[Kombisaurus]

I recently found myself as the photographer for the wedding of two close friends of mine in Tasmania. This was my first proper wedding gig, and I learned a lot from it and it certainly highlighted just how much I still have to learn.

I've put together an online gallery for them, and a summary of my favourite shots can be found in a little section at http://kathjustin.digitalkinetics.smugmu...%20Gallery

Now as you'd expect, the day gradually transformed into night and the ceremony and formalities of the wedding turned into the laughter and dancing and informal party of the reception.
Although I continued to shoot some of the typical types of wedding photos into the evening, I also wanted to try some not-so-typical shots to capture the movement and colour and general feel of these "fleeting moments". That's what this post is about.

Below are some of my results. Technically and compositionally they pretty much all have serious flaws, but that wasn't really my concern. They weren't intended to be used individually, but together as part of an album of the entire day I was hoping they provide a refreshing informal sense of movement and recreate the party feeling that was present at the reception.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do they work in this sense? Do the flaws they have prevent them from working? Do they seem a bit too much "photojournalism" and not enough "romantic wedding"? Do any shot(s) in particular work better or worse than others? Are these type of shots appropriate for a wedding album in amongst other shots? How would you have tackled the same situation?


1. Sigma 10-20mm @ 20mm, 800 ISO, Manual, f/8, 1/8th sec, EX-430 flash bounced with omnibounce diffuser.


2. Sigma 10-20mm @ 10mm, 800 ISO, Manual, f/9.5, 1/8th sec, EX-430 flash bounced with omnibounce diffuser.


3. Canon EF-S 17-85 IS @ 33mm (with IS and monopod), 800 ISO, Aperture Priority, f/8, 1 sec, no flash.


4. Canon EF-S 17-85 IS @ 22mm (with IS), 1600 ISO, Aperture Priority, f/6.7, 1/3 sec, no flash.


5. Canon EF-S 17-85 IS @ 85mm (with IS), 1600 ISO, Aperture Priority, f/6.7, 1/3 sec, EX-430 flash bounced with omnibounce diffuser.

Thanks for looking!

[sg]

Kombi, not that my opinions carry any weight, but i think that #4 and #5 are very unusual, and would be an outstanding entry in the album if you go ahead with that. #3 in my opinion just looks out of place compared to the others, doesn't show anything in the shot to say that it is part of the evening, if you know what i mean? :/

my 2c

P.S. There are some stunning shots in the gallery Kombi, congratulations on the shoot.

[Kombisaurus]

Thanks for the feedback SG

I was hoping some others might think #4 and #5 have enough in them to stand up on their own, and am glad you pointed them out.

And I guess in my mind I was thinking of the first three as kind of filler-shots to sit amongst other shots of the evening, just to help set the mood.
No big surprises that you seem a bit more indifferent towards them. Sometimes a pair of objective eyes can be a big help. Thanks.

And thanks also for the kind words about the rest of the shoot. Overall I was happy with myself as a first attempt. I made plenty of mistakes, but it could have been a lot worse (I had less than 24 hours notice).

[Russt]

Have to agree with SG I really like #4 & #5 I think these work well, the attention is focused where it should be (B&G) and the b&w works also........still has some life and feeling to it (happy,love). Checked out your gallery I think you have done an outstanding job. Some of the shots I thought I would like to see in colour.......on the beach shots and outside the church. It might be just me! The other group shot against the sky just works so well in colour it has me wanting the same on the above. The intimate shots work in b&w!

Again outstanding and yes different (in a good way)

[Wedding Shooter]

4 and 5 work well - number 3 would work better if the exposure was not quite so long.

Great to see some experimentation.

[shuttertalk]

Looks like a very beautiful wedding! Very nicely portrayed... good job Kombi!

[Zig]

