Well… If you have been reading the threads, you already know what ebi thinks about a white vignette. I see you have at least one in the wedding photos.
Let’s look at a few wedding photos.
http://www.edgefocal.com/Weddings/Wedding-Gallery/i-Td5Twsp/A, has a very ‘B’ movie feel, in another moment the bats will arrive just as he turns into a vampire. But then the twist. Being so grey, she actually has no blood in her and when he tries to bite her, she bites him instead. Sorry, very active imagination today. Don’t know what the original looked like but I have seen skies like that before when Photoshop experiments have gone off the rails. They both look over smoothed and skin colour is very bad. Does he really have a pink shirt on?
http://www.edgefocal.com/Weddings/Wedding-Gallery/i-ggjd2t5/A, is the second one in the chain, and the second one I would not put in a portfolio. We don’t see the girl in the white dress. We have the woman behind her, without a head. Way in the back there is another woman who’s face is in deep shadow with a splash of light on her throat. There is some guy standing in the background, hand on chest, perhaps, cut from left shoulder to right hip by the edge of the frame. Are these folks in Witness Protection? You have a frame in a wedding and you can’t tell who anyone is!
http://www.edgefocal.com/Weddings/Wedding-Gallery/i-T52p5z8/A, is pretty hot! White dress? Pink dress? White I think. Detail? A little at the side. That might be a pretty necklace. It is so burned out it is hard to tell. It also looks too smoothed. Butterfly lighting but from what I have seen, I think that just happened on its own. Since she only has one eye, and the photo seems tilted, I assume you were trying to emphasize the necklace?
http://www.edgefocal.com/Weddings/Wedding-Gallery/i-n3Fznx7/X2, is another Witness Protection Program photo? I don’t know what it is with wedding dresses, a bride that’s 5’6 and might weigh 100 lbs still looks like she has too much ass when shot square on from behind. The view gets even less flattering for larger brides. It looks like there are three people in the photo, but you only really see two. There is a lot of reflection off the leaves in the background which deliver spectral highlights. Why is this in your portfolio?
http://www.edgefocal.com/Weddings/Wedding-Gallery/i-LvXQFKJ/X2, needs a different crop. It also needs a lot less processing. For instance, why does a flower girl need skin smoothing? Then, why does it look like she is littering instead of spreading petals? She is over exposed. Why the colour extraction? Why did you leave some green in? Why didn’t you crop off the out of focus foliage down the left side? Pretty little flower girl, presumably nicely groomed grounds. A wide set of steps with limestone risers. And this is what we get! This is the fifth one in, and so far, I don’t see anything I would put into a portfolio.
http://www.edgefocal.com/Weddings/Wedding-Gallery/i-mWnVBnc/X2, at least is all B&W. OK, it shows the bow on the back of the flower girl’s dress. All that greenery sure is shiny! I bet the grounds are gorgeous but so far I’m not seeing that in your photos even though you are showing us what might be called environmental portraits. Not a portfolio shot but it would be nice filler in an album if it was in colour and the highlights were brought down.
http://www.edgefocal.com/Weddings/Wedding-Gallery/i-pPCfs9k/X2, where did you find the mannequin? Seriously, look at the orange skin. Where is the detail in the dress? That girl has pretty nice nails. In fact, her nails are what grab me most about the photo, after I get past her skin. The other thing I don’t quite get is that diamonds are cut to sparkle like crazy when light strikes them and hers seems kind of flat! Another one I would not put into a portfolio.
Then we have the first couple again, in B&W, but they still look odd.
And moving along… http://www.edgefocal.com/Weddings/Wedding-Gallery/i-NVgD66N/X2, looks like bad HDR. I’m reasonably sure it’s not real HDR because moving people don’t lend themselves to that process, they blur. The little girl’s face is three large white areas which would otherwise be a single white area but for the dark ‘Y’ in the middle. Not flattering. Not portfolio material.
http://www.edgefocal.com/Weddings/Wedding-Gallery/i-NWB7f2B/X2, the bride is dancing with a little girl, while a couple in the background are disengaged. The bride’s dress is missing most of the detail. It’s tilted enough to look like you meant it but a square portrait orientation might have got the whole of the bride and girl while cutting out the other couple.
http://www.edgefocal.com/Weddings/Wedding-Gallery/i-p2sCXG5/XL, white icing or yellow icing? If I pull a copy and use it as a white reference, it turns white. I would have tried to find a different wall for a background, or shot down to get a cleaner background. Lighting makes it look pretty flat.
http://www.edgefocal.com/Weddings/Wedding-Gallery/i-zcLzMs7/XL, there’s that white vignette. Others may have it, but it is so obvious in this one that it distracts. Zoom in, to see her face. Besides being way too bright, focus is on the hair at her right side. Her eyes should be in focus. There is a hint of butterfly shadow under her nose but there is a much stronger shadow from her hand suggesting two lights, and the fill light was way too strong! You can barely make out the bridge of her nose.
I’ll stop here. I’d like to see the original files. Ideally original raw files. I think some of them could be a lot better through post processing, although the ideal is that post takes a good picture and makes it great rather than using it to save so-so shots.