Wedding reception - Out of my comfort zone

  • Thread starter Deleted member 21335
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
Well, this was new. Starting the 'day' in pitch darkness and almost zero degrees. They had been married a few days before in the Dominican republic so I was just asked to shoot the evening leg back in Wigan. Way, way out of my comfort zone as I knew I would have to use flash but I agreed. I delivered the photos last night and they are really happy and they seem to be a nice addition to the 111 they received from their wedding photographer over there and definitely very different. The flash was never on the camera for these. For the portraits, it was in an Ezybox and for the dancing ones I used it tethered at arms length, just to get it away from the hot shoe. Definitely need more practice with this and, as always, I know things could be improved etc but it's more experience in the bag.

1.
GNM_4036.jpg

2.
GNM_4056.jpg


And, as always, the blog post can be seen here ----> CLICKY LINKY (Only 14 images this time)

Thanks for looking :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those two look pretty good to me.

A general question - do wedding togs clone out distractions like the door buzzer (right of the doorframe) or leave them in as it is "documentary"?
 
Those two look pretty good to me.

A general question - do wedding togs clone out distractions like the door buzzer (right of the doorframe) or leave them in as it is "documentary"?

Thanks Shaheed. Obvioulsy can't speak for everyone but I am quite happy to leave things like that in generally. This may change over time as my photography evolves though. I know a lot of photographers would probably clone it out though.
 
Like these too well done :) Strange what different people see in a photo though as Shaheed saw the buzzer yet I never saw that but did see the A board. Which is way unusual for me as I never spot anything :) Don't want you to feel negative though as it is not a crit I like them and am no expert.

Gaz
 
Last edited:
You may well have felt out of your comfort zone, Gareth, but it's not obvious. Referring to the blog post ...

First one has too much flash for me and it's killed the ambient, which should be a big ingredient of any room shot with a Xmas tree in it.

Second one's fine (but see later re cloning distractions), as are all the rest down to and including the first b/w.

That small upright dance shot is a reject AFAIC. Your timing was way out.

Second b/w dance shot's also a missed moment - albeit technically it's good shot. But what's the point of that picture when you've got the next (colour) one to show?

Kiddie dancing is excellent technically but again it's a very near miss.

Next two grinning shots are great and although the last picture's decidedly iffy (timing again), it's OK if that's the best you got of the bride dancing with her mates.

Overall IMO your setups are fine apart from that room shot, but your timing dropped off when things started moving. Were you using second curtain synch? Whatever, that's the exact reason why we never got into off-camera flash at weddings - we couldn't perfect both the technique and the observation/timing to the degree with which we were happy with both, and beyond a certain point, it wasn't the technique that mattered to our customers.

Ref distractions and the cloning out thereof, the answer to Shaheed's question is that some do, some don't. There are those who obsess about anything they see as "imperfections" to the point at which they send a bunch of files from every wedding to India with great long lists of cloning to do on all of them. And there are those who abhor the very idea of zapping a passing fly or a significant bird turd on the grounds that they're into Telling It Like It Is (even though that telling doesn't include how much they influence some of those 100% PJ shots at times).

My own rule of thumb was what's in the picture stays there unless it's something which stands out like a dog's balls, it immediately distracts the eye away from the subject and/or slows down the "reading" of the picture, it's small, it's entirely irrrelevant, and it's a doddle to get rid of. A good example would be that green reflection over the speaker in the dance shots.

Therefore in that first shot above, I'd zap the door buzzer but leave the board, on the grounds that AFAIC the latter is far enough away from them and it's much the same colours/tonality/density as the surroundings. What does get to me though is that really weird slide thing in her hair, simply because it's straight - and you never, ever, see a long straight line in a Western bride's hair ...
 
Last edited:
Yeah they arent perfect, but and its a massive but

The B&G will love them, and that is all that matters :)
 
Those two look pretty good to me.

A general question - do wedding togs clone out distractions like the door buzzer (right of the doorframe) or leave them in as it is "documentary"?

