First Medium Format digital wedding shots

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: 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.

First Medium Format digital wedding shots

Postby padey on Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:39 pm

Still 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.


Image

Image

Image

Image
Andrew


Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
padey
Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:23 pm
Location: Sydney, Hills Area

Postby rokkstar on Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:01 am

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
User avatar
rokkstar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Miserable cold wet England - D200

Postby gstark on Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:53 am

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
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22924
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby myarhidia on Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:47 am

Great images, what lens did you use with it?
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
User avatar
myarhidia
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:49 pm
Location: Kingsgrove, Sydney, So where the bloody hell are you?

Postby Oscar on Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:00 am

Great shots Andrew. All well composed. Cheers, Mick :) :) :)

(The shot with the 4 blokes seems to have a blue hue on my monitor at work)
User avatar
Oscar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Panania, Sydney

Postby Wocka on Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:53 am

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
User avatar
Wocka
Member
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:05 pm
Location: Northern Beaches

Postby ABG on Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:19 pm

Lovely work as usual Andrew. Even at these small sizes the images contain wonderful detail.
Andrew
User avatar
ABG
Senior Member
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Oatley, Sydney

Postby pippin88 on Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:18 pm

Great shots.
- Nick
Gallery
User avatar
pippin88
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Newcastle / Sydney

Postby shakey on Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:18 pm

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...

:)
User avatar
shakey
Senior Member
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:24 pm
Location: Far South Coast NSW

Postby gecko on Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:57 pm

I can't see the images....
have they gone on honeymoon? :wink:

Gecko
Nikon D70, SB600, Benbo Trekker, LSII, KingPano and a lot to learn!
User avatar
gecko
Member
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:08 pm
Location: Ashgrove, Brisbane

Postby jethro on Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:20 pm

Great imaging. You should be proud of your acheivment
Jethro
shoot it real.

look! and see. Shoot and feel
User avatar
jethro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:03 pm
Location: down south, sydney

Postby padey on Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:13 pm

shakey wrote: 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.
:)


Just wondering why it matters where the bridal party is looking considering they are OOF?
Andrew


Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
padey
Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:23 pm
Location: Sydney, Hills Area

Postby Alpha_7 on Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:34 pm

padey wrote:Just wondering why it matters where the bridal party is looking considering they are OOF?


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.
User avatar
Alpha_7
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7259
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 6:19 pm
Location: Mortdale - Sydney - Nikon D700, x-D200, Leica, G9

Postby shakey on Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:26 pm

padey wrote:Just wondering why it matters where the bridal party is looking considering they are OOF?


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... :P :P :P
User avatar
shakey
Senior Member
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:24 pm
Location: Far South Coast NSW

Postby padey on Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:41 pm

shakey wrote:
padey wrote:Just wondering why it matters where the bridal party is looking considering they are OOF?


I think OOF elements are important and cannot be discarded in the evaluation of a photo.

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.

shakey wrote: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.


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. :D
Andrew


Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
padey
Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:23 pm
Location: Sydney, Hills Area

Postby shakey on Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:10 pm

padey wrote: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. :D


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
User avatar
shakey
Senior Member
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:24 pm
Location: Far South Coast NSW


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques