[ichiban]

Well, I know there are some wedding photogs on here. *ahem* rodi *ahem*. Critique these for me. These are just the first batch.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

[lopealle]

thats nice man congtrats

[- Paul -]

Looking good - like em all.

[KingOfJericho]

Let the photoshopping begin...

Originally Posted by ichiban

[anthony @ eas]

Very good shots!

[immiketoo]

Ummmm. the cleavage is out of focus ... I'm just sayin...

[scollins]

On #6, I would have liked to see some more DOF, with her hands and flowers in focus.

#5 is a great shot! Captures the emotion of the moment.

[ichiban]

added a few more, thanks for the critiques guys.

[rodi]

2>1

the angle on 1 is just too predictable. you nailed it with #2 though. love the light depth that you captured.

watch your white balance on those champagne shots.

#6 you've cut off her pinky fingers and included too little/too much of her arms on the sides of the frame.

the others are very nice, i just can't stand portrait orientation shots. maybe i'm just too programed to seeing things in 16:9 aspect. when you shoot portrait mode, you lose so much of the scene. i.e.: #3: how far do the bubbles go? #5: who is she reacting to? look at what else could have been included with a different frame orientation. #4A: the bottom part of the frame is useless and doesn't add anything to the shot.
These are just opinions, of course - ha, i'm starting a coup to eradicate vertical/portrait-oriented photos. it has better use for graphic design and posters and such.


i'd still hire you for second shooting, though. ;]




with the added images and number changes:
3>2

the angle on 1 is just too predictable. you nailed it with #3 though. love the light depth that you captured.

watch your white balance on those champagne shots.

#11 you've cut off her pinky fingers and included too little/too much of her arms on the sides of the frame.

#5 is spot on.
#12 is a great catch, perfect tones, too.

the others are very nice, i just can't stand portrait orientation shots. maybe i'm just too programed to seeing things in 16:9 aspect. when you shoot portrait mode, you lose so much of the scene. i.e.: #8: how far do the bubbles go? #10: who is she reacting to? look at what else could have been included with a different frame orientation. #9A: the bottom part of the frame is useless and doesn't add anything to the shot.
These are just opinions, of course - ha, i'm starting a coup to eradicate vertical/portrait-oriented photos. it has better use for graphic design and posters and such.


i'd still hire you for second shooting, though. ;]

[KingOfJericho]

#3 & 12 are excellent IMHO.

[TL]

wow looks good. what type of camera and lens did you used for the shoot?

[anthony @ eas]

12 is really good.

[ichiban]

Thanks for the critique rodi. Yea, I really have to include more of the story more in the pictures.

TL: Thanks, I used a 50D, and a 5D, with 85L mark I, 24-70, 17-50 2.8 tamron, and 50 1.4 for this wedding.

Thanks anthony.

[UdubBadger]

i agree, great stuff. I'd hire you for my wedding having seen these

[TL]

Originally Posted by ichiban

Thanks for the critique rodi. Yea, I really have to include more of the story more in the pictures.

TL: Thanks, I used a 50D, and a 5D, with 85L mark I, 24-70, 17-50 2.8 tamron, and 50 1.4 for this wedding.

Thanks anthony.

Wow, that's a lot of gear you got there for the shoot. Thanks for sharing

[ichiban]

most of it was the main photographer's gear, i would say 80 - 90 % of the pictures i took where from the 5d + 85L combo.

[UdubBadger]

its a hell of a combo...

[ibeclueless]

very nice pictures

[ichiban]

Here are a few more.
13.

14.

15.

16.


I just got my pictures from my 2nd wedding back. Both weddings have some goofy grooms, it's great.

[lopealle]

ok it looks like i was confused. your a photographer got it. lol

the pics look grreat