Wedding Photography - Our new venture - Our first One

GR3Z

GR3Z

Messages
706
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
Yes
Been into for photography for around 3 to 4 years since getting my first DSLR, I'm at that age where all my friends are getting married and I've often go along with my camera in hand and had some great feedback playing uncle bob. It wasn't til earlier this year when i was asked to be the photographer for a close friends wedding, we was all out and the lash and having had i a few i agreed to do it. Next morning i woke up regretted it and rang him up saying didn't want to do it. by the time of the wedding they had booked another photography and i was back to playing uncle bob, as it turns the B&G preferred my photo's and so did everyone else. Then some other friends were getting married and the had booked the same photographer and were getting cold feet after seeing his work, and asked me to do it so i agreed this time.

Because of this myself and a friend have decided to start a business in wedding photography we are still in the earlier stages and are just in the process of getting our infrastructure in place, we are fortunate that we are both a bit techy and have decided to build our own site using adobe muse, so I'm after critique on our site and a bit of feedback of our images as this is our first official wedding, please note the site is live but is in development and is continually being updated, so there might be some mistakes and incomplete areas.

The Entire blog Post can be seen here

Thanks
Graeme

cat%20-%20si_171_2x.jpg


cat%20-%20si_310_2x.jpg

cat%20-%20si_331_2x.jpg


cat%20-%20si_490830x554_2x.jpg
 
OK ... ignoring the fact that this is your first gig ...

#1 Most publics looking at that shot will wonder why only the groom is sharp. Either have less separation front-to-back and more DoF, or go the other way and use less DoF to really throw the bokes OOF.

#2 Nicely done but it's a picture of a bride and a groom who are the wrong way round walking down the aisle in an empty church. As in ... why?

#3 Nicely done again, but shot from the wrong side. You normally want to be facing the bride.

#4 Not a lot wrong with that one, but brides will pick up on the incipient upper arm/side boob problem. I'd have shot it as you did, then told them to hold the pose but her to move her hands up his back as far as is comfortable so the bouquet's more at his shoulder level. Might have helped, and might also have looked a bit more dynamic, but you'll never know if you didn't try it.

Blog post looks good at first glance ...
 
Last edited:
The blog is really strong for a first wedding, so please view my comments below as merely constructive and based on one wedding photographer's opinion.

#1 I really like the groom being in focus only. It's not a formal pic so I don't get the issue. My only issue is it's a bit contrived or fake? I've seen video guys set up this same 'walking shot' but I'd rarely use it.

#2 Again, I don't like how set up it is. I prefer a candid Aisle shot, with guests - the couple will want to see the guests too as walking down the aisle happens in a flash. Settings are bang on though.

#3 I like this. I don't agree with Sid that you should focus on the bride. There's two people in every wedding couple, and they're both important. I think too many wedding photographers (including us at times) are bride centric.

#4 Composition is good but I also have problems with the pose. In a strapless dress you can get that unflattering bit of flesh with this pose. I generally don't pose couples a lot but we do get them to avoid putting their arms crossed over, around each other's waists at the same time like that - it reminds me of how I danced with girls at discos when I was 14. Her arms around his neck would've been nice - it would've also provoked a bit of closeness.

All and all though, your edits and style is lovely, as is your site. TBH, the blog has more shots that I would prefer to the ones above. Best of luck with the new venture.
 
Last edited:
As Sid says ... minor tweaks. Good work on your first paid gig - but clear that this isn't your first one - and your prior informal experience has helped greatly.

My pedantic note is for image 1 - the traffic cone. Assuming that was a setup shot you should have moved it for the shot. Worst case it merited an edit out in PS before showing the image.

Jerry Ghionis taught me always have the brides arms outside in an embrace as it moves them away front the body and prevents them being widened and flattened.

I'm also not sure of your colour balance in the ceremony images, but that may be entirely on purpose.
 
Got to agree about the traffic cone in shot 1; the problem is, it's the only red item in the scene and the eye is often naturally drawn to it. Still, that's where the clone tool is useful.
The view inside the car is a real diamond!
 
decigallen said:
I don't agree with Sid that you should focus on the bride.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I wasn't suggesting that in general the emphasis should be on the bride - simply that if this pose had been shot from the other side, there'd be much the same amount of the groom's face in the picture but far more of the bride's.
 
OK, ref the full blog post, a few observations which might perhaps give you something to think about ...

