But anyway, here are a few from fri/sat weddings.




First Medium Format digital wedding shotsModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
16 posts
• Page 1 of 1
First Medium Format digital wedding shotsStill a lot to learn with this camera, but the 16.6MP has an amazing amount of detail that just doesn't translate in a 700x700 image. Seriously amazing dress detail at full res.
But anyway, here are a few from fri/sat weddings. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Andrew
Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
I love the square picture that medium format gives.
THese are great shots padey. I particularly like # 1 - such a lovely shot. The bouquet works so well in the middle. Next up would be #3. It just works, and I love their moody poses. Great shots. Matt
Andrew,
Luverley. Throw the four musketeers into b&W or sepia. ![]() g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
All are fantastic.
I think you need to crop out the pole on the right hand side of No# 3. It caught my eye and spent 30 seconds wondering what it was. I figured it out when I saw image No# 4. Cheers Warwick
======= Canon 40D : 350D Canon 18-55mm : Canon 75-300mm IS USM : Sigma 30mm EX HSM DC 1.4 : Sigma 10-20mm
Just to disagree a little..for me the second shot and the third shot are very good..I like the "attitude" in the third shot. But I'm not so enthusiastic about the other two. In the first we have a fairly bland looking bouquet as the focal point for an OOF backgroung bridal group, who are looking somewhere else. Doesn't work for me I'm afraid. In the 4th shot there is a sort of a pole interposed while they are kissing. While I could go the "double entendre" approach I don't find the pose attractive and, IMO, it doesn't flatter the bride.
But...if the B&G love them..that's the most important thing..and what I say isn't worth a sack of beans... ![]()
Just wondering why it matters where the bridal party is looking considering they are OOF? Andrew
Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
Andrew, my wife actually mentioned this too when she saw the shot, she thought they were busy looking at the 2nd photographer or thats how it seemed with there attention all off the screen.
I think OOF elements are important and cannot be discarded in the evaluation of a photo. It's clear that there is a posed bridal party in the background and that their attention is somewhere else apart from the bouquet, which is the subject of the photo. I know that I'm in a clear minority about this shot...but what the heck.. I know what I like... ![]() ![]() ![]()
I agree, that is why i put the bridal party there. If there was no relevance to the OOF elements, there would have been no need for a bridal party in the OOF area. But that is not why i'm asking you to clarify your opinion.
Maybe I'll redefine my question to you. Since the bridal party is OOF, why is it important to you, that the bridal party be looking at the bouquet? What do you think it adds to the image, but on the other hand what will it take away from the image? Let me answer this question. (I actually have the same shot with them looking at me, so i have a little advantage) With them looking at me, it looks a little to posed and I don't gain any facial detail. It also looses the candid nature of the groom pointing toward something on the pond. I'm keen to understand how you approach this image. ![]() Andrew
Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
I guess I would have the bridal party split up in groups of two and three, standing on the boardwalk talking, and looking, at each other in the OOF area.., rather than as a posed group looking, as a group, at something else, particularly when that object is not obvious..sorry I can't see the groom pointing at something in the pond. Anyway I've said enough...and since everyone else loves the photo it obviously connects. ![]() ![]() Cheers
Previous topic • Next topic
16 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|