How long is a piece of string? :LOL: its about the same sort of question, the answer will vary, not just between photographers, but between photos, depending what it is and where it is. Some will never clone anything, some will clone out anything and everything 'untidy' and most probably sit somewhere between those two extremes.

Gareth, as an overall set I like them. The processing style isn't to my taste, but that is irrelevant as it's your individual style. Pretty much what Sid has said covers it. Only covering receptions is much harder work than you might think, going in cold [instead of having spent the day with everyone] and the lighting will always be far more awkward than during the day, so you have done quite well.
 
Love these Gareth. Perfect for this time of year!

Thanks Jack :)

Love the shots, got a real warmth to them

Thank you. :)

Like these too well done :) Strange what different people see in a photo though as Shaheed saw the buzzer yet I never saw that but did see the A board. Which is way unusual for me as I never spot anything :) Don't want you to feel negative though as it is not a crit I like them and am no expert.

Gaz

Thanks for taking the time. :)

You may well have felt out of your comfort zone, Gareth, but it's not obvious. Referring to the blog post ...

First one has too much flash for me and it's killed the ambient, which should be a big ingredient of any room shot with a Xmas tree in it.

Second one's fine (but see later re cloning distractions), as are all the rest down to and including the first b/w.

That small upright dance shot is a reject AFAIC. Your timing was way out.

Second b/w dance shot's also a missed moment - albeit technically it's good shot. But what's the point of that picture when you've got the next (colour) one to show?

Kiddie dancing is excellent technically but again it's a very near miss.

Next two grinning shots are great and although the last picture's decidedly iffy (timing again), it's OK if that's the best you got of the bride dancing with her mates.

Overall IMO your setups are fine apart from that room shot, but your timing dropped off when things started moving. Were you using second curtain synch? Whatever, that's the exact reason why we never got into off-camera flash at weddings - we couldn't perfect both the technique and the observation/timing to the degree with which we were happy with both, and beyond a certain point, it wasn't the technique that mattered to our customers.

Ref distractions and the cloning out thereof, the answer to Shaheed's question is that some do, some don't. There are those who obsess about anything they see as "imperfections" to the point at which they send a bunch of files from every wedding to India with great long lists of cloning to do on all of them. And there are those who abhor the very idea of zapping a passing fly or a significant bird turd on the grounds that they're into Telling It Like It Is (even though that telling doesn't include how much they influence some of those 100% PJ shots at times).

My own rule of thumb was what's in the picture stays there unless it's something which stands out like a dog's balls, it immediately distracts the eye away from the subject and/or slows down the "reading" of the picture, it's small, it's entirely irrrelevant, and it's a doddle to get rid of. A good example would be that green reflection over the speaker in the dance shots.

Therefore in that first shot above, I'd zap the door buzzer but leave the board, on the grounds that AFAIC the latter is far enough away from them and it's much the same colours/tonality/density as the surroundings. What does get to me though is that really weird slide thing in her hair, simply because it's straight - and you never, ever, see a long straight line in a Western bride's hair ...

Thank you as always Dan for the detailed crit. The first shot with the tree hadn't had flash used. Maybe a faster shutter would have helped though to keep a bit more feeling. I think it's the light on the back wall that is creating a huge bright spot. I'll definitely keep in mind your comments re the dance stuff for future. I may go back to on the hotshoe for those as per the last wedding I did. I'd be quite happy to use no flash at all but sometimes, as per this venue, it was just not possible I guess. Thanks again. :)

Yeah they arent perfect, but and its a massive but

The B&G will love them, and that is all that matters :)

Thanks for commenting but is respectfully disagree with your comment 100%. Whilst they may be happy (and they were), that's definitely not all that matters and far from it IMO. :)

Really like those Gareth - well done for stepping out of your comfort zone with the lighting too, it looks great.

Loving the processing too btw.

Thank you. :)

How long is a piece of string? :LOL: its about the same sort of question, the answer will vary, not just between photographers, but between photos, depending what it is and where it is. Some will never clone anything, some will clone out anything and everything 'untidy' and most probably sit somewhere between those two extremes.

Gareth, as an overall set I like them. The processing style isn't to my taste, but that is irrelevant as it's your individual style. Pretty much what Sid has said covers it. Only covering receptions is much harder work than you might think, going in cold [instead of having spent the day with everyone] and the lighting will always be far more awkward than during the day, so you have done quite well.

Thanks Yv. Your absolutely right about it being more awkward for sure. Yes I know the processing is not to everyone's tastes, there's still plenty time for it to slowly evolve. I'm constantly on the fence with it to be honest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well done, Gareth! I think you've done really well! I think you underestimate your abilities with this wedding photography palava... I'd be more than happy with those shots, both from a bride's perspective and from a photographers. :)
 
Well done, Gareth! I think you've done really well! I think you underestimate your abilities with this wedding photography palava... I'd be more than happy with those shots, both from a bride's perspective and from a photographers. :)

Thank you Bethy. I appreciate your comments. There are definitely things I need to improve and agree with the C&C given above which I will take forwards to the next ones. Whilst I think it has added a different feel of images to my site and Blog, I am so think I would think twice about taking on just an evening, winter reception again.
 
...I would think twice about taking on just an evening, winter reception again.

That's more than we did after doing one in our first year. It's like doing a Sikh wedding or a Nigerian one AFAIC - by all means do it for the experience, but bugger doing it twice :)
 
Thanks for commenting but is respectfully disagree with your comment 100%. Whilst they may be happy (and they were), that's definitely not all that matters and far from it IMO. :)

Really? I think its probably for another thread.

Most clients do not care about technical perfection or things other photographers like.

Other photographers don't pay the bills with rules and technical perfection ;)
 
Most clients do not care about technical perfection or things other photographers like.

Other photographers don't pay the bills with rules and technical perfection ;)

True. Both statements. But neither of them mean that all that matters is that the bride and groom love their snaps.

That should never be all that matters to a professional wedding photographer.
 
Last edited:
Really? I think its probably for another thread.

Most clients do not care about technical perfection or things other photographers like.

Other photographers don't pay the bills with rules and technical perfection ;)

Whilst your probably right about it being for discussion in depth in a different thread, I will try to sum up what I mean. :)

It's not about technical perfection at all, but often I see people using the phrase, "as long as the clients are happy" as a measuring stick for mediocre work. I refuse to use this for my own photography. A lot of the time, the customers also love their friends images taken from the day on their phones, which are blurry or OOF or whatever that's not 'technically good', but they still love them. The customers from my first wedding there on my blog were over the moon and I got praise publicly on Facebook when I still had an account there and personally on the phone. I could have continued to shoot to that standard because the customers were happy with it and get complacent or I can evolve and look to improve by way of feedback from people who have done it and are doing it better than me, and by personal assessment of where I am and where I want to be. I hope this goes a little way of explaining my point. I have goals where I want to be within the wedding photography market, quality and price wise. As far as, since the start, I don't supply albums less than £350. I want to be attracting customers in a couple of years who are prepared to pay £1200-£1500 to hire me for a wedding because my work is of that standard and they want me to photograph their wedding. It isn't yet, but I want it to be. I will re assess my goals in 12 months after I have shot the 7 or 8 I have booked for 2015 and see if it's still realistic. :)
 
Ah yeah I agree with you in that case, but better clients want 'better' images. So no it doesnt mean mediocre work.

I just mean shoot for the clients (whatever end of the market) not photographers ;)

Back to the crit, its a good set. :)
 
Ah yeah I agree with you in that case, but better clients want 'better' images. So no it doesnt mean mediocre work.

I just mean shoot for the clients (whatever end of the market) not photographers ;)

Back to the crit, its a good set. :)

Thank you. :) Yes, I agree with your point about not shooting for photographers, although lets be honest, peer recognition by those who's work I admire and aspire to reach the standard of, is definitely welcome.
 
Those two look pretty good to me.

A general question - do wedding togs clone out distractions like the door buzzer (right of the doorframe) or leave them in as it is "documentary"?
I would have, both the door buzzer and the A board.

But like Yv says, it'd vary not just by photographer but from shot to shot.

