I have a new respect for pro wedding photogs! I was at my wife's cousin's wedding in Montreal this weekend and tried to get lots of nice shots BUT the church and hall were so dark it was near impossible! The fastest shutter speed I could manage without underexposing too badly was 1/13s which meant that I (and everyone else!) had to stand very still! I wasn't the problem! A person walking down the aisle is not well captured at 1/13s!! Ok, I'm done venting now...

I've picked this one of the B&G (taken outside in REAL light!) to have printed and framed to give them but I don't know which version to choose:

B&G 1.



B&G 2.




This is obviously not the B&G but a neat shot of the bridal bouquets that I may also have printed.

Almost forgot about this one... (no, the shoes haven't been colourized by me!)

Hey nice shots, Cailean. I like B&G 2 - the background blur doesn't clutter up the image as much. Was that your first wedding shoot?

I've done one wedding "professionally" now, and I do agree - they can be terrible for lighting, especially in church and at the reception. The best advice is ... get an external flash!

They're all lovely shots ... and good for her if she wore those comfortable shoes rather than hobble about in toe-pinching, high-heeled jobbies all day

My favourite is the one with the blurred background. You could also try tweaking that one a little further by desaturating the blurred background slightly if you wanted to highlight the Bride and Groom even more. Just a suggestion to try - it's already fine as it is.

Polly

The shots you have there are lovely Cailean, I like the selective colouring. You have a good eye for what to capture. The pink sneakers gave me a chuckle.

shuttertalk Wrote:Was that your first wedding shoot?

Oh, no - this wasn't a 'shoot' - I was just along for the ride (my wife was in the wedding party).

The flash on my Panny is pretty potent (I get about 20 ft or so) but I don't like using it during weddings and such - that's why the pro is there

Yes, Polly, she wore those shoes all day. If there exists a magazine titled "The Practical Bride" this bride should be on the cover!

I should have qualified: get an external flash and bounce it! Doesn't work though if the church has high ceilings...

But good job anyway!

Love the pink shoes!

I prefer the blurred background of #2 than the background of #1 which is rather distracting with the arms above the groom's head
And that thing on the bottom left also spoils it a bit, but other than that, it's very nice! I understand that it's sometimes hard to avoid/notice such things while taking the picture, I experience the same thing a lot

so #2

adam Wrote:I understand that it's sometimes hard to avoid/notice such things while taking the picture

That's what photoshop is for!

Thanks for the kind words, all. I still haven't decided which to use - the blurred/faded one looked too photoshopped to me (probably because I overdid the blur!) but adam makes a good point about the arms above the groom's head...

Why don't you post a bigger version of your blurred image and see if one of the gurus here can photoshop it up for you Cailean?

STRANGE! I JUST RE READ MY POST AND REALISED THAT MY LAST LINE SAYING "GOOD JOB" WASN'T THERE!
Maybe I accidentally deleted it when I typed the other things!

Good job!

Cailean - these are excellent - I particularly like the "shoes" and the "chair" shots. These are excellent examples of selective color.

As for the blur - the issue that you are having with it looking too photoshopped is (I think) because everything is blurred the same amount - the bit of railing directly beside them and the distant background - usually in depth of field there is a lesser degree of blur in close items then there is in far items.

What I would suggest is to select only the photo background bits - and make 2 separate layers of this selection. After you make your selection of the background - invert your selection and save the sharp-focus bride and groom as a separate layer as well. Now blur the background layers in 2 degrees of blur (one layer with just a bit and one with a lot).

Here is where you got lucky. The closer bits of your background are all in the lower quadrant, and as you move up your shot, it gets further and further away. That is perfect for this trick.

Blend the 2 blur layers together using a gradient mask - so that the less blurred layer is visible in the lower part of the blend and it fades gradually to the more blurred layer at the top. Now add your original cutout selection of the sharp-focus bride and groom to the top as a new layer.

You should probably clean up the edges of the cutout around the groom with an eraser or clone tool (sharp edged brush at high maganification) as there is a bit of a shadow (this is why I never use selection feathering when doing a fake "blur"). I also would clone out whatever that bit of rubbish is in the bottom left corner.

Flatten the whole mess and voila - perfect depth of field.

Did I already tell you that these are great photos?