My First Wedding Shoot (Link to Album)

G

gohan2091

Senior Member
Hello,

Not sure if I am allowed to post a link to my portfolio so if I am not, I apologise. I did read the rules and it says if I have a set of images, to post a text link.

I photographed a small, low scale wedding last week and would like critiques on the photos. I'm a practising photographer and the newly-weds contacted me via a local advertisement website. They paid a small amount for my services but understood I am not a professional. I am posting here because I'd like to improve my photography skills. I took over 400 photos, and sent 220 to the newly-weds. They are very happy with the photos and have given me permission to use their photos in my portfolio. The link to the portfolio is A Wedding Day on Behance where you will find about 40-50 Wedding photos.

On the day I used:

Nikon D5100
Nikkor 50mm 1.8G
Tamron 70-300mm SP 3.5-5.6
Nikon SB-700

Thanks for any feedback.
 
Last edited:
R

Rick M

Senior Member
You've got some nice shots in the collection! Some of the backgrounds are a bit busy, might also try for more shallow depth of field in the future. Nice overall!
 
G

gohan2091

Senior Member
I have a 16-85mm which I wanted to use but it's been in the repair shop for over 2 months now! The 50mm was crucial indoors but to be honest, there were times I couldn't get the shot I wanted because I needed a wider focal length. 50mm sometimes was just not wide enough. If it wasn't for the 50mm, my minimum focal length would be 70mm and I wouldn't be able to take most of those ceremony indoor shots (with the blue wall) as I wouldn't be able to back up enough. Around 1/3 of the 50mm shots were out of focus so it's a good job I had a large selection to pick from.

I agree, the backgrounds are a bit busy. There wasn't much I could do inside the ceremony room. I did shoot at f2 most of the time and the backgrounds were still in good focus. This is likely because I had to be about 10-15 feet back fit them in view. With the Tamron it's a slow lens but I can produce a shallow depth at field because it's a telephoto lens but I didn't want to pass 150mm as it would compress the subjects too much. If I was to repeat the day again, I'm not sure what I would do different. I think one of my weak points is composition.
 
Last edited:
R

Rick M

Senior Member
For Dx, I think the 17-55 2.8 would be an ideal wedding lens. The 35 1.8g would be a good budget choice. Not sure if shooting into corners worked well, but you were cramped for space and had a decent outcome. Good job with those limitations!
 
E

Eye-level

Banned
There are two situations when dof does not matter...that is everything will be in focus no matter what the aperture used...1 when you are shooting a subject that is far far away and 2 when you are shooting something that has a plane...like when one photographs someone against a wall from some distance away. :)
 
F

fotojack

Senior Member
I liked the ring shots, and the shots in the restaurant. Considering the constraints you were shooting under.....nice job.

The ones I'm not crazy about are the ones with the large picture in the background. You should maybe have centered them in front of the picture and not just have a corner of the picture in the frame.
 
G

gohan2091

Senior Member
Rick M said:
The 16-85 is not a good wedding lens, busy bokeh.
Click to expand...

But if I had it with me, I would have used it in the ceremony room where I would not be needing bokeh due to the size of the room.

Rick M said:
For Dx, I think the 17-55 2.8 would be an ideal wedding lens. The 35 1.8g would be a good budget choice. Not sure if shooting into corners worked well, but you were cramped for space and had a decent outcome. Good job with those limitations!
Click to expand...

That is a nice lens but wouldn't the 24-70 be even better? The Tamron version is affordable. I agree that shooting in corners is not good but the room had a large table and chairs everywhere. Thanks for saying I did a good job :)

fotojack said:
I liked the ring shots, and the shots in the restaurant. Considering the constraints you were shooting under.....nice job.

The ones I'm not crazy about are the ones with the large picture in the background. You should maybe have centered them in front of the picture and not just have a corner of the picture in the frame.
Click to expand...

As I said above about stacked chairs everywhere but it may have been possible to get the painting more in the shot. Thanks for that, I will try considering things like that in the future.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
The 24-70 is an Fx lens which is fine if you ever go Fx you are covered. The downside is that 24 is its really 36 on Dx, hence the 17-55 to give you more width.
 
G

gohan2091

Senior Member
Rick M said:
The 24to is an Fx lens which is fine if you ever go Fx you are covered. The downside is that 24 is its really 36 on Dx, hence the 17-55 to give you more width.
Click to expand...

I see but why would I need such a wide focal length of 17mm for weddings? Wouldn't 24-70 (really 36 on DX) be enough for full body and group shots? It worked with my 50mm in a not so ideal room. The 17-55 is at 2.8 which is good but at such wide angles, it's not going to produce any noticeable bokeh. Since I use flash, it would help the lack of light a slow lens can capture. Or am I wrong?

This is why I don't understand lenses like the 14-24 2.8 which is for landscapes I would assume. Why would someone spend so much on a fast lens if they shoot wide angle? If I were shooting landscapes, a 3.5 lens would do me fine on a tripod and if I have a lack of light, I just slow my shutter speed down. The price differences are huge.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
It would help you in tight spots and group shots, depends on your locations. Yes, the faster glass also makes your flash more effective as you are using more ambient light. The ultra wides are sometimes fast like the 14-24 2.8 to help with night shots and in keeping with that pro trio. Personally, I do not mind if my UW is slow, I'll be looking at the new 18-35 when it comes out. As far as price, the 14-24 is the best in it's class and I'm sure it's worth every penny (if you want to lug it around).
 
G

gohan2091

Senior Member
Faster shutter speeds won't matter if I am using flash which I will be indoors for sure so I am limited to 1/200. Faster lenses make my flash more effective? I already get good results with my slower lens and flash (and I'm no where near full power) . I see it being useful for bokeh but for indoors? I don't see a justification to get faster lenses considering the massive increase in price. As for night shots outdoors, on a tripod I can use a slower shutter speed and if I want to walk about without the tripod then my 50mm would work.

Thanks all for your opinion
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
If this was your first wedding, I think you did a fine job. Your pictures and posing should improve with practice. After a few hundred, you usually get the best of these. What makes it difficult is the settings. Some places just are not very photogenic. You then have to try to get more head and shoulders type of shots and forget the full length ones. But you do need to have a few at least.

As for lens choice, if you're planning to get a full frame one day, then I'd say the 24-70 would be a good choice. But you probably would need a 10-20 as well to cover you in tight rooms for group shots. If money is tight, I'd get a 35 1.8 in the meantime and a cheap (read not expensive) second hand 18-55. You do need the wider angle view quite often with wedding shots in my opinion.
 
G

gohan2091

Senior Member
Thanks, yes I agree, I would get better with practice :)

I don't intend to go FX, I like DX as it enhances telephoto lenses range and the lenses are cheaper. I see no reason to buy a 35mm when I have a 16-85mm and I won't get bokeh much at all with full body and group shots so I don't see why I would need a faster lens. In low light, I can use my flash.
 
Top