Critique A recent wedding...

Messages
5,275
Name
Ryan
Edit My Images
Yes
It's been a long while since I posted any of my work. On Saturday I had the pleasure of shooting at Longstowe Hall in Cambridgeshire, a really fab venue..

1)
14071732713_dfc14f712d_b.jpg


2)
14048312592_014d9973fc_b.jpg


3)
14051838554_07753ca625_b.jpg


4)
14048026542_f0e4dc946c_b.jpg


5)
14047950631_c6f81e2297_b.jpg


6)
14051540094_3f176cf39b_b.jpg


If you'd like to see more of the 'story' story of the day there's a blog post which looks likes this:-

http://www.ryanjarvisphotography.co.uk/hayley-craigs-longstowe-hall-wedding-26th-april-2014/

Cheers
 
well in no wedding expert. But i think these are very good.
wasn't too sure of the first couple, thought too much bg.
but after a while i think i like them.
traditional No4 is best for me
 
A good set, I think I prefer the closer up lake reflection shots in the blog to the further away one you posted here... maybe if you'd had a shallower dof the larger one would have worked a bit better as the focus would have been more on them, but it's a nice shot as it is.

The thing I felt missing from the blog was candids, a lot of the shots seems a bit static and I think some nice candids of guests laughing, drinking etc would have added a bit more to the story and feel of the wedding. I'm sure you have them so I'd personally add a few in there, but that's just my preference and I'm sure some people think I put far too many candids in my blogs :)

It looks like a lovely setting and I think you've captured that well in the images posted in the thread, you've made good use of the areas outside.
 
Ryan, I'll have a proper look at these in the morning but before I do - what proportion of the total number of pictures delivered is that gallery you've linked to, and basically what's missing from that gallery apart from the groups? I'm trying to get a feel for the complete coverage.
 
Last edited:
Here are my thoughts -



1. OK - nice to have a context shot, but I do find myself thinking that the subjects are lost in the frame. Not for me



2.Under exposed. Also, I would have used a longer lens and concentrated on the subjects. The structure adds nothing to the shot.



4. Frame is too tight for my liking



5. I'm sorry, but I think this looks so unnatural.



6. Quite like this, but crop is too tight RHS



Looking at the blog, I think you need to keep an eye on your PP. Exposures seem to vary and verticals are off in a few places.



Hope the CC helps :)
 
well in no wedding expert. But i think these are very good.
wasn't too sure of the first couple, thought too much bg.
but after a while i think i like them.
traditional No4 is best for me

Cheers

What am amazing venue and the blog post is very, very good. Some cracking shots. I really love number one you posted here. This is a great Mono too IMO. http://www.ryanjarvisphotography.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Longstowe-19s.jpg

Thanks Gareth. Number 1 seems to divide option :D

A good set, I think I prefer the closer up lake reflection shots in the blog to the further away one you posted here... maybe if you'd had a shallower dof the larger one would have worked a bit better as the focus would have been more on them, but it's a nice shot as it is.

The thing I felt missing from the blog was candids, a lot of the shots seems a bit static and I think some nice candids of guests laughing, drinking etc would have added a bit more to the story and feel of the wedding. I'm sure you have them so I'd personally add a few in there, but that's just my preference and I'm sure some people think I put far too many candids in my blogs :)

It looks like a lovely setting and I think you've captured that well in the images posted in the thread, you've made good use of the areas outside.

Thanks Andy. The reflection wasn't on my mind when I shot the first one. I just saw it as a large album shot which shows off the venue. Shooting it with a large aperture would have ruined what I was aiming for. I agree about candid shots. There's loads in the final selection which the couple will see. I think putting a few in the blog would have been a good idea.

Ryan, I'll have a proper look at these in the morning but before I do - what proportion of the total number of pictures delivered is that gallery you've linked to, and basically what's missing from that gallery apart from the groups? I'm trying to get a feel for the complete coverage.

The blog consists of almost 50 shots. The couple will receive approx 400 so it's a little over 10%. There's a lot more reportage/candid photography not shown on the blog. With the blog I tend to post more of the posed "wow" shots and less of the reportage stuff.

Maybe going forward I'll do more of a storyboard which would have a greater number of shots including details and candids.

Here are my thoughts -



1. OK - nice to have a context shot, but I do find myself thinking that the subjects are lost in the frame. Not for me



2.Under exposed. Also, I would have used a longer lens and concentrated on the subjects. The structure adds nothing to the shot.



