Wedding Portraits

Show everyone the latest shots which make you feel dead chuffed with your camera choice
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
User avatar
pakodominguez
Minister with Portfolio
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Wedding Portraits

Unread post by pakodominguez »

a bride an a muse -good plan!
;-)
PS: the close up in wide angle don't really work....
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lonnie Utah
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Wedding Portraits

Unread post by Lonnie Utah »

pakodominguez wrote:PS: the close up in wide angle don't really work....
Sometimes it has to work so you don't step on the flowers where you are shooting.... ;)
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6118
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Wedding Portraits

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

I think I tend to like the slightly defocussed background ones more than the close detailed background ones even though the model is more sharply depicted in the close background ones (great detail and great exposures, and she does look lovely btw), it's just I'm not overly taken with the backgrounds in the defocussed ones either, The mountain in the background one is good but there is a bitumen road on the left, the green defocussed hill is good but the long grass is distracting, (that one or even both might look better taken from further back with a longer lens..maybe, it would enlarge the background), and the urban one is a bit busy in the background (fence and houses). Is there a nice park on a river bank handy? or a botanical garden? How about in front of a large church, wedding dresses and a church slightly defocussed in the background should look pretty good as they go together naturally.
Just my 2 cents. :)
Greg
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Wedding Portraits

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

Lonnie, I like your shots a lot, but remember the old advice - GET DOWN on your knees to the bride!

It changes the full lengths for the better if you do. A few of these have too much of the full height male perspective which can make the legs/dress look smaller and the top, topheavy.

I have always been willing to eat dirt for good full length girl pix. That's why on the very few pro wedding I have done, I have worn jeans not a suit (OK, Armani, but still makes it easier to lie on the ground or climb trees for the right viewpoint).

David
Lonnie Utah
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Wedding Portraits

Unread post by Lonnie Utah »

Greg Beetham wrote:and the urban one is a bit busy in the background (fence and houses).
Funny cause that's the one she and most people that she has shown the proof too like the most. We are both originally from the south. Think plantation homes, weeping willow trees and the like. That was exaclty "the look" she was after with the old timey simple lace dress....
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6118
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Wedding Portraits

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

I didn't say I didn't like it, (I just had another look to refresh my memory), I think it's the white fence more than anything that I'm not too keen on, and maybe the slight down angle, (as David pointed out), even if you were to crouch down and take that shot again I think it would be an improvement, but look Lonnie if she likes it, and everyone else likes it, then it's a winner....there's no need to do anything, don't take any notice of me, I'm mostly just making conversation :)
Greg
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests