- Messages
- 1,989
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Awesome job, I did one by myself a few months back, absolutely bricking it but really enjoyed doing it, got another booked on the back of it..
My first solo wedding
- Thread starter minnnt
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,993
- Name
- Dan
- Edit My Images
- No
That's better 
OK then, looking at these purely from the POV of their potential appeal to other brides who might wish to have you snap their nuptials (and ignoring processing) ...
#1 is fine, but #2 is a classic WTF? shot. It's a boring shot of a boring pair of shoes with nothing whatsoever about it that says "wedding".
#3 is fine for what it is, but 9 out of 10 brides looking at #4 will just see the back view of a faceless bride with messy hair looking out a window. However, at least she isn't exhibiting the dreaded back fat, which is always something to watch out for.
The problem with #5 (apart from that hair) is that you know what's going on there and so does the bride. Anybody else will wonder if she's about to throw up.
#6 is a near miss. If only she'd been facing the other way ...
AFAIC #7 is a mess. There's far too many distractions in it. The eyes don't know where to look.
#8 and #9 are both well caught, and #10 is well done. Having said that, though, if you're going to set up a detail shot like that, it's always worth trying to incorporate something that actually ties it to the wedding e.g. congrats card, tiara, weddingy business going on in the background.
#11 is excellent, despite the hair, but #12 is both boring and pointless. If you really do feel that you've gotta have a pack shot of the bouquet, make life easier for yourself and take a better snap of it by closing in on it held in the bride's hands later when you're doing the couple shots.
#13 is a shot which was well past its best before 20 years ago, but for all that this example of it is very nicely done except for one thing. It ought to be of the groom!
#14, #15 and #16 are all perfectly OK (I actually like #15 a lot). So is #17 but I reckon it'd benefit from a bit tighter crop.
#18's well caught, although with more practice you'd have leaned just a bit more to your left. #19 is very well seen indeed, and let down only by the fact that for the message to really hit home, your luck was out and the wrong hand's nearest the camera.
I won't say anything about the video camera or the registrar in #20 simply because if you had to stand where you were, you were snookered. With five more weddings under your belt you'd be able to minimise the distractions, but the main thing for now is that you caught it OK (and you'd be amazed just how quickly that's sometimes over).
No point whatsoever nit-picking #21 because ATEOTD they all look OK and they're all looking at you. At weddings like this one, it's always worth making the best job you can of the "Here's us standing in The Urinal Pose feeling very self-conscious" shot and then saying "OK guys, let's just do a quick one of you standing there like you're not wearing fancy dress and you're just a bunch of mates outside the pub"
#22 is fine for what it is, but #23 is a reject for sure. What has that picture got going for it?
#24, #25 and #26 are all perfectly fine considering. I remember taking exactly the same shot as #27 when we first started and mine didn't quite work either for exactly the same reason - you needed the kid to be looking this way, which of course he was very unlikely to do.
#28's a very near miss but #29 is just fine.
You were certainly seeing pictures and it's patently obvious that you were working your socks off. Why not do another one and see how that goes? Don't work 15 bloody hours on it, though. There's no need at all unless you're charging serious money or you reckon you're getting lots of potential portfolio pictures.
So there you go mister. I reckon you did perfectly OK there for a first attempt - and note that I never said a word about the bride's hair ...
OK then, looking at these purely from the POV of their potential appeal to other brides who might wish to have you snap their nuptials (and ignoring processing) ...#1 is fine, but #2 is a classic WTF? shot. It's a boring shot of a boring pair of shoes with nothing whatsoever about it that says "wedding".
#3 is fine for what it is, but 9 out of 10 brides looking at #4 will just see the back view of a faceless bride with messy hair looking out a window. However, at least she isn't exhibiting the dreaded back fat, which is always something to watch out for.
The problem with #5 (apart from that hair) is that you know what's going on there and so does the bride. Anybody else will wonder if she's about to throw up.
#6 is a near miss. If only she'd been facing the other way ...
AFAIC #7 is a mess. There's far too many distractions in it. The eyes don't know where to look.
#8 and #9 are both well caught, and #10 is well done. Having said that, though, if you're going to set up a detail shot like that, it's always worth trying to incorporate something that actually ties it to the wedding e.g. congrats card, tiara, weddingy business going on in the background.
#11 is excellent, despite the hair, but #12 is both boring and pointless. If you really do feel that you've gotta have a pack shot of the bouquet, make life easier for yourself and take a better snap of it by closing in on it held in the bride's hands later when you're doing the couple shots.
#13 is a shot which was well past its best before 20 years ago, but for all that this example of it is very nicely done except for one thing. It ought to be of the groom!
#14, #15 and #16 are all perfectly OK (I actually like #15 a lot). So is #17 but I reckon it'd benefit from a bit tighter crop.
#18's well caught, although with more practice you'd have leaned just a bit more to your left. #19 is very well seen indeed, and let down only by the fact that for the message to really hit home, your luck was out and the wrong hand's nearest the camera.