4. Frame is too tight for my liking



5. I'm sorry, but I think this looks so unnatural.



6. Quite like this, but crop is too tight RHS



Looking at the blog, I think you need to keep an eye on your PP. Exposures seem to vary and verticals are off in a few places.



Hope the CC helps :)

Oh dear, looks like I've upset someone somewhere along the line...

1) see my response to Andy above.
2) I don't believe it is underexposed at all. But it does lack a bit of contrast here (thanks Flickr)
3) you missed number 3
4) really?
5) ok
6) I don't think it's tight at all. Maybe the lack of symmetry has unsettled you?

Regarding your closing comments I'm not convinced verticals are a deal breaker. I know a lot of accomplished photographers who's verticals are a bit random. And I really disagree with your comment on my exposures. Perhaps you can show me the way you do it....?
 
Well, despite my being rubbish at trad and it not being my thing, I do appreciate it being done well when it's done, so here goes. No comment on technicalities if for no other reason than the ones you linked to look fine on this calibrated screen.

#1 (the "shout at them across the pond" picture) they look just a bit stilted to me, so maybe her head on his left shoulder and both looking at you? And to be really picky, I'd zap the folks in the background.

#2 Given what you had to play with, there's nothing wrong with that one - and at least their heads are the right way round for the pose.

#3 Bog standard, but well done for all that, with heads nicely framed.

#4 Framing's off for me. I'd want him on a vertical third and more space on the left so her frock leads out of the picture.

#5 Heads framed nicely but for my money you needed to be a tad more to the left to bring him a bit closer to her, and I reckon she needs to be looking at the camera. My pal Kim was always good at this shot - dunno if that same one's on his site now, but maybe worth a look at it for some ideas?

#6 I have no problem at all with asymmetry per se, but for a staged trad shot like this it's in the Rule Book. But wtf - they all look good (a rare thing with this shot), your timing was spot on, and I doubt your customers will even notice it.

Off now for a squint at the gallery you linked to, so back later - but meanwhile, just out of curiosity, what does "your assistant" do on the day?
 
FWIW I prefer wide shots, with context and these are done well. If every shot was done tight & wide open they might as well be on the car park
 
Oh dear, looks like I've upset someone somewhere along the line...

1) see my response to Andy above.
2) I don't believe it is underexposed at all. But it does lack a bit of contrast here (thanks Flickr)
3) you missed number 3
4) really?
5) ok
6) I don't think it's tight at all. Maybe the lack of symmetry has unsettled you?

Regarding your closing comments I'm not convinced verticals are a deal breaker. I know a lot of accomplished photographers who's verticals are a bit random. And I really disagree with your comment on my exposures. Perhaps you can show me the way you do it....?

See now, THIS I don't get... someone is offering up constructive crit of what they are seeing... and you're coming across as offended by it? Why on earth would you think you've upset someone along the line? Just because they're not patting you on the back and saying 'Wow, fantastic job, mate!'... ?? Anyway, not looking for trouble, just an observation....

By the way, for me, I would have tried to bring some of the sky back into 1 & 3... and the last shot of this set is lovely. Wedding photography is not my gig, so I can't offer up anything more than that.
 
Well, despite my being rubbish at trad and it not being my thing, I do appreciate it being done well when it's done, so here goes. No comment on technicalities if for no other reason than the ones you linked to look fine on this calibrated screen.

#1 (the "shout at them across the pond" picture) they look just a bit stilted to me, so maybe her head on his left shoulder and both looking at you? And to be really picky, I'd zap the folks in the background.

#2 Given what you had to play with, there's nothing wrong with that one - and at least their heads are the right way round for the pose.

#3 Bog standard, but well done for all that, with heads nicely framed.

#4 Framing's off for me. I'd want him on a vertical third and more space on the left so her frock leads out of the picture.

#5 Heads framed nicely but for my money you needed to be a tad more to the left to bring him a bit closer to her, and I reckon she needs to be looking at the camera. My pal Kim was always good at this shot - dunno if that same one's on his site now, but maybe worth a look at it for some ideas?

#6 I have no problem at all with asymmetry per se, but for a staged trad shot like this it's in the Rule Book. But wtf - they all look good (a rare thing with this shot), your timing was spot on, and I doubt your customers will even notice it.

Off now for a squint at the gallery you linked to, so back later - but meanwhile, just out of curiosity, what does "your assistant" do on the day?

Having seen some of your critique in recent weeks, it was with you in mind that I particularly wanted to post some recent work. So thanks for commenting, I appreciate it. With regards to my assistant (Paul in this case) he shoots the boys while I'm with the girls, stands at the back during the service, shoots details, holds lights/reflectors, grabs candids etc, etc. Some of the shots on the blog are obviously his. HTH.


FWIW I prefer wide shots, with context and these are done well. If every shot was done tight & wide open they might as well be on the car park


Cheers Hugh. It's funny, I've been accused of shooting too tight in the past :D
 
I like them all except for #2, Ryan, because I don't feel that the structure camera left is too distracting.
 
I like them all except for #2, Ryan, because I don't feel that the structure camera left is too distracting.
Cheers fella. I also shot a tighter version of number 2 which is just them and the bridge. When shooting for an album I try to shoot a "scene setter" for context. I think the tighter shot works better.
 
I realised what I said made no sense. I meant that it IS distracting, but I think you got that. :)
 
Thanks for the explanation of what you use your #2 for. I was just wondering. Anyhow, critique you wanted, so I'll do me best with the gallery you linked to ...

Nice try with the white dress against the white wall but I'd have taken the safe/easy road and hung it in a doorway

Shoe shot's fine AFAIC but has it lost something in the processing? It's a bit lifeless.

First groom shot's fine but why didn't you sort out his collar and cravat? Bloke looks a mess, as they tend to if they get talked into hiring a shirt with a collar that's neither one thing nor another and yes, that is a pet hate of mine. Come to think of it, you could use this gig for a sample album, and when couples come to see you, point out his collar to the groom-to-be and say "don't make the same mistake with your shirt". He'll be obliged to you for the handy hint, he'll think you a top bloke, and the gig's yours on a plate from that point on for sure.

Nice mirror shot - and no back fat!

That full length of Madam with the dressing table behind her is a cracker. Don't you just love downlighters?

Bride, dad and CBM walking towards you - well done for framing the bride's head but lose 10 points for not waiting until CBM looked up

Bride and dad entering venue is lovely, and hurrah dad's on the correct side of her.

Bride and dad nearly up the aisle - close but not quite a cigar on account of dad's looking at you instead of the groom (and yes I do know that they tend to do that). Did he step on her dress before or after that shot?

Ceremony shot from the back is a missed moment. The registrar needed to be looking at one of them.

Well caught on the first kiss and it's not your fault they do look like they're doing that under orders, and well done with the recession shot. Textbook job, as is that couple portrait below it. I managed very few as good as that one in 10 years of trying.

No way you could have got any more height for the big group shot? Maybe even have tried a Hail Mary?

The couple shot below the two with the reflection - don't you now wish you'd put the bouquet on her side?

The walking away shot below it doesn't work for me on the grounds that I'm not a huge fan of them but even if I was I'd want less foreground and more venue.

The vertical couple shot's alright, but it's too much of a bullseye for me, so IMO it needs a tighter crop. After all, the picture doesn't need that much venue in it.

Couple + venue in bg (the shot below them on the bridge). Nicely executed but she's not holding her bouquet high enough (as they don't unless you tell 'em), with the result that two of us here think she looks like she's about to clout him with it

Couple shot at top of stone steps with her hands on his shoulder- IMO the bouquet detracts from the picture. Is that sunlight on 'em or fill flash?

The "how about a quick shag?" picture simply doesn't work for me, and I bet you're not entirely chuffed with it.

Bride + girls on the bridge - have you not got enough slack to straighten it? Whatever, it's nice - and it's a miracle there's no dumplings boiling over in it ...

Cake cutting - I'm in awe of that cake stand and the fool who thought of it ...

First dance shot I can she why you were struggling, but what a nice change to see a bride at a wedding like this whose dress actually fits her properly! Shame the slap artist was a bit mean and it shows up in the cake shot, but well done the bride with that frock.