Bride texting - if you hadn't followed the herd and shot the "half wall, half subject" picture, there was a potential award-winner of a shot to be had from where you were simply by shooting the r/h half of that picture portrait rather than landscape.

Ring box with bride in background is well seen.

Larger of the two shoe shots - fine for the bride herself, but if potential customers are going to see a shoe shot, don't have the maker's name visible unless it's Choo/Blahnik/Louboutin or whatever brides currently have small orgasms over. Same goes for the label on the frock, btw.

Bridgden's Hire Wear - the only people who might want to see a hire company's name on anything are the couple. Nobody else will understand why you took that picture.

Girls all laughing (shot below bouquet delivery) - Well caught but what's actually going on there? I'm wondering the same as anybody else who wasn't there will wonder - why are they grouped like that and who/what were they all laughing at?

Flower girl in doorway - that's really well caught, but zap that lock plate and it's a stronger picture.

Bride in doorway holding bouquet - nice!

The six guest shots between the Reservoir Dogs and bridesmaids getting out of car - I'd bin all six. They're all Uncle Bob pictures and you don't need them. If you can't get any good snaps of a particular stage in the proceedings for whatever reason, just forget it and move on. Including non-pictures just weakens the impact of all the good stuff.

Bride getting out of VW - spot on AFAIC. Well done.

Processional - I'm guessing that you weren't expecting them to lead her in. If that's going to happen (and you always need to check with the priest before kickoff), you're actually better off at the aisle end of a pew on the groom's side, about six back. That lets you grab a few of the star of the show and Dad after the other buggers have gone past, and if it's your lucky day and you're quick enough, the groom turning round to look at her too. It even works if Dad's on the wrong side of her.

Long shot down from back of church - lovely. I take it that was the first church wedding the videographer had done? Either that or nobody's complained about the way he sets up a tripod in a church ...

That staged signing shot that's on the slosh is lovely - and that's from somebody who really hates staged signing shots!

Couple with old biddy in wheelchair - all that's wrong with that is it's cropped too loose.

Letterbox crop with the geese - well seen and well caught.

Posed couple shot with the red blobs - close but no cigar AFAIC. The blobs are too predominant and you've been unlucky with the noses.

The one below that - keep the aspect ratio but crop it in from the left to lose half of that space behind his back, zap her fingertips and you've got a really nice bog standard posed couple shot of exactly the type 95% of couples actually want - if only for Mum and Dad to frame.

Groom + signpost is a nice idea well executed.

Bar top shot and the dude with the acoustic guitar - see above re those six guest shots. Same goes for Kid In Armchair With Neck Of Guitar.

Groups are nicely done but I'd have got more height for the everybody shot so as to bring all the heads below the "horizon" and help a little bit with the folks at the back. BTW, don't forget the traditional call "Midgets and Shortarses to the front now please".

Bridesmaid with the gob coming at you - fine for the couple, obviously, but ffs don't let potential punters see it.

And the rest of it's fine apart from the empty "stage" and tables shot (pointless) and the b/w on the slosh of the guitar player (it's a crap very weak shot compared to what's gone before and what comes after).

All things considered, it's excellent IMO. Processing's too variable for me, although when it's good, it's very good, but apart from that I reckon your only real weakness is the usual one of not doing a tight enough edit. If it doubt, chuck it out's always a good maxim.

BTW, was the video guy a professional? If so, I reckon you did well to get that coverage without him or her cramping your style.
 
Last edited:
The full blog post looks fantastic IMO. I really like the processing and some wonderful moments caught. Some great C&C from Dan above with some specifics, a couple which I would agree with and some I probably wouldn't have picked up on on my own. I would be very happy if I was turning stuff like this out. With regards to the second image here, not sure I get it. It's too set up as an isle shot IMO, with the lack of guests etc. It's very well shot, as said above.
 
Graeme, considering this is your first wedding it's pretty damn amazing, the photos on the blog are excellent and you have exceptional talent for someone who has only been into photography for 4 years. I took a look at your Flickr site too and again some excellent photos showing great photography skills. You are clearly a natural and if you have the right personality and business accumen you will go do very well in the high end wedding market. Well done!!!
 
Last edited:
Wowzers....Thanks for all the feedback and some really good and constructive criticism which is really appreciated and is what I was after, its has definitely been noted, The
B+G where chuffed to bits and I got a really nice email of them, which was nice and reassuring , it's always good to see what other toggers think, as toggers see things that the average joe don't.

Thanks guys
 
GR3Z said:
Wowzers....Thanks for all the feedback and some really good and constructive criticism which is really appreciated and is what I was after, its has definitely been noted, The
B+G where chuffed to bits and I got a really nice email of them, which was nice and reassuring , it's always good to see what other toggers think, as toggers see things that the average joe don't.

Thanks guys
Click to expand...

I could critique individual photos but to be honest it would be minor points and considering it's your first wedding, that is an excellent set! Lovely processing too.
 
Super work Graeme for your first effort. Website looked good too at a quick glance. The only one that stood out for critique was the shot next to the water, looks a little too under exposed, but good consistency throughout.
 
What a great set of pictures. I love the film/matte style of pp. Nice work :)
 
GR3Z said:
It's a vsco preset originally but I've tweaked the preset, got rid of the grain and adjusted the split toning and Curves to taste and saved as my own base preset :)
Click to expand...

Getting rid of the grain is one of the first things I do with VSCO. Certain presets work with certain pictures I've found although i'm still playing. Replichrome and Red Leaf are quite good too.
 
doublemint76 said:
I love the film/matte style of pp. Nice work :)
Click to expand...

Dan, can you help me out here? I'm trying to get this whole "film" or "vintage" look thing clear in my head as it applies to wedding photos at the moment, and it might help me greatly if you can tell me which of Graeme's pictures best illustrate the effect(s) you're referring to.
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
Dan, can you help me out here? I'm trying to get this whole "film" or "vintage" look thing clear in my head as it applies to wedding photos at the moment, and it might help me greatly if you can tell me which of Graeme's pictures best illustrate the effect(s) you're referring to.
Click to expand...

They all have a film (camera film NOT movie) look to them. Its how back in the day different types of film used to expose, which look different to digital images. Vsco for instance has presets which emulate all the different types of film, there are no one click fixes but they work great as a starting point and if you persevere you can get some great result which Graeme has done.

Have a look on the VSCO site or youtube there should be plenty of videos.
 
1 and 2 show the look very clearly: no solid blacks and an almost misty haze to the image.
 
This processing is very much in vogue at the minute, almost adds a little muddiness to the images. I do wonder whether it will date as many who shoot in this style are using this look. But all that said, it's important you have your own look so each to their own, these would be strong whatever processing.
 
doublemint76 said:
They all have a film (camera film NOT movie) look to them. Its how back in the day different types of film used to expose, which look different to digital images.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Having grown up shooting both colour neg and transparency (anybody else remember Adox, Ferrania, Gevaert and Agfa 35mm colour?), I'm well aware of the differences. The reason I asked though is that I keep seeing so-called "film" or "vintage" processing which makes me wonder if the person who did the processing has any idea what the real thing actually looks/looked like. In this instance though, I reckon the OP has got it closer than most folks do, and I was interested to note that although it's not quite like the look that's currently in vogue, you commented favourably on it. I was therefore wondering if it resonated with you in the same way it does with me, and I guess it does :)

ancient_mariner said:
1 and 2 show the look very clearly: no solid blacks and an almost misty haze to the image.
Click to expand...

It's that "almost misty haze" that gets to me. That seems to be a key element in the "look" which is currently fashionable for wedding photography in particular, and AFAIC it's nearly always grossly overdone. I reckon if you shoot the same subject in the same light on colour neg and on digital, then you print the film shot traditionally and the digital shot on something like a Fuji Frontier, then compare them side by side, the difference in clarity (for want of a better term) will simply be one of definition/apparent sharpness. The trad print shouldn't look at all "misty" by comparison.

Livin The Dream said:
This processing is very much in vogue at the minute, almost adds a little muddiness to the images. I do wonder whether it will date as many who shoot in this style are using this look. But all that said, it's important you have your own look so each to their own, these would be strong whatever processing.
Click to expand...

To my way of thinking it's not so much processing like Graeme's that's in vogue, but rather half-baked attempts at it by "me too" wedding snappers who feel compelled to follow the herd. IMO it's their output, not Graeme's, that will date just as soon as the bridal bloggers move on to the next must-have look.
 
Last edited:
TBH it reminds me of the way a very badly exposed C41 image would look after the lab had done their best to recover the image. :eek:

It has a vintage charm because a lot of the people getting married now would have seen that style of image in their parents albums: they would have been using very limited cameras that almost inevitably would make a mess of exposure. Because of my age and background it makes me want to ask why the photographer couldn't get the exposure right, but of course that's not the case at all, and it's just an effect like sepia. ;)
 
Love these Graeme. I've followed your work since I've/we've been on TP and on flickr and always loved it, now you've set yourself a new high standard with these fella. Nice work and well done.
 