I won't say anything about the video camera or the registrar in #20 simply because if you had to stand where you were, you were snookered. With five more weddings under your belt you'd be able to minimise the distractions, but the main thing for now is that you caught it OK (and you'd be amazed just how quickly that's sometimes over).
No point whatsoever nit-picking #21 because ATEOTD they all look OK and they're all looking at you. At weddings like this one, it's always worth making the best job you can of the "Here's us standing in The Urinal Pose feeling very self-conscious" shot and then saying "OK guys, let's just do a quick one of you standing there like you're not wearing fancy dress and you're just a bunch of mates outside the pub"
#22 is fine for what it is, but #23 is a reject for sure. What has that picture got going for it?
#24, #25 and #26 are all perfectly fine considering. I remember taking exactly the same shot as #27 when we first started and mine didn't quite work either for exactly the same reason - you needed the kid to be looking this way, which of course he was very unlikely to do.
#28's a very near miss but #29 is just fine.
You were certainly seeing pictures and it's patently obvious that you were working your socks off. Why not do another one and see how that goes? Don't work 15 bloody hours on it, though. There's no need at all unless you're charging serious money or you reckon you're getting lots of potential portfolio pictures.
So there you go mister. I reckon you did perfectly OK there for a first attempt - and note that I never said a word about the bride's hair ...
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 18,233
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thankyou. Although my inspiration came from Google, i hadn't seen one like this so I was quite happy to nail it.
Good on ya mate! I'm glad i have done one.
That's better
#1 is fine, but #2 is a classic WTF? shot. It's a boring shot of a boring pair of shoes with nothing whatsoever about it that says "wedding".
#3 is fine for what it is, but 9 out of 10 brides looking at #4 will just see the back view of a faceless bride with messy hair looking out a window. However, at least she isn't exhibiting the dreaded back fat, which is always something to watch out for.
The problem with #5 (apart from that hair) is that you know what's going on there and so does the bride. Anybody else will wonder if she's about to throw up.
#6 is a near miss. If only she'd been facing the other way ...
AFAIC #7 is a mess. There's far too many distractions in it. The eyes don't know where to look.
#8 and #9 are both well caught, and #10 is well done. Having said that, though, if you're going to set up a detail shot like that, it's always worth trying to incorporate something that actually ties it to the wedding e.g. congrats card, tiara, weddingy business going on in the background.
#11 is excellent, despite the hair, but #12 is both boring and pointless. If you really do feel that you've gotta have a pack shot of the bouquet, make life easier for yourself and take a better snap of it by closing in on it held in the bride's hands later when you're doing the couple shots.
#13 is a shot which was well past its best before 20 years ago, but for all that this example of it is very nicely done except for one thing. It ought to be of the groom!
#14, #15 and #16 are all perfectly OK (I actually like #15 a lot). So is #17 but I reckon it'd benefit from a bit tighter crop.
#18's well caught, although with more practice you'd have leaned just a bit more to your left. #19 is very well seen indeed, and let down only by the fact that for the message to really hit home, your luck was out and the wrong hand's nearest the camera.
I won't say anything about the video camera or the registrar in #20 simply because if you had to stand where you were, you were snookered. With five more weddings under your belt you'd be able to minimise the distractions, but the main thing for now is that you caught it OK (and you'd be amazed just how quickly that's sometimes over).
No point whatsoever nit-picking #21 because ATEOTD they all look OK and they're all looking at you. At weddings like this one, it's always worth making the best job you can of the "Here's us standing in The Urinal Pose feeling very self-conscious" shot and then saying "OK guys, let's just do a quick one of you standing there like you're not wearing fancy dress and you're just a bunch of mates outside the pub"
#22 is fine for what it is, but #23 is a reject for sure. What has that picture got going for it?
#24, #25 and #26 are all perfectly fine considering. I remember taking exactly the same shot as #27 when we first started and mine didn't quite work either for exactly the same reason - you needed the kid to be looking this way, which of course he was very unlikely to do.
#28's a very near miss but #29 is just fine.
You were certainly seeing pictures and it's patently obvious that you were working your socks off. Why not do another one and see how that goes? Don't work 15 bloody hours on it, though. There's no need at all unless you're charging serious money or you reckon you're getting lots of potential portfolio pictures.
So there you go mister. I reckon you did perfectly OK there for a first attempt - and note that I never said a word about the bride's hair ...
Brilliant Dan. Gives me some pointers to work through and look at each image more closely and consider what you said. Much appreciated mate.
Well done fella, not too shabby with a few belters amongst them
Cheers Mark. Means a lot mate.
- Messages
- 1,521
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd pretty much echo Sid's critique of the individual shots. Most are fine considering it was your first. I don't think the time of year did you any favours to make your debut though. There's a few I'd scrap (6,11,13,19,23 & 27) and the other thing I'd suggest is if you're going to shoot "detail shots" (the groom's watch, cufflinks, bouquet etc) get in closer and go for a shallower dof.
Not bad though and definately better than my first
Not bad though and definately better than my first
