail - maybe from one of the other shots (I did half a dozen sparkler trail shots)
 
Now I've seen them bigger, I like them better. Notwithstanding Shaheed's point about the roof in the first, and mine about a flash in the sparkler shot.
 
I really like the sparkler shot. Contrary to Phil's comment, I love it without flash but that's just personal opinion.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
I really like the sparkler shot. Contrary to Phil's comment, I love it without flash but that's just personal opinion.
Click to expand...

I think Phil's right but I hadn't spotted it for myself. Adding some flash would darken all the decking and add some shadow to 'ground' the couple. Keeping the luminosity of the sky at the same time in a single exposure will be next to impossible, though.
 
juggler said:
I think Phil's right but I hadn't spotted it for myself. Adding some flash would darken all the decking and add some shadow to 'ground' the couple. Keeping the luminosity of the sky at the same time in a single exposure will be next to impossible, though.
Click to expand...
This, sorta...

The couple are about half a stop under, a stop of flash would take them half a stop over, then we can drop the highlights by a smidge. And bob's yer uncle.
 
In any walk of life
Phil V said:
This, sorta...

The couple are about half a stop under, a stop of flash would take them half a stop over, then we can drop the highlights by a smidge. And bob's yer uncle.
Click to expand...
Phil .. This forum sometimes feels like you shouldn`t be here unless you`re a pro ....
.... but fair play to you, you`re one of the very few who offers constructive advise without going to the slaughterhouse first. (y)
Shame there isn`t more people with the same patience .............................
 
juggler said:
Is that directed at me?
I hope not, I try hard to pitch any feedback I give to the skills of the poster. I'm not a pro and I learn as much by studying other's work as I do by shooting stuff myself.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not Simon. There are many who feed back to the OP but Phil seems to go that extra bit with the advice.
None of us will stop learning .. apologies if I sent out the wrong message.
 
juggler said:
I think Phil's right but I hadn't spotted it for myself. Adding some flash would darken all the decking and add some shadow to 'ground' the couple. Keeping the luminosity of the sky at the same time in a single exposure will be next to impossible, though.
Click to expand...

Phil is right but also, so am I. There's more than one right way to do it. I prefer it like this but it could also be epic with flash if done right. If lit like McNally, where the flash would hit the top 2/3 of the couple and then die then I think it would be awesome. If lit like quite a lot of amateurs would where the flash spills out onto the floor and screams 'FLASH HAS ARRIVED!' I'd probably be turned off it.

Either way, I like it. [emoji4]
 
And there's yet another way of looking at that sparkler picture in particular. Most of James' potential customers won't give a toss about the exposure, any more than the couple who posed for it will. They'll just look at it and think "That's awesome. Maybe we should book this guy so we get snaps like that at our wedding". Or perhaps "How naff is that? No way do we want gimmicks like that at our wedding".

Only James knows if using that picture on his site will appeal to the punters he's after.

ETA - while I'm at it, if we're nit-picking, I have a problem with the first two. In both of them, the bride is holding her bouquet exactly like most brides will hold that type of bouquet unless their snapper corrects them. As it is, it looks like she's holding a bunch of daffs she's just bought in Tesco. IMO the top one would be better if she'd lost the flowers and done the same as him, and the second would be better posed as it is without them. More top of building and less foreground would also have made sense to me, but I guess you had a perspective problem ...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top