My friend just got married last month then i stumbled upon the pictures taken by the two photographers that my friend hired.

I, myself, just started taking pictures casually and want to know what makes good and bad pictures in your opinion.

These are the FB page of the two photographers who went and took pictures for my friend's wedding.

#1: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.6...21807604&type=3

#2: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4...32345375&type=3

Only constructive criticism, please.

Your help is appreciated. Thank you.

Just saw both galleries, didn't go through picture by picture but overall they're not award winning pictures but they're certainly with commercial value.

exposure is alright, some of them on the high-key side. the moments are captured well, I think that's most important. composition is a rather careless for the most part but passable.

Um, I'm not really a photographer, but then I think their photos are pretty mediocre, should be amateurs?

No comment on the composition and lightning as they're pretty normal, nothing extraordinary.

Just I think something to note is the ... closeups on the bride, should spend some time touching up there, don't think the bride will like to see those imperfections..especially on these types of one of a life time events... I guess... just my 2 cents , haha

First link is terrible in terms of exposure and post processing. Macam when editing goes wrong. Clarity bar abuse there

2nd link is a lot better, better sense of composition, lighting and the post processing is just about right

how is it terrible in exposure? It's far from being terrible, it's towards high-key side but at least it's not totally blown for the most part and not under-exposed.

the PP is alright actually, looks like the photographer wants to create a dreamy field, like add a duplicate layer then gaussian blur and adjust opacity.

Hmm, I think he meant the blown out highlights in some of the shots, should be spot metering ba

I think a lot of wedding people expose it this way as they don't want to use flash

What makes an award winning pictures?

I'm assuming your second statement is referring to the first link? If you don't mind posting up the pictures that you are referring here.

and best, compare to a photo that you think is good and explain the reasons why u think is good.

Thank you for your hardwork.

yeah, that's true. Can see pimples and all. haha

Thank you for your critique

lai i help goldies reply, haha. I think you can look up on Keda.Z, one of the best photographer in Malaysia, or this world, his shots are extraordinary

lol, thanks

Nice. Some of his shots are very nicely composed but the rest are slightly overly HDR for me

Wouldn't call him the best la but definitely above average.

expose to the right.

anyway blown highlight doesn't mean the exposure is bad. it just means there are certain areas that the photographer didn't pay attention to.

Award winning pictures have good control of many factors, exposure, the dark areas and the highlights, use of lights, the details, the coordination (eg couple movement and such), and most importantly - the composition.

my first post refers to both. my 2nd post was in reply to kytz.

Let's take this photo for example



The background is great for symmetry, and if the photographer made some effort to get the couple to pose a little it could've been a great couple portrait BUT unfortunately this is not the case.

The groom held his shoes up, the bride looks stoned, and there's a red chair in the background. No composition value, no art direction. Just shoot, not much thought in the process. The exposure is good but the composition is not of good value.

This one on the other hand, is PP gone horribly wrong. If one can put this kind of picture as portfolio and not be ashamed of it, it just shows a great lack of experience.



The one in the 2nd link looks better in terms of color and less of those PPing. Exposure wise the 2nd link is towards slightly under-exposed side, contrast is better than 1st link.

If one were to ask which one is better, I'd say the 2nd guys photos are better.

References of good photos, please refer to .....
http://www.thempa.com/gallery-master-photographers.php
http://www.loupeawards.com/Winners13.php

Overly HDR? Nope.

To call him "above average" IMO is just insulting especially for someone who Keda Z bagged so many awards across the globe in so many competitions ....... but it's alright, you have much experience to gain. Once you know more, you'll realize how unique are his works.

He's actually the best photographer across the globe for various competitions, so I'll leave you with your comment vs the pro photographers in the world.

The "Fellowship" title in MPA that he holds is not easy to attain, and it's also really difficult to bag so many awards.

Thank you for taking your time to write a post of constructive criticism.

haha, i'm just saying how i feel about his pictures.

Once again, thanks. I've learnt a lot in just a few posts.

This post has been edited by rubrubrub: Jan 9 2014, 05:29 AM

goldfries

Is this considered under-exposed?



This post has been edited by rubrubrub: Jan 9 2014, 05:35 AM

exposure looks fine there.