To sum up, I used to hate weddings like this at venues like that and I couldn't shoot a wedding trad for toffee nowadays, but I reckon that's a first class job with which they will undoubtedly be chuffed. A very saleable "modern trad" product too, if you can keep knocking 'em out like that :)
 
Last edited:
Cheers



Thanks Gareth. Number 1 seems to divide option :D



Thanks Andy. The reflection wasn't on my mind when I shot the first one. I just saw it as a large album shot which shows off the venue. Shooting it with a large aperture would have ruined what I was aiming for. I agree about candid shots. There's loads in the final selection which the couple will see. I think putting a few in the blog would have been a good idea.



The blog consists of almost 50 shots. The couple will receive approx 400 so it's a little over 10%. There's a lot more reportage/candid photography not shown on the blog. With the blog I tend to post more of the posed "wow" shots and less of the reportage stuff.

Maybe going forward I'll do more of a storyboard which would have a greater number of shots including details and candids.



Oh dear, looks like I've upset someone somewhere along the line...

1) see my response to Andy above.
2) I don't believe it is underexposed at all. But it does lack a bit of contrast here (thanks Flickr)
3) you missed number 3
4) really?
5) ok
6) I don't think it's tight at all. Maybe the lack of symmetry has unsettled you?

Regarding your closing comments I'm not convinced verticals are a deal breaker. I know a lot of accomplished photographers who's verticals are a bit random. And I really disagree with your comment on my exposures. Perhaps you can show me the way you do it....?


I have posted critique – is that not what you wanted? OR – as already said above, do you want to just have smoke blown up your bum?

I’m sure you are a really nice guy, but your reaction does lend itself to the sort of the person that is a little insecure!

R
 
Hi Ryan

I am a pro wedding photographer myself but i differ from some in respect i wont judge your work technically - why ? because your clients do not judge it technically they are looking for passion art feeling and moments captured. So on that note here are my thoughts purely from looking at and enjoying your work . .

1. A lovely landscape view which shows off the venue well and the colours and tones of the shot would make for a lovely canvas on the wall, it shows the couple in the venue they have spent all the money on so closer would not have worked so well
2. I find myself a little torn with this , the lovely detail of the bridge and bride and groom are beautiful , yet my eyes are dragged back to the rather plainer looking folly, the composition is just not quite right and that will come across even to the untrained eye imho
3. Again a fab shot of the venue with lovely lighting colour and bags of character , I got married here written all over it !
4. A lovely traditional shot showing off the dress and well exposed, absolutely nothing wrong with traditional - people who think the whole day should be shot with a shallow DOF in some sort of ultra modern style are just not
5. Not a bad shot though may have looked nicer if she was looking back at him ? I am sure they will like it though
6. Brilliant fun shot , what more can i say !

thank you
Andrew
 
Lol

No that depends on how far past you go ( if that makes any sense ) , in the far far past everything was traditional in focus perfectly aligned and had the depth of the ocean . In the more recent past everything became vintage or blurred to within an inch of its life. Somewhere in between those pasts lie the future.

We have a duty as wedding photographers to supply our clients with memories they will cherish forever and photos which are meaningful to them, and whilst we need to add our own style, we also need to be careful not too over stylize the job and produce something which we love but not everyone will connect with. That for me anyway is the line i try not to cross. It is also one of the reasons i too use an assistant , so when i am taking that lovely landscape shot of the venue and bride and groom , he is zoomed in getting the same shot in candid looking for that decisive moment to hit the shutter.
 
we also need to be careful not too over stylize the job and produce something which we love but not everyone will connect with.

Without wanting to thread spoil, I couldn't disagree more. Pick a style you love, go for it head first and make it your own and people will connect with itt, if they don't they can go elsewhere. There are enough wedding photographers about that they'll be sure to find someone who's style they do like.
 
Thanks for the explanation of what you use your #2 for. I was just wondering. Anyhow, critique you wanted, so I'll do me best with the gallery you linked to ...

Nice try with the white dress against the white wall but I'd have taken the safe/easy road and hung it in a doorway

Shoe shot's fine AFAIC but has it lost something in the processing? It's a bit lifeless.

First groom shot's fine but why didn't you sort out his collar and cravat? Bloke looks a mess, as they tend to if they get talked into hiring a shirt with a collar that's neither one thing nor another and yes, that is a pet hate of mine. Come to think of it, you could use this gig for a sample album, and when couples come to see you, point out his collar to the groom-to-be and say "don't make the same mistake with your shirt". He'll be obliged to you for the handy hint, he'll think you a top bloke, and the gig's yours on a plate from that point on for sure.

Nice mirror shot - and no back fat!

That full length of Madam with the dressing table behind her is a cracker. Don't you just love downlighters?

Bride, dad and CBM walking towards you - well done for framing the bride's head but lose 10 points for not waiting until CBM looked up

Bride and dad entering venue is lovely, and hurrah dad's on the correct side of her.

Bride and dad nearly up the aisle - close but not quite a cigar on account of dad's looking at you instead of the groom (and yes I do know that they tend to do that). Did he step on her dress before or after that shot?

Ceremony shot from the back is a missed moment. The registrar needed to be looking at one of them.

Well caught on the first kiss and it's not your fault they do look like they're doing that under orders, and well done with the recession shot. Textbook job, as is that couple portrait below it. I managed very few as good as that one in 10 years of trying.

No way you could have got any more height for the big group shot? Maybe even have tried a Hail Mary?

The couple shot below the two with the reflection - don't you now wish you'd put the bouquet on her side?

The walking away shot below it doesn't work for me on the grounds that I'm not a huge fan of them but even if I was I'd want less foreground and more venue.

The vertical couple shot's alright, but it's too much of a bullseye for me, so IMO it needs a tighter crop. After all, the picture doesn't need that much venue in it.

Couple + venue in bg (the shot below them on the bridge). Nicely executed but she's not holding her bouquet high enough (as they don't unless you tell 'em), with the result that two of us here think she looks like she's about to clout him with it

Couple shot at top of stone steps with her hands on his shoulder- IMO the bouquet detracts from the picture. Is that sunlight on 'em or fill flash?

The "how about a quick shag?" picture simply doesn't work for me, and I bet you're not entirely chuffed with it.

Bride + girls on the bridge - have you not got enough slack to straighten it? Whatever, it's nice - and it's a miracle there's no dumplings boiling over in it ...

Cake cutting - I'm in awe of that cake stand and the fool who thought of it ...

First dance shot I can she why you were struggling, but what a nice change to see a bride at a wedding like this whose dress actually fits her properly! Shame the slap artist was a bit mean and it shows up in the cake shot, but well done the bride with that frock.

To sum up, I used to hate weddings like this at venues like that and I couldn't shoot a wedding trad for toffee nowadays, but I reckon that's a first class job with which they will undoubtedly be chuffed. A very saleable "modern trad" product too, if you can keep knocking 'em out like that :)

Many thanks for taking the time Sid.

No.4 thunderbird hand!!! :p

Nice set Ryan :)

Cheers mate.

Hi Ryan

I am a pro wedding photographer myself but i differ from some in respect i wont judge your work technically - why ? because your clients do not judge it technically they are looking for passion art feeling and moments captured. So on that note here are my thoughts purely from looking at and enjoying your work . .

1. A lovely landscape view which shows off the venue well and the colours and tones of the shot would make for a lovely canvas on the wall, it shows the couple in the venue they have spent all the money on so closer would not have worked so well
2. I find myself a little torn with this , the lovely detail of the bridge and bride and groom are beautiful , yet my eyes are dragged back to the rather plainer looking folly, the composition is just not quite right and that will come across even to the untrained eye imho
3. Again a fab shot of the venue with lovely lighting colour and bags of character , I got married here written all over it !
4. A lovely traditional shot showing off the dress and well exposed, absolutely nothing wrong with traditional - people who think the whole day should be shot with a shallow DOF in some sort of ultra modern style are just not
5. Not a bad shot though may have looked nicer if she was looking back at him ? I am sure they will like it though
6. Brilliant fun shot , what more can i say !

thank you
Andrew

Many thanks Andrew.

.... not stuck in the past. :)

I'm sure you'll say I'm being paranoid/overly sensitive (and maybe I am) but there seems to be an undercurrent of opinion which suggests that unless you're shooting totally reportage or shooting in the style of TP's Ross Harvey you're (as Chris says) "stuck in the past". Personally my style has always been a mix of classic and reportage, with my main aim at every wedding to produce "wow shots" that the couple will love.

I'm not quite sure what Chris and Andy etc think to the more classic style of wedding photography. Is it boring/old hat/rubbish...... Certainly "stuck in the past" is meant in a derogatory way so I'm hoping someone can enlighten me. From a personal point of view I would ask anyone reading this to simply go and watch the slide show on my homepage. It's all in keeping with my style and the kind of thing I shoot week in, week out. So if you think there's no place for what I'm producing in modern times I'd really like to hear it.

Yv, I know this was supposed to be a 'critique' thread but please let the boys respond. I think it's important to hear their views. Especially for someone like me who makes nearly all of their living from shooting weddings.
 
I am much the same Ryan and shoot in a way which combines classic formal documentary candid etc in a way that fits in with each wedding. After all its the bride and grooms day not ours and anyone who believes they can go along and stamp there style all over someone else s wedding needs to be very sure there style commands a massive amount of money because they will fall short on recommends in the future - the bread and butter of our industry !

A wedding day is a compromise photographically, of what you want to do, what you have time to do, what the bride and groom want you to do, and the restrictions placed on you by others as to how and where you can work. Somewhere in there you find the space to cram in your own style - that's the secret for me anyway.

When i want to really stamp my own style somewhere i grab my kit bag and head off to the coast with a tripod some cigars and a packet of Eclairs :)

I make all my living and support my family on weddings Ryan so its paramount people say good things after the event.

Your work is admirable and consistent, we all improve over the years and take different directions but i see nothing wrong with your work and as long as you pick up what you want from the critiques and use it in a positive way its all good.
 
... there seems to be an undercurrent of opinion which suggests that unless you're shooting totally reportage or shooting in the style of TP's Ross Harvey you're (as Chris says) "stuck in the past".

Indeed, but it's only some wedding snappers who hold that opinion. In the real world, normal people in general and brides in particular don't seem to think the same way.
 
I just liked Chris' post as it was witty, I think people should shoot in the style they personally like and if they do it well then people will book them and their work will be appreciated. There's plenty of room for more traditional work in the marketplace and I feel it's by far better to shoot that way if you like it then try and 'Ross Havey' it up just to try and appeal to people if you don't like that style yourself.

Personally I make no secret of my admiration for Ross Harvey's work and it's something I try to emulate with my style but if everyone tried to shoot the same style it would devalue it and also make for a really boring work. I think just keep doing what you are doing Ryan and be true to yourself
 
I don't think you've got anything to worry about Ryan, I have always been a fan of your work, you don't need to change your style at all.

I'm a big fan of Ross Harvey too but looking at his bride and groom portraits there's quite a few set up shots in there, I'm not sure there's anyone who produces 100% documentary photography.
 
... I'm not sure there's anyone who produces 100% documentary photography.

Even if there is, our experience was that very few couples actually want 100% documentary photography of their wedding after it's been explained to them what that would entail. We sold ourselves as documentary photographers and shot over 400 weddings in what customers thought of as a documentary fashion, but I can only recall 3 couples who wanted no intervention. And even then, one of those 3 decided on the day to do some groups after all ...
 
Thanks for the comments guys. I'm really hoping to also hear from the mighty Chris Richards, and I'd love to see some examples of his work too (with him being a new member and all).
 
Thanks for the comments guys. I'm really hoping to also hear from the mighty Chris Richards, and I'd love to see some examples of his work too (with him being a new member and all).

Gosh - what is your problem? 'Mighty'? Did I ever pertain to being an expert? I have provided honest constructive feedback - is that not what you wanted?

To the best of my knowledge, to provide critique (to someone who is asking for critique), there is no prerequisite to post work of my own. I also fail to see what difference the age of my membership makes!?

I have not provided inflammatory critique. In fact the critique is purely technical - not subjective.

To be honest, I don't find the work you have posted here to be exciting but instead rather bland. However, having just looked at your site, you do produce consistent results. So, if your business is doing well, keep doing whatever it is that you are doing - focusing your attention on that, rather than attacking new members. If that isn't enough for you, try and get some help with the chip on your shoulder.

Thanks.

R
 
I don't have a chip on my shoulder. However I do have a problem with armchair critics who think it's ok to use derogatory remarks like "stuck in the past" without further explanation as to why you think it's ok to accuse me of such.....
 
I don't have a chip on my shoulder. However I do have a problem with armchair critics who think it's ok to use derogatory remarks like "stuck in the past" without further explanation as to why you think it's ok to accuse me of such.....

The very fact you assumed that my quote of 'stuck in the past' was aimed at you highlights the chip on the shoulder.

I was merely countering the original op's quote 'some ultra modern style'. NOTHING was aimed at you.

