Shop More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
October 18, 2006
Image Size
266 KB
Resolution
1200×830
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,471
Favourites
23 (who?)
Comments
47
Downloads
98
×
Mark and Rachel wedding 3 by wildplaces Mark and Rachel wedding 3 by wildplaces
I don't put up many wedding shots, but I'm making an exception with a few. . . Looking for helpful suggestions / feedback.

This shot and the one which precedes are basically the same shot - one with flash; one without (silhouette). . . Interesting how enormously different they are.
Add a Comment:
 

The Artist has requested Critique on this Artwork

Please sign up or login to post a critique.

:iconwildplaces:
wildplaces Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2006
Thanks a lot.
Reply
:icontysonius:
tysonius Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2006
Both photos have their strong points, but I personally prefer this one. The aura in the "Wedding 2" looks really spectacular, but unfortunately is also somwhat overwhelming in the way it washes out the entire sky and skyline. Here, you still get an aura/halo effect, but it doesn't overwhelm. The silhouettes also work better than the illuminated profiles in "Wedding 2" for a couple reasons: 1) it simply looks good. :D , 2) in both photos, you have 2 foci, the married couple, and the city skyline. In "wedding 2", although the couple are oriented to look at the second focus, the skyline, they actually seem to be looking at something offscreen to the left (at least, it looks that way to me), which is slightly distracting, since I don't know what it is that's got their attention. Obviously, this issue doesn't come up with the silhouettes. On the topic of foci, I think in both cases, but especially in this photo, I would have tried to change the angle of the camera to the couple and the skyline so that the two would be closer together, but the couple would still be silhouetted. If that were possible, then you could still have the profile shot, but they would appear to be looking at the skyline (rather than something offscreen), and both foci would be pulled together toward the center of the image, which I think would result in a better composition (not to mention, the skyline to the right of the photo doesn't really contribute as much to the image as the downtown area). Still, very nice effects in both photos--I presume you used your digital camera for this? I think the issue of light gradation really worked in your favor in this photo in particular. And speaking of which, I wonder whether using a filter to darken an exposure would allow the sensor to properly register the light gradation in the sky, yet allow you to lighten or otherwise enhance the rest of a photo with image editing software? Hope this all gives you food for thought. Regardless, I think the happy couple should be quite pleased with your work! :)
Reply
:iconwildplaces:
wildplaces Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2006
Thanks so much for the great critique! Lots of ideas for me to think about there. Greatly appreciated.
Reply
:iconmoose-seer:
moose-seer Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2006
I prefer this one as well, for the same reasons everyone here has stated. I really like the aura around them, makes me think its specifically for them.
Reply
:iconwildplaces:
wildplaces Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2006
6 - 1. . . I think we have a winner. . . Thanks for the faves, Rachel.
Reply
:iconmoose-seer:
moose-seer Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2006
YWA! Its really a beautiful photo!
Reply
:iconwildplaces:
wildplaces Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2006
TYSMFTF,R.
Reply
:iconmoose-seer:
moose-seer Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2006
YACW,MDFA.
Reply
:iconwildplaces:
wildplaces Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2006
Oh that's so nice!
Reply
:iconmoose-seer:
moose-seer Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2006
It was, wasn't it? ;)
Reply
Add a Comment: