Beginner First attempt at a family wedding

Messages
1,122
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
So last month I had my brothers wedding and took my 60d along with me. There was a pro so I just tried to keep out their way and get a few of my girls and family etc but thought it would be a good chance to get some practice in. C&c appreciated please.

1._MG_1600.jpg by adamtudor88, on Flickr

2. _MG_1599.jpg by adamtudor88, on Flickr

3. Phoebe.jpg by adamtudor88, on Flickr

4._MG_1602.jpg by adamtudor88, on Flickr

5._MG_1687.jpg by adamtudor88, on Flickr

I personally didnt think this one was great but apparently this is the bride's favourite from the day! Even over the pro's pictures!

6. _MG_1609.jpg by adamtudor88, on Flickr

7. _MG_1602-2.jpg by adamtudor88, on Flickr

8. _MG_1601.jpg by adamtudor88, on Flickr

Thanks for looking.
 
Last edited:
Hi Adam. In 1 & 2 I would crop out the lamp post and the red sign? As my eyes are drawn straight to them.

3 & 5 are a little tight on the bottom and is 5 straight?

4 is absolutely perfect for me. What a beauty!
 
Thanks David. Didnt think about those in the background on 1 & 2. 3 & 5 arent cropped i dont think I just wasnt ready for the shot and had a poor effort at framing quick. And 4 was my favourite from the day by far
 
Last edited:
Lessons to learn for the future I guess. But it was a nice chance to improve and if I get the opportunity to be at another wedding with the camera again i'll definitely take this on board.
 
Yeah i love it, just be nice if i could zoom from 10mm-600mm with it as well ;)

going to attempt to clone out the lamp post and sign now all though I haven't tried to clone anything of those sizes out of an image yet..
 
#4 is a cracking good portrait as it stands. If you want to nit-pick, IMO the only way that could possibly have been improved would have been to shoot it a little looser so you could crop it with her more to the left so that the bigger mass of her hair has some space into which to "flow".
 
what would be the best way to remove the bags from under her eyes? I have tried a few things but not happy with the results.

Had a go a cloning out the lamp and sign in the other photo but again not 100% happy at the min so ill try that again tomorrow
 
This is not an attempt at a first wedding its a stand on the side and take photos of your kids while the pro does the work..so dont get ideas that you can do the job though what you did of the bridesmaids was very nice. If your photo of the B and G makes them happy then it a success but I think its the look passing between them that make the photo and the memory of the moment rather than the technical quality. crop it if you have the IQ
 
Last edited:
This is not an attempt at a first wedding its a stand on the side and take photos of your kids while the pro does the work..so dont get ideas that you can do the job though what you did of the bridesmaids was very nice.
I don't think he said he was "getting ideas" that he could do the job (although on this evidence he's probably on the right track if he wanted to in future) so why come out with a snidey comment like that?
What is it with some wedding photographers being almost reflexively contemptuous of amateurs stepping onto their territory? What are they so afraid of?
 
I didn't once say I could do it, just saying that at a wedding I got to take my camera and got some nice pics of kids and family and just asking how I can improve those pictures, that's all. I also said there was a pro so I stayed out of their way which I believe is the right way to approach it. My bad for having a misleading title although there was a lot of wedding shots taken they were more for my experience rather then the b+g as I couldn't get in the right position for most shots without getting in the way and as previously stated, that wasn't my plan
 
Try taking a selection from to the right of the of the lampost up to edge of the girl and up to the top of image. Copy & paste then transform to cover post and line path up add a mask and erase the edges away. Seems to work if cloning not working for you.

Gaz

Like the photos :)
 
Just thought looked too dark?

Whatever. It's just that in ten years of full-time wedding photography and six years of "semi-pro" i.e. paid portraiture prior to that, I never once saw the need to do anything about any perceived darkness under anybody's eyes. Hence the question :)
 
Yeh ok fair enough then. I thought It was ok actually but thought someone might say otherwise. Thanks for the advice
 
I only have one body and lenses are 85mm and a sigma 17-50 2.8. Didn't have time to swap to siggy and get closer unfortunately. But the crop doesn't look bad, I do need to buy a zoom soon.
 