I say it again - if you don't like honest critique, don't post images. If you post something I like I'll make sure I commend the work - but in the meantime........

One final point. Having looked at other posts, I see you run training courses. Do you think your over defensive tone is in an attempt to protect any business you can gain from this forum?

R
 
The very fact you assumed that my quote of 'stuck in the past' was aimed at you highlights the chip on the shoulder.

I was merely countering the original op's quote 'some ultra modern style'. NOTHING was aimed at you.

I say it again - if you don't like honest critique, don't post images. If you post something I like I'll make sure I commend the work - but in the meantime........

One final point. Having looked at other posts, I see you run training courses. Do you think your over defensive tone is in an attempt to protect any business you can gain from this forum?

R

You've been going through all my other posts?! Wow, I have a stalker!!

On the last point - absolutely not. Over 90% of the business I attract from the very few courses I run comes from Facebook. And on that subject my courses have been very popular, feedback has been awesome and I often get requests to run more than I can physically handle. The people who attend my workshops want to produce this type of work. And I've always found it a pleasure to share my knowledge and skills and see others do well. Something that's quite rare I find. Anyway I'm pleased to say 99% of people like and admire my work, sadly it's just you who wants to run it down. As someone else just said on another thread I just read "It's usually fairly obvious who the grumpy ones are and the ones just out to be negative. Ignore them." Wise advice I would do well to heed.

Now, please do me a favour and post a link to your own work. Because I genuinely would like to see how you do it.
 
I was merely countering the original op's quote 'some ultra modern style'. NOTHING was aimed at you.

Surely ryan was the OP :rolleyes:

---
leaving the peeing contest to one side , its a nice set - the only thing I'm not 100% sure about is the pose in #6 which looks a little forced and unnatural to me - I'm also a little distracted by the oof sheep in the top background - it might have been stronger with the top 10% cropped off
 
Last edited:
Really unsure how to start this, but here goes...

I saw ryan advertising a wedding course on here back in January this year and although i have done 150+ weddings so far, i had never had any training other than when i worked with other photographers. i went in expecting not to learn to much but i was pleasantly surprised. Ryans level of detail on his images was fantastic, and how he sets the bride and groom works fantastically well. from the time we started to the time we finished i was picking up hints and tips that will help me in the future, and i picked up one golden nugget of help that has been a game changer for me regarding one section of bridal portraits. regarding his training he is far to cheap!

Photography is always subjective and photographers are the worst at picking holes in work, im usually the first to pick them up on my own work, but sometimes people need to realise that yes this is a photography forum, but ultimately we need to understand that these images are not for a competition, they are for the bride and groom and im sure that the couple would be delighted with these

PS in number 2 would loved it more if i could see all of the bridge if possible ;-)
 
Here are my thoughts -



1. OK - nice to have a context shot, but I do find myself thinking that the subjects are lost in the frame. Not for me



2.Under exposed. Also, I would have used a longer lens and concentrated on the subjects. The structure adds nothing to the shot.



4. Frame is too tight for my liking



5. I'm sorry, but I think this looks so unnatural.



6. Quite like this, but crop is too tight RHS



Looking at the blog, I think you need to keep an eye on your PP. Exposures seem to vary and verticals are off in a few places.



Hope the CC helps :)


This is Chris' original post - I don't think there's anything majorly wrong with his critique tbf, I don't think he was trying to upset you and it seems to be genuine IMO. I think Ryan maybe overreacted a little saying it looked like he'd upset someone… I maybe rightly or wrongly felt the 'stuck in the past' comment was just tongue in cheek and meant as a bit of humour.

It's all got a bit out of hand since then… I'd say Chris is offering genuine critique and I don't feel he needs to post his work to do so, just because it wasn't positive doesn't mean it isn't accurate in their eyes. I personally would hate for all critique threads to be everyone going 'yeah great set' if they didn't think it was.

Maybe it's best for you both to agree to disagree, maybe Chris can word things differently in future to not offend anyone and maybe Ryan can not jump to quickly if someone offers critique he doesn't like. Maybe both parties can agree things have got a little childish in the latter posts and move on so the thread keeps some sort of relevance to the images posted and the critique on that particular wedding
 
Just a query - Have you stood the groom up a step in 1 and 1 or 2 steps in 4? he's also on the 'high' side of the arched bridge too.

He's shorter than the bride in 3.
 
Back
Top