Wow! The second one at the link( http://foradaydreambeliever.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/september-vogue-2012-winter-blooms.html ) is hideous!
Anyway, to the OP. I’m not a fan of the low contrast look that is trendy at the moment. That you can get that look when you want it, is nice. I suppose the look is find for a school project with a shelf life of a term or two. If I saw that look in your portfolio while looking for a wedding photographer, I would move on to the next candidate immediately.
After years of being completely opposed to watermarks, I have been persuaded they have a place, if tastefully done, on Facebook photos. On other sites that retain EXIF data, I prefer not to see a watermark.
I share ebi’s view of white vignettes. I’m not very fond of vignettes generally. For those of you wondering where they are, look at the first photo again.
I don’t think I have time to get through everything in detail and what I saw in the comments was pretty good so just a couple of quick points.
In the projector photo, why is there a bright spot on her leg? Why is all the film on the take-up reel? Why is the projector’s lamp off? Why are they still watching the screen? Did they freeze in that position while the movie was playing last night, and the sun has not thawed them out yet? That pose looks like it would be uncomfortable by the end of a 30 minute reel. That projector table really reflects the fill flash.
Fireman carry photo. That has the pasty look of badly exposed Agfa film. The camera looks like it was cut out of a different magazine and pasted over whatever she had in her hand.
Perfume photo. What is the grey thing in front of the bottle? Why is it there? I’m not sure I like the camera tilt, I’m sure I don’t like the spot colour attempt. I think the grey thing might be a petal. The photo needs colour.
Last photo. The background is terrible. The pose makes the bride look anorexic. She needs to get her shoulders back.
Got to run.