So in this case, as it's the 'headline' shot, I'd have cleaned it up. I was recently forced to do the group shots in a hotel doorway (under a canopy as it was p***ing it down) and I removed the yellow (slippy) signs because they're designed to grab attention, and it'd have been wrong to move them out of the shot before taking it.
 
Back to the point of the thread, you've definitely overcome your lighting fears Gaz.

I agree with Dan re the interior shot, that should've been tripod rather than flash. I also agree re the timing of the dance shots. Sometimes (often) my choice of shot will be with the crowd in the background, but then the couple will dance facing the crowd, so I have to lose my chosen framing to get the B&G looking good. The posed shots are the best of the bunch.
 
Back to the point of the thread, you've definitely overcome your lighting fears Gaz.

I agree with Dan re the interior shot, that should've been tripod rather than flash. I also agree re the timing of the dance shots. Sometimes (often) my choice of shot will be with the crowd in the background, but then the couple will dance facing the crowd, so I have to lose my chosen framing to get the B&G looking good. The posed shots are the best of the bunch.

Thank you Phil. As I said in response to Dan, there was no flash for the interior shot. Perhaps I should just have used a faster shutter! I'll definitely work on the dance stuff!
 
Love the first 2 mate, doubt I could do any better myself tbh. Once the dancing starts it does go downhill a bit, mainly the first dance where you just seem to have got the back of her head in the shots... It's hard to do but you need to move around with the couple so you're always facing their faces. I also shoot a load of shots during the dance as sometimes they move in ways I don't expect and get back of the head shots... So yeah shoot lots and anticipate which way they will move so you get expressions in shot :)

I only scanned the comments above but think someone mentioned rear curtain? If you're using this at all I'd say don't, just use front curtain until you master flash use as it's just adding an extra layer of complexion to it that you don't really need at this point.

Despite the above the set as a whole is still really nice and your processing on them is really nice, I'm getting a warm cosy Xmas wedding feel from them so you've defo got a lot right, just a little fine tuning on the flash use with moving subjects to work on IMO but that comes with time and practice, plus the shots are way better than I was producing at the same point in my experience level as you're at.
 
Last edited:
2 things I forgot to mention...

1) cloning - not sure why people don't clone out things like in the background of the first pic? Would take me a minute, maybe two at the most to do, so yeah I would always do it... I think we all know I'm OCD about processing though so maybe it's just me. I can't help but think if it's a minor job and improves the image then to do it though.

2) That sandwich board in the bottom right of the first photo... If possible I'd have picked it up and moved it out of shot if I'd noticed it at the time. I miss things like this sometimes but if possible always move things like this out of shot and out them back after. I miss this 50% of the time though so not really in a position to criticise lol :D
 
Love the first 2 mate, doubt I could do any better myself tbh. Once the dancing starts it does go downhill a bit, mainly the first dance where you just seem to have got the back of her head in the shots... It's hard to do but you need to move around with the couple so you're always facing their faces. I also shoot a load of shots during the dance as sometimes they move in ways I don't expect and get back of the head shots... So yeah shoot lots and anticipate which way they will move so you get expressions in shot :)

I only scanned the comments above but think someone mentioned rear curtain? If you're using this at all I'd say don't, just use front curtain until you master flash use as it's just adding an extra layer of complexion to it that you don't really need at this point.

Despite the above the set as a whole is still really nice and your processing on them is really nice, I'm getting a warm cosy Xmas wedding feel from them so you've defo got a lot right, just a little fine tuning on the flash use with moving subjects to work on IMO but that comes with time and practice, plus the shots are way better than I was producing at the same point in my experience level as you're at.

Thank you Andy. No, not rear curtatin. Was quite happy with the workings of it, but will work to position myself better in the future for sure.

Thanks for taking the time to comment as always. :)
 
Strange what different people see in a photo though as Shaheed saw the buzzer yet I never saw that but did see the A board.
Gaz

As a newbie, didn't spot much with the photos, but did notice "wether" on the blog rather than "weather"
 
As a newbie, didn't spot much with the photos, but did notice "wether" on the blog rather than "weather"

Yes I spotted that myself yesterday! Thank you. I will go change it now!
 
Back
Top