Fantastic Critage from Sid - Can't really add to that very detailed list.

I'm not a fan of the processing style (as others have discussed), but thts a matter of personal taste rather than good or bad. I'm also of the opinion that the "reservoir dogs walk" is a bit of a cliche (only one step removed frombride in a wine glass and wedding party being chased by a T rex )

Minor points aside though for a first wedding these are damn good though ( significantly better than the dross i took at my first ever back in the day)
 
I've been asked a few times to photograph someone's wedding and I have refused. I think there is a lot of pressure to get things right; and for me it takes away the enjoyment of taking pictures. I much prefer to mingle and take my own shots, then give them to the couple afterwards (usually on a CD.) I find they often compliment the formal pictures quite well and gives the couple a wider variety of pictures from the day. I wish you the best of luck with your new venture. You are braver than me.

I have had a look through these, and the ones on your website, and I have to admit I think they are on the whole very good. I would have certainly been more than happy with pictures of this quality, so well done. There are a few things I don't like, but there always will be, different tastes etc. For example in No 1 I find the traffic cone on the left distracting and unnecessary. It should have been removed before hand or cloned out. It adds nothing to the shot.
 
And from the ones on the website, a few thoughts.
Pic 115, I don't like the hands in the lower right. The shot s about the person on the left putting the flowers onto the groom.
Pic 140 - I find the person behind the bride popping into view distracting.
Pic 224 - (and a few afterwards) the lighting makes the hair look bright orange.
Pic 328 - Dunno what the pink/purple spray paint is all about.
Pic 332 - Branch top left too distracting - too prominent.
Pic 349 ??? Why?
Pic 364 - OOF branch on right too prominent and distracting.
Pic 369 - Shoot from a slightly different viewpoint to avoid the cars in the background.
Pic 504 - same again, too big an area too prominent in the shot not adding to the image.

And a final thought - there is some obvious post processing, to give it a style you obviously like. Generally the pictures look washed out, lacking punch. And whilst it works well in some shots I think it doesn't work in all of them. Maybe when the happy couple come round to view them offer them the choice, it should be easy to do if you save a copy before applying the effect.

Please don't feel I've rubbished your work. I think that it is generally to a very high standard; and I know you can't get everything 100% in every shot. Considering you only got a DSLR 3 to 4 years ago I think you are doing brilliantly, far better than I could do. I wish you every success with your business.
 
Its very easy to pic at photographs after the event and i agree with most of what has been said. Having said that for your first go you should be very proud. There are hundreds of photographers out there making a living out of wedding photography whose photos are not up to yours. So well done and never stop learning, I have photographed over 700 weddings and I'm always looking to get better.
 
I'm not keen on the "50 shades of grey" mono conversions, but everything else is a big improvement. IMO your fondness for the currently-trendy use of negative space above the subject needs taming just a bit more*, but apart from that I'd be happy with this one :)

* on the basis that if you don't do it so often, it has more impact when you do.
 
Simply superb Graeme! It has been a pleasure to watch you develop and take it to this level, excellent work, I bet they are elated with them.
 
I haven't read all the above comments but why has the world of photography suddenly become more about the post processing (presets, whatever) than the actual photo.

As to the photos:-

1) Traffic cone
2) Empty church
3) Skin tones are off and I'm not mad on the huge area of white to the left of the couple

Will have a look at the blog another time.
 
Didn't do much commenting on the original post but this second blog is very, very good IMO. This is what I aspire to try and do. Some amazing moments in there. The couple sat down through the windows is just brilliant IMO.

There is one thing that I personally don't like and that's the way the flash illuminates the ground leading up to the couple. It's a bit of a bug bear of mine. Although I am not saying I could do it better, far from it in fact.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Didn't do much commenting on the original post but this second blog is very, very good IMO. This is what I aspire to try and do. Some amazing moments in there. The couple sat down through the windows is just brilliant IMO.

There is one thing that I personally don't like and that's the way the flash illuminates the ground leading up to the couple. It's a bit of a bug bear of mine. Although I am not saying I could do it better, far from it in fact.
Click to expand...


Aspire...... you already their dude I've been following your posts and your work for a while , you have some great stuff on your blog... :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top