Wedding in Hawaii.
Dec 7, 2011 06:27:47 #
shoot this wedding last Saturday for a very dear friend. i pick out some pictures here with a touch of Aloha.
Dec 7, 2011 06:43:38 #
Dec 7, 2011 06:46:15 #
I think you did a good job but can I give a few minor critiques?
1.) Not sure what PP program you used but in Lightroom it would be that in all but the close up of the bridge and groom there is too much luminosity-noise-reduction. The pictures aren't sharp enough for me. If you did use a lot of noise reduction, then in my opinion I'd go back and sharpen just the eyes, that would work for me.
2.) The colors seem over saturated in all the pics (except the B&W) I'd have preferred them to be more understated.
3.) In picture #1 and #2, the bridal party should have been in focus OR the bride and groom should have been sharper to contrast with the bridal party...with all of them seeming to be out of focus somewhat it makes them all blend in together.
Again; these are just my opinion, take them for what they are worth. I think overall they are good shots.
1.) Not sure what PP program you used but in Lightroom it would be that in all but the close up of the bridge and groom there is too much luminosity-noise-reduction. The pictures aren't sharp enough for me. If you did use a lot of noise reduction, then in my opinion I'd go back and sharpen just the eyes, that would work for me.
2.) The colors seem over saturated in all the pics (except the B&W) I'd have preferred them to be more understated.
3.) In picture #1 and #2, the bridal party should have been in focus OR the bride and groom should have been sharper to contrast with the bridal party...with all of them seeming to be out of focus somewhat it makes them all blend in together.
Again; these are just my opinion, take them for what they are worth. I think overall they are good shots.
Dec 7, 2011 08:09:45 #
Wow, thanks for your honest critiques. I did denoise it quite a bit in cs5. Plus I been eye balling the color saturation and brightness by the monitor. Which is a bad practice. Thanks to friends in this forum like you to point them out. I will ask santa this year for a monitor calibrator. One question if I may, how much denoise is good denoise? I just learned from a photography podcast that denoise is the first and necessary step in preping the raw file in Photoshop. What do you think?
rpavich wrote:
I think you did a good job but can I give a few mi... (show quote)
Dec 7, 2011 08:15:29 #
Dec 7, 2011 08:28:45 #
topdoghawaii,
As a rule, just BARELY noticable is the deal on noise reduction.
Lightroom does a great job at noise reduction.
There is also a very very good plug in for PS called "denoise" by "Topaz filters" that is really nice, it will do a great job also.
The saturation thing is very hard because of the monitor differences we have. Mine could be over saturating and yours could be undersaturating...it's a tough call.
I hope that helps.
As a rule, just BARELY noticable is the deal on noise reduction.
Lightroom does a great job at noise reduction.
There is also a very very good plug in for PS called "denoise" by "Topaz filters" that is really nice, it will do a great job also.
The saturation thing is very hard because of the monitor differences we have. Mine could be over saturating and yours could be undersaturating...it's a tough call.
I hope that helps.
Dec 7, 2011 08:48:22 #
rpavich wrote:
I think you did a good job but can I give a few mi... (show quote)
Ditto the above and also the white dress is too bright, there is no detail. I am not a wedding photog but from what I have read and heard, "Expose for the dress, it cost a fortune, and she will be keeping it, it is important that you keep the details in the dress."
Living in HI and shooting a wedding, that is a fantasy world you are inhabiting, thanks for sharing it with us.
Eric
Dec 7, 2011 08:59:30 #
Thanks for your kind words. It is true about living in Hawaii. But shooting a wedding like this for free is the best. I was just a guest at the wedding. I am sure those professional who get paid are under a pressure cooker. Since the bride is a local celebrity. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the exposure problem. I now remember reading about that rule you mentioned about the price of the gown. that is so true, one trade secret exposed. Super mahalo to you and hope to learn from you again soon.
EricLPT wrote:
quote=rpavich I think you did a good job but can ... (show quote)
Dec 7, 2011 09:00:35 #
EricLPT wrote:
"Expose for the dress, it cost a fortune, and she will be keeping it...
classic
Dec 7, 2011 09:01:45 #
One other thing to mention is that in Lightroom (you can get a fully functional 30 day trial)you can bring the exposure down on her dress and up on everything else easily..
It's really a great program to fix these types of details.
It's really a great program to fix these types of details.
Dec 7, 2011 09:40:46 #
i just used lightroom 2 on the pict in question. that gown is a little hard to get more detail. i need to play with program more. if i may be so bold and ask you to give it a shot in your lightroom at this. it will be nice to have a reference picture to see proper exposure and saturation level. TIA
rpavich wrote:
One other thing to mention is that in Lightroom (you can get a fully functional 30 day trial)you can bring the exposure down on her dress and up on everything else easily..
It's really a great program to fix these types of details.
It's really a great program to fix these types of details.
Dec 7, 2011 09:57:11 #
judging from this last picture. I need to bring everything else except the gown back up. Or else this just look flat or under expose. do you agree?
rpavich wrote:
One other thing to mention is that in Lightroom (you can get a fully functional 30 day trial)you can bring the exposure down on her dress and up on everything else easily..
It's really a great program to fix these types of details.
It's really a great program to fix these types of details.
Dec 7, 2011 10:28:35 #
This may or may not be better....
I adjusted the saturation down a bit, brought the exposure on the dress down a bit, and upped the exposure on the other parts...
The only issue is that the dress now looks dingy so you might be right in your original amount of exposure.
I adjusted the saturation down a bit, brought the exposure on the dress down a bit, and upped the exposure on the other parts...
The only issue is that the dress now looks dingy so you might be right in your original amount of exposure.
Dec 7, 2011 16:33:17 #
Nice, the dress might not work on this shot. But it should be nice on some other shots that might showoff the gown better. I think the bride would definitely like some pictures that show more details of the dress. Like we agree earlier, the cost of the gown justify proper exposure. Thanks for doing the test for me. maHAlo!
rpavich wrote:
This may or may not be better....
I adjusted the saturation down a bit, brought the exposure on the dress down a bit, and upped the exposure on the other parts...
The only issue is that the dress now looks dingy so you might be right in your original amount of exposure.
I adjusted the saturation down a bit, brought the exposure on the dress down a bit, and upped the exposure on the other parts...
The only issue is that the dress now looks dingy so you might be right in your original amount of exposure.
Dec 8, 2011 11:18:27 #
It sounds like I would distract you a little, but if you can take a picture of the bridemaid who was hiding behind the bouquet beside the main couple. She showed her deep expression in your firts pict. Sorry to distract you all !! Sorry !!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.