My short response is that 1, 2 and 5 work extremely well: keepers! The reason I'd not go for the other 2 is the degree of effect.
Unfortunately I've not "done" a wedding for a number of years, so I can't upload examples, but at that time I was one of 2 wedding photographers hired. The other guy was the stock posed medium-format, who did an excellent job. I on the other hand was prowling around for a number of hours with one body loaded with Tri-X, the other with colour neg; consequently the couple now have 2 wedding albums, yet it is always the "candid" one that they refer to as a more "true" and emotionally reflective account of the day.
With flash, I found that of these sort of slow-synch shots, rear-curtain worked much better than front; I also found that too much(too slow) had the effect of adding so much blur that it gave a sense of isolation rather than just movement..perhaps a little like number 4 above?
Kombi, I'd really resist any temptation to be hard on yourself here: these work well(1st 2 brilliantly). I'm surprised at your mention of "flaws" in terms of tech and composition: there are none!
In one sense, there is too much of a "religious" and rule-bound spirit in some wedding photography: OK, the punters know what they want, one shoots to order as it pays the bills and thus follows a convention and templated manner of working: good business and keeps everything efficient. Yet shots such as these capture the essence, the "life" of the event: "fun" and celebration are really something that a wedding is hopefully about, and you have done right to put your pursuit of the capture of these before other considerations.
Mate, we really have to watch ourselves in the digi domain, where snappers are sadly driven by squeaky-clean, processed results...as this same puritanism then starts to infect the way we take pictures. Where would we be if grain, for instance, was never allowed to be used as it is a "flaw" and limitation of film? In the same way, staying within convention is a sure way to deny one's individuality and miss unique chances.
Kombi, your shots capture life and movement; you clearly move to the real dynamic of what is going on, converting "weaknesses" to strengths as you go; I'd really not even bother with getting bogged down in labels like "photojournalistic", as they are meaningless terms, pointless pigeonholes. Even if they are considered so, it does not mean that the nature of the shot is any less noble than if it were ascribed the term "wedding" shot.

[Schellamo]

I love them, I think you did a terrific job!! Looking at the gallery you posted, I think alot of the shots you captured are better than the ones in my album, (which were done by a 'professional'). I particularly love the one with the polarized sky in the background and the more candid ones. The couple look relaxed and happy which i think lends itself more to your style than the posed/formal look of some photographers.
As for the above, i would be thrilled to have shots like that in my album, they are definately 'outside the box' and not the norm, but they should be!

[Kombisaurus]

Thanks again folks.

Some of the shots I thought I would like to see in colour.......on the beach shots and outside the church. It might be just me! The other group shot against the sky just works so well in colour it has me wanting the same on the above

I did feel like I overdid the b/w and sepia a bit. Individually I chose what I thought worked best with each shot, but looking at them in an album situation I think you're right - more colour is needed.
I was really happy with that group shot against the bright blue sky. It was early afternoon with a high sun and harsh nasty shadows, so I had a couple of people holding a big reflector near the ground to balance the shadows (one of the ones you put across your car windscreen to keep the sun out when you park it on a hot day - very handy to always keep one in your car) and used external flash through a fairly large home-made diffuser, along with a polarising filter on the lens to put as much contrast into the sky as I could. I didn't realise how well it worked until the next day when I went through the pics on the computer.

Chris, yeah I was a bit annoyed about #3. I love the colours and stationary objects, but the musicians are just too blurred to make any sense of it really.

Zig, thanks for your lovely words of encouragement as usual. With my normal shooting I would be a lot more confident about sticking to my guns and telling others to just like it or lump it... but being a wedding shoot, these photos aren't about me. I'm trying to second guess what the bride and groom and their families would like.
To some extent the whole point of getting a wedding photographer instead of just taking your own photos is because you like how they do other stuff and would like their interpretation of the wedding - so in that sense I feel justified that by doing my own thing I am doing what they like... But the bottom line is that it is them who need to be happy with the shots, not me.

we really have to watch ourselves in the digi domain, where snappers are sadly driven by squeaky-clean, processed results...as this same puritanism then starts to infect the way we take pictures. Where would we be if grain, for instance, was never allowed to be used as it is a "flaw" and limitation of film? In the same way, staying within convention is a sure way to deny one's individuality and miss unique chances

You're absolutely right. The more I shoot the more I try to embrace all those little unexpected things that creep into a shot and make it less sterile and contrived - turning weaknesses into strengths as you say. Well... that's the idea anyway

And Schell, thanks. That's a really nice compliment.

[Russt]

Kombi, this is an interesting thread. We can all learn a lot. I like the points that Zig made in regard to having squeaky clean shots. Your point about this work being for someone else is also valid; however you can bring your own style into it. I think there needs to be a balance between the formal shots and the candid ones. The candid shots can offer more memories than the formal!

Now about the b&w issue; you need to get in touch with your feminine side (excuse me ladies please do not read on) I just want you to think about this. They spend hours, days, and weeks trying to make a decision about what to wear. :/ “What is she wearing, what are the bridesmaids wearing and I hope no one else has the same outfit!!” :o Then the big day arrives! They put on make up get dressed feel good about themselves. No one else is wearing the same dress whew!!!!
After all this they get the photos back only to find you have turned them b&w. :mad: You might think its “art” but they have just been robbed (as far as they see it) ………..Man I would hate to be in your shoes or that of any wedding photog. How can you sleep at night!!

Good luck, please don’t let this post influence you…….. No pressure!

Sorry Kombi, “just playing” I know you have put a lot into it!!!! You have done a great job they will be happy I’m sure!! If in doubt just say “what would they know”(me included)