October 3, 2013 at 1:12 pm #13876
I’ve only done one wedding (for free) I hope to get better in time. thanks for any feedback in advance! have a nice day! -jessOctober 3, 2013 at 3:22 pm #13882
Copyright Protected Image
Who do you think is going to steal images that size from Flash?
Just for reference, here is one of your photos. Removing the water mark took 12 minutes, while enjoying a coffee. Why are you defacing your photos?
A more pressing question … Why is the room pregnant? I like the colours and light but it distresses me that the wall is about to burst!
Did you do that intentionally? Or were you hoping for something more square?October 3, 2013 at 3:27 pm #13883
Well, that is weird! After complaining about the copyright watermark, I found a way to see at least the wedding photos without it!
Also, on your home page, the beach photo really looks odd until you mouse over it. I’m not sure that’s a good idea. If I just landed on that page without being directed to it, I would think “Yech!!” and move on to the next URL.October 3, 2013 at 3:55 pm #13886
I think some of your photos are not bad. Others give pause.
This one for instance, http://jessnphotography.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Weddings-2013/G0000QcZc7k2Mtu0/I00009tWoLFErbUA. It has a lot going on. It needs the DOF to include the toes, all the way to the front of the shoe should be sharp. As it is, those twirly things seem to float.
Is that the wedding ring? Nice rock! But, it looks more like an engagement ring. I’m wondering why you are showing that in a wedding set.
It looks like the shoes are on a round coffee table in front of a white sofa. You need to watch your backgrounds. What is the black microphone shaped thing? Probably a shadow caused by the shape of cushions, but if you use your imagination, it could be an girl’s entertainment device. I would replace the background.
Little objects like rings can really be a pain. The closer you get, the less DOF is available. Lots of light and small aperture help. Those rings don’t look like they are a match for the one in the box with the shoes. If you can’t afford a good macro lens, check out extension tubes. They will let your existing lenses focus closer. They unfortunately won’t help DOF.
In http://jessnphotography.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Weddings-2013/G0000QcZc7k2Mtu0/I0000RmG5ZR.Btlw, the good news is you have a little blue in the sky. You also have a dark spot on a white pole above that distant tree. And, your foliage looks over sharpened. For that sort of shot, sometimes a CP filter can be a big help as it will reduce reflection from those leaves.
I would love to be able to zoom in on http://jessnphotography.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Weddings-2013/G0000QcZc7k2Mtu0/I0000_wsORhGRJSg. I think it looks pretty good at the display size. I wonder if less DOF would have helped it. Less DOF would take the busyness out of the background by blurring the foliage into a green blob. It looks like a longer exposure because some of the treetops have motion blur.
http://jessnphotography.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Weddings-2013/G0000QcZc7k2Mtu0/I0000_pTWRh2lcRU has direct sun, and shadow. I think you handled it quite well in this shot.
http://jessnphotography.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Weddings-2013/G0000QcZc7k2Mtu0/I00009KX3UPEvJps, has the foliage thing going on again but otherwise it is a good shot. Try running a blur brush over the leaves, or just sharpen the couple and not the leaves if this is a sharpened image.
http://jessnphotography.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Weddings-2013/G0000QcZc7k2Mtu0/I0000CpsiT5qQstU, has slightly too much flash power. It`s interesting, your flash did not get all the way up the tree!
Chicks with shades, http://jessnphotography.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Weddings-2013/G0000QcZc7k2Mtu0/I0000tOrdwo1Vj5U, needs one or two more shutter speed increases and a little more pop from the flash to keep the girls about where they are lit. That might require high speed sync. I would take the white dots out of the water on the right side.October 3, 2013 at 4:12 pm #13887Worst Case ScenarioMember
A lot of the wedding shots look over exposed and you’ve used to wide an angle lens on most of them. Sometimes that gives to much background , but all the time you are looking down on your subjects making them look to short. Plus you wedding thumbnails show 5 different colour wedding dresses all from the same wedding.
