Wedding Shots

[AB26]

Did a bit of that crazy thing they call Wedding Photography. I just love it.
I would love to hear any comment on these shots.
Composition, angle, etc.

Thanks for spending time to look.

THE VENUE:


Bride & Groom


Editing done in Picasa

[GrahamH]

Good morning Andre,
I've tried wedding photography and hope to much more in the future and I know how intense it can be, but I love that aspect.
You've got a lot of good things going on, and imagery can be so personal, so I'll point out the stuff I like and not so much.
Frames tend to be a personal choice, but not for me, I would prefer vignettes - more subtle.

Venue - I like the way you've framed the shot with the tree to the right and overall a nice composition (and that's the main thing, and a big thing). Couple of little things. I find there is a little too much tree at the base (and too dark). Clipped highlights in the white cloth but the main thing fo rme is the way the tree limb (lower tree) impinges on the pagoda. If there had been room, moving a little to the left would have removed the background tree competing with the pagoda. Ain't 20/20 hindsight a wonderful thing. Overall a good shot, tweaked and it would have been even better.

Graham
Here's an adjusted version (hope you don't mind).

[AB26]

Hi Graham, thanks.
Maybe you would have liked this one better?

[GrahamH]

Classic, but there's a reason for that. It works. Great shot.
For a wedding series, it's difficult to assess a single shot as the whole tells the story.
Great shot
Graham

[dubaiphil]

Maybe a little too much vignette on the last shot, mind you

[rpcrowe]

I have noticed that a lot of newby wedding photographers focus (pun intended) their attention on the inanimate aspects of weddings, the layout of the ceremony area, the cake, the chapel (if one is used), the gifts, etc., etc., etc... At the expense of showing the wedding couple, wedding party and guests...

That is very much like bringing home travel pictures consisting of nothing but buildings and sunsets with no people visible...

IMO, for wedding coverage; you can never have too many pictures of the bride, the bride and more of the bride...

[hoffstriker]

I have noticed that a lot of newby wedding photographers focus (pun intended) their attention on the inanimate aspects of weddings, the layout of the ceremony area, the cake, the chapel (if one is used), the gifts, etc., etc., etc... At the expense of showing the wedding couple, wedding party and guests...

Unfortunately, this appears to be the new aesthetic in the eastern half of the country Richard. The brides simply love it and think it's "artsy". I'm not completely sold on it, but it does tend to be a trend. Now, that all being said, these shots tend to be (for the most part) macro shots. Not straight on shots, as the newbie tend to do, but a tad more pizazz involved. The attempt to show an aspect of the wedding that is standard from a different point of view.

[GrahamH]

I've shot a couple of weddings and I've found the shots that the B&G like are the people shots initially, but they already know the people so it's more of a comment that they were there. The ones that seem to garner more attention are the detail shots, the shots that remind them of the little things that they forgot or even hadn't noticed.
I did read an article that said that the money shots are the people shots. They are the ones that people buy, the B&G shots, the group shots, the family shots. However, when selling the photographer to a potential client, it is the artsy, detail shot that make a strong impact as well as the formal B&G shots. The group shots are difficult to anything with other than the normal cliched (cos they work) shots. How many 'reservoir dogs' shots have you seen of the guys? The girls walking away from the camera, looking over their shoulders? Standing on the steps? etc. etc.
You say macro, by that do you actually mean macro or a close up? I haven't seen much wedding macro work, and would be intrigued by that direction and how it tells a story. Shots of the ring, shoes, flowers and so on are common to a photographer, but the B&G are not as aware of these classic shots so makes a bigger impact.
Remember when HDR first started, way more impact than now. Subtly has returned to those in the scene, but many outside of photography are still surprised and like the different (to them) approach.

I still have wedding pics from my first wedding, boring as all get out (film days). All people shots and nothing different. Anyone with a digital camera can get an okay shot of them, what significantly differentiates an Uncle Fred from a 'photographer'?
With the freedom ot take as many shots as you wish and check the results as you go, it's great to be able to experiment. The Uncle Freds wait until the shot is given to them on a platter and take that, along with all the other Uncle Freds. We look for the opportunity and take the shot even if it doesn't work, some will and some won't but we go looking for the shot actively rather than passively. To me, that makes a huge difference, and results in detail shots as well as people shots, location shots, memory shots rather than confirmation shots (as I said - 'oh yeah, Aunty Josephina was there wasn't she').
An then there are candid shots.
Graham

[AB26]

Thanks Graham, Phil & Chris.
Yes Richard I agree, too many shots can be wasted on lesser important subjects. The bride is the star of the show and 80%+ of shots should be where the bride is in the picture. I did capture the venue, cake, decorations etc. one or two shots of each, it is important to the ladies, those fine details. With wedding photography a lot can be learned from a lady photographer as they know what is important to a bride.
Some photographers go out and shoot hundreds of pictures at a wedding. I tend to think it is better to get better shots rather than more shots. Too many shots are also wasted on guests. The bride only wants pictures of guests whom are important to her, the rest are wasted.
Steve Sint gives very good advice in a book he wrote on Wedding Photography. He also shares his repertoire in the book. It is a good guide for anybody interested in doing weddings, either as amateur or Pro.

Graham, if you want to turn Pro why not Wedding Photography?