For wedding photos you do not have time to change lenses IMHO so if you have one body you need 18-xxx .I find that over 150 mm on DX zooms go a bit soft so you are better cropping hence I use the cheap 18-140 and always if shooting JPEG use +9 sharpness (you need 24MP to fully use the crop )
Yes your title did throw me a bit. Sorry
 
More like this or even tighter ..which is why you need a zoom so you can take 4 or 5 different crops of every wedding picView attachment 25649

You don't need a zoom at all. I shoot with primes - 35, 85 & 135 and use the two flat things at the bottom end of my legs to zoom.

And while we're at it you don't need 24mp to crop either......obviously the more MP the better for cropping but to suggest that you need 24mp is the kind of advice that does aspiring amatures more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
For wedding photos you do not have time to change lenses IMHO so if you have one body you need 18-xxx .I find that over 150 mm on DX zooms go a bit soft so you are better cropping hence I use the cheap 18-140 and always if shooting JPEG use +9 sharpness (you need 24MP to fully use the crop )
Yes your title did throw me a bit. Sorry

I'm sorry but thats utter and complete rubbish

for starters no one in their right mind would use a superzoom for a wedding let alone a basic one that goes from f3.5-f5.6 - how are you going to shoot in a dark venue with that ? (I'm talking about pro's which pinchvsalt alledgedly is - not the OP)

secondly softness is not a problem with a zoom over 150 if you use a decent zoom and don't try to have the whole range in one lens (personally i use a 17-50 f2.8 on one body, and a 70-200 f2.8 on the other one) - you can also easily cover a wedding with primes if you wish , 85mm on one body, 50 or 35 on the other one , sorted.

thirdly shooting jpeg for a wedding isnt a great idea unless you are very very good , and even if you are applying that much in camera sharpening is frankly stupid

and lastly you don't need 24MP to use a crop - I've succesfully cropped images from a 10MP 40D by about 50% and still been able to use them in album shots (although i generally use a 5D3 and don't have to crop much as i use a decent long zoom rather than assuming all zooms over 150 are crap because a cheap superzoom is)
 
Last edited:
thirdly shooting jpeg for a wedding isnt a great idea unless you are very very good , and even if you are applying that much in camera sharpening is frankly stupid

Wasn't there a big ker-fuffle (technical term) about this somewhere else? I'm having a deja-vu.
 
No cuffuffle started by me . I can only say what works for me to produce the images I want . If it works or does not work for you thats nothing to do with me.
Neither of us is right or wrong just do the job differently.

I have 17-35 FX on one and 18-140 on the DX
 
Last edited:
No cuffuffle started by me . I can only say what works for me to produce the images I want . If it works or does not work for you thats nothing to do with me.
Neither of us is right or wrong just do the job differently.

I have 17-35 FX on one and 18-140 on the DX

thats fair enough - but when you are giving advice to beginners suggesting that a 18-140 f3.5-f5.6 is a suitable lens to shoot a wedding with , that you can't shoot a wedding with primes, or that Zoom lenses are soft after 150mm ( I take it you've never used a 200-400 f4) isnt heplful because its not a matter of opinion - its just plain incorrect.
 
Wasn't there a big ker-fuffle (technical term) about this somewhere else? I'm having a deja-vu.

there is regularly a kerfuffle about jpeg vs raw - but leaving that old chestnut aside, suggesting applying +9 sharpening to jpeg basic is bonkers ... if you are going to use jpeg the minimum of sharpening in camera is desirable so as not to create jaggys (this is also why shooting jpeg fine is a good idea as its less compressed)

I have real trouble believing that "one of the best wedding photographers in the country" is shooting on DX format, in jpeg basic with a cheap superzoom lens, whilst giving truly terrible advice to newcomers - it strikes me that if he's being truthful about kit and format then he may be exagerating his prowess and standing more than a little
 
Last edited:
No cuffuffle started by me . I can only say what works for me to produce the images I want . If it works or does not work for you thats nothing to do with me.
Neither of us is right or wrong just do the job differently.

I have 17-35 FX on one and 18-140 on the DX

Don't want to get into a debate and send the thread down the wrong path - but - you might want to consider how you convey your opinion. Becasue for all intents and purposes it comes accross as gospel. For someone less experienced and seeking advice that can be lethal - especial if the advice you're depensing is less than sound.
 
I have real trouble believing that "one of the best wedding photographers in the country" is shooting on DX format, in jpeg basic with a cheap superzoom lens

Who dat den?

Where's "one of the best wedding photographers in the country" come from, Pete?
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

I'll keep my thoughts to myself ...
 
Back
Top