amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Have you discussed these images with the photographer?

I suspect you are....

1. Looking at the images greatly magnified and cropped (ALL images will show some grain or noise at some point, when greatly enlarged).
2. Looking at "proof" quality images, intended simply to allow you to choose the images you want finished (which may or may not be at additional cost, depending upon your arrangements with the photographer).

These images appear to be "quick processed" through Lightroom 6.8, as would be the case with proof quality files (regardless of size). It's common practice to provide those initially, then once the customer's selections are made and the size of the finished product is known, to go back and more fully process images from the originals, usually with a software that's more sophisticated and capable of retouching and optimization than Lightroom. This is done to facilitate getting the images to the customer in a reasonable amount of time and not spending hours upon hours fully editing each and every image that was taken, and many of which will never actually be used. The results can be easily improved. For example, I downloaded the "suit" image, applied Imagenomic Noiseware noise reduction to it and it cleaned up very nicely.... That would clean up even better working from the original, full size image instead of this heavily cropped JPEG.

EDIT 1: Regarding your last image of the bride and her "retinue"... Your grainy "outtake" of that looks to be about a 100% view. Now, seriously, are you actually going to be making a 40" x 60" print from that image and then view it from 18 or 20" away? That's about what a "100% view" of the image represents (assuming you're viewing it on a standard, modern computer monitor that's set to its native resolution).

At a more reasonable 12" x 18" size on my graphics quality monitor, there's absolutely no noise to be seen at all. I even enlarged it to the equivalent of a 26" x 40" print (66% view) and there's still no noise to be seen.

It's only when you zoom in to a ridiculously high magnification that you see some noise (and that will be the case with any dgiital image taken with any digital camera!), but even that could be cleaned up considerably simply by applying some noise reduction.... if you do happen to want a three and a half foot by five foot print of the image!

EDIT 2: Since it's full size, I decided to test the NR software I use on this last image file you provided. Below is the result, with the left hand side left alone and NR applied only to the right hand side of the image. Now view it at 100%, or even 125% or 150%, and see what you think. (Note: At high magnification the RH portion of the image will appear a bit soft after NR was applied... That's natural and one of the next or very last steps - after NR, adjustments, retouching or editng, and final re-sizing for the intended use - would be to carefully apply some sharpening. I didn't do that in this example.):

(Download)

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Feel bad for the B&G if these are final images. Hate to second guess, but since you asked I would guess these are not final images. Are you selecting shots for an album with these examples?
Harder to second guess settings. Regarding the 35mm/1.4 lens. Were there other lenses used? Seems like a 35 on a FF camera may invite a lot of cropping, but again, hard to second guess? It appears the noise is excessive for ISO 1000.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

It may be possible your photographer is giving you low res files , a thumb drive , or internet, why ? So you have to go to him for an album or prints depends on your contract , did you pay him just to shoot or a package...

Bill_de Loc: US

We have all seen what post processing can do. Gene did a nice job.

I would not judge the photographer without seeing the final album that the bride and groom are apparently happy with.

I wonder if the photographer introduced noise into the proofs so relatives try to bypass buying prints.

There is more that we don't know than what we do.

--

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Unless I'm miss understanding the OP, did the photographer come down from Canada to shoot the wedding? How did your son find her? She must have a fantastic reputation is that is the case, in which case, I highly doubt that these are the final results. But I could be wrong. I'd reach out to the photographer and ask her about the concerns you are having.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Just to summarize:
The wedding was in Toronto not in Arizona!
I had nothing to do with the choice of photog, contract, fees, etc
I do not know her name or company
I was given the thumb drive by the bride when I asked if they had received their wedding pictures (to which she answered "Yes")
I do not know if she received the drive from the photographer or if she copied the images to the drive for me
The couple has moved to Arizona where my son is a third year medical student..I will discretely try and get more information about ? proofs

As to those who complain I shouldn't be looking at full size image....why shouldn't I? What if I would want a significant crop of an image?
Those folks should just get themselves a 4 megapixel point and shoot and make 4 x 6 prints.

I still don't understand how a 20mb image can have so little detail, so much noise? But that may well be me, I am not tech savvy at all.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Nice to know you are a talented architect with surviving structures as your legacy. Your assumption that I was trashing Canon reflects another problem in your make up.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

Because he could have shot basic jpeg and raw at the same time , and only supplied basic jpegs to the couple to protect his or here files from getting copied some apply a watermark. When we shot weddings in the past we gave them cheap proofs or a contact sheet to pick an album from. Photographers make more money from inlargements of proofs , I have only done 1 wedding in digital and for a friend so no charge but used a backup photographer. I processed the raw files did 5 or 6 special effects prints and supplied full res 16 bit tiffs about 120 images .I would have never done that for someone I didn't know . I would have supplied them with small jpegs created from the raw files . We never would have supplied full res files today unless we were paid to shoot and process only.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

If these were basic jpeg how do you get 20mb files for each image? That is what I don't understand...large file size small image quality

JPL

I agree with you, basic jpeg should be around or less than 1 mb files. You have to ask your daughter about the contract. No need to continue the discussion here until people know more. If this is just some proof files ment for them to make a selection then we will know what is the matter here. If this is the best the photographer got out of her work then she needs to learn about how to use her camera. Lets hope there are some raw files somewhere and you should better start asking those questions before they will be deleted.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I used to think this way but not any more. I attended a seminar on portrait photography and video for the same and the speaker pointed out that we are our biggest critic and this is so true. She said that in the early days of digital and in the film days, nobody (non photographers) said oh crap, look at all that grain. If the picture was good, even with grain, people just admired it and said how good it was. This is still true. I've printed and posted many pictures that were taken in low light that I didn't think looked very good but the normal people that looked at them never said "look at the noise or grain". If you are looking to have Getty take them as "stock images", then yes, you really don't want any grain, noise, or out of focus areas unless using a wide angle lens etc. But for the most part, a little noise isn't as bad as you think it is. Don't be so critical of a little noise in your pictures.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

The answer is in DP review of the 5dmiii , under image quality test the shot below is a 100% crop of shadow area much worst than you are showing the second shot is the d800 they are comparing too. They say the jpeg mode is not using full use of the sensor .I believe you are looking at jpegs

(Download)

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

I have no idea how to send a second image . Would like to know.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

Nikon d800 100% crop the camera they are saying is the 5dmiii closest rival.

(Download)

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

These are 100% crops , as someone else said they believe you will not see the noise in photos , Until you see raw samples I would chill , the photographer must surely shot both jpeg and raw.