That all sounds very negative but I actually like a lot of your shots, and for a first wedding they are pretty good.October 3, 2013 at 4:13 pm #13888
@cameraclicker thank you for your honesty. I guess I will stop using watermarks, I wasn’t afraid of anyone stealing the image I just felt like putting it on there lol. I’m not sure what you mean by the photo looking pregnant haha it was an abandoned hospital and I thought the wall was cool. however I learned a lot since then and will probably get rid of it soon. It shows that I did not know how to use my external flash properly at the wedding! haha hopefully next one is better :p thank you againOctober 3, 2013 at 4:16 pm #13889
@worst case scenario you’re right I did use a wide angle lens, I felt very rushed and did not want to make them wait again and again to go grab my other portrait lens and chance cameras/lenses, rookie mistake. I also agree that some of the shots are bad lighting, I got very nervous on this photo shoot and was literally shaking! lol I hope to learn from my mistakes, thanks again!October 3, 2013 at 11:40 pm #13912ebiMember
agreed with a lot of the above comments. Wide angle lenses can be fun, But for me, when I need to shoot something wide, to get more in the frame, I always go back and fix the perspective on the images. I use capture one pro and they have a great keystoning tool that makes it very simple. On people, wide angles are generally bad. Unless you are shooting a rap video…your work shows promise. Even the graffiti shot is nice if it had a little better light on the girl. She just needed to look towards the light and maybe stepped forward a little bit. Many of your wedding photos were lit pretty well already. The flash more often than not, took away from the image. An extra pair of hands and a reflector to put a little light on them would have solved the issue. But compositions are pretty good with the exception of a few – the one with the couple who have a tree coming out of their head is a good example. The still life shots look great. Keep working!October 4, 2013 at 12:14 am #13916fstopper89Member
Why not watermark? I do, for a few reasons:
1. It deters many people from stealing the image (especially clients who don’t have knowledge in PS, or inexperienced photographers who might want it to beef up their own portfolio)
2. It helps advertise my name a little bit. Images get shared (mostly on FB) and my name floating around is good for me.
I like the bulging wall for that image. It’s more interesting. Not applicable in every image though.October 9, 2013 at 4:10 pm #14105emfMember
I agree with the other comments but just wanted to add one thing, the wedding dress is lovely and makes a real statement but I think by shooting it on the beach with the sand being similar in texture and colour, the dramatic look of the dress gets lost as it blends into the beach. Positioning her on a surface which contrasted the dress would have worked better to let the dress stand out, imo.October 9, 2013 at 5:15 pm #14108
Why not watermark? I do, for a few reasons:
For the record, I’m not completely against watermarks, just against watermarks that deface the image. I don’t use watermarks but my photos usually have embedded EXIF data. Yes, you can remove that easily too, but it doesn’t show and anyone who cannot remove a watermark probably won’t bother with EXIF data either, at least not knowingly. Unfortunately Facebook removes EXIF data from everything you post there, which is a reason my Facebook page has nothing on it, and also a reason for adding a discreet watermark.
The benefit of watermarks has been seen. I found a photo in another photographer’s book, which had a watermark and traced back to the owner. I don’t know if she took any action or let it go. On the other hand, I looked at other photos in that author’s books and traced them back to various stock sites even though they did not have watermarks. I still don’t know why a photographer would write books on photography and use someone else’s photos, but that’s a separate issue. I think the major benefit of watermarks is advertising, if your photo is spread around the Internet. That can be achieved even if you put a fairly discreet watermark in a corner, or down the side. It doesn’t have to be at 100% opacity and square in the middle to be a benefit.October 9, 2013 at 10:02 pm #14124fstopper89Member
Oh yeah, I get what you mean. I’ve played with different watermarking styles. I started with doing the low-opacity band across a 1/3 line of the image. That felt too distracting, so I started just doing text off to the side using Lightroom (lower opacity also). Then I liked what some photographers were doing with a thin repeating line of text across a 1/3 line. That again felt too busy so I made a watermark brush preset in PS and started doing that, and placing it on an area that’s less distracting. I guess I like to switch it up once in awhile. I don’t have an actual logo (yet, I’m working on ideas for a good one) so it’s just been nice fonts thus far. I’m not sure if the inconsistency is bad or fine. Some photogs change it up like I do and some feel they need to keep the same one just like they need to keep their business name constant.October 10, 2013 at 12:20 am #14128BillMember
@BEG – I use watermarks and sometimes I don’t. Like CC I embed EXIF info but yes that can be deleted or altered easliy. A little trick I do is sometimes purposely hide an image or logo within the photo. It is usually very small and hidden so not to to interfere with the photo itself. The cool thing is, no one sees the watermark, but it right there in plain sight.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.