A little menage a trois on the roof of my car
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...s/PICT9775.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...s/PICT9776.jpg

2 from over the last 2 weeks:

http://static.flickr.com/45/189236184_63bab7073e_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/67/192411957_d3506a4117_o.jpg

I run by that area all the time^^

I don't I posted this one yet..

http://lumieon.com/bbs/data/Free_Gallery/200607101.jpg

hehe im following you around jas

i think the shrubs in the foreground work for this picture, but i also cant help but to think that without them, the picture would be much more 'background worthy'

I disagree. Personally, I'm a huge fan of natural framing, and I feel that having those bushes in picture help to place you in the frame looking out onto the water. I think that's a great shot.

ps, I'm not trying to dismiss your critique Unit03 even if it sounds that way.

not at all, its just a matter of preference

sup Chris,

I actually took first picture w/o bushes in the foreground,

after reviewing them thru LCD, I thought it would look better with them..

so I waited till some cars drove by (it was very dark out, side of the road), so I can have enough light shined at them.

Nice weather today but TOO hot... My hands were stuck to the cameras after the ceremony, but it was fun.

http://www3.telus.net/public/berno2kn/proof01.jpg

http://www3.telus.net/public/berno2kn/proof02.jpg

http://www3.telus.net/public/berno2kn/proof03.jpg

c&c from you wedding pros, of course :)

not a wedding pro
but how's #2 with a soft touch on it rather than some grain?

oh and i like #1
the pathway leads my eyes :)

Yeah I was just trying something different, should probably keep it consistent eh.

*edit* yeah it looks better with the same effect. sweet.

I would have lved to have shot that wedding in IR.

would've been fun for sure, too bad I'm not a big IR fan, though... althought I think some IR landscape stuff's pretty amazing.

well done! i'm very impressed with the tonal range on that d50 as well. your soft focus effect is a nice touch. agreed with dub on #1, very well composed

^^^ you know what's weird.

on my LCD screen it showed more blown highlights than when I opend them in Photoshop, suffice to say that I was VERY happy to see that not all the whites on the dress were blown... phew.

kinda weird how it's not the same on the camera and with the software.. anyone one knows why?

monitor calibration?

The camera LCD should never be trusted.

even if the "highlight" feature is turned on? u know, the blinking lights showing which areas have blown highlights?

or should I just use the histogram to judge proper exposure? I heard that's not accurate either.

nothing special... really.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...IMG_3082PS.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...IMG_3075PS.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...IMG_3094PS.jpg

Bonjour, I love the glowing effect you have going on in those images, but I think you lost something in your greyscale conversion. If you use the a channel mixer adjustment layer set to monochrome and play around with that, just tone down the greens a little bit. Keep the contrast for the bride and groom. I think that little adjustment would make a world of difference.

Photo 1: I like the composition of the photograph. Although from the photo it looks like the point of focus is on the grassy area in the middle of the path. My personal preference would have been to shoot with the grass in the immediate foreground in focus, or the bride and groom in focus. Good control over highlights and shadows. On a very sunny day this is the hardest thing to manage.

Photo 2: This is a very classic photograph in the wedding world. Good shadow and highlight retention. Did you shoot this in JPG or RAW?

Photo 3: I like the dreamy look myself so this to me is an excellent photograph. I would expect most of the dress to be blown out and the details to be present in the shadows. This is what seems to be the case.

I think the photographs are excellent. Good work!

If you understand how to read the histogram it is pretty bang on. I personally use a light meter for the most part, but I do look at the histogram to ensure what I expected shows up.

For instance:
If you think of the histogram as a black and white data scale, you would expect that in the photos you took there would be an abundance of data in the very left and the very right. This would be the tuxedo, dress, decorations and extremely bright highlights in the area. Data in the middle section would also be fairly high because of the grass creating data in a neutral gray zone. So I would expect to see a histogram with data way past the white zone, some data in the white to light gray, a fair bit of data in the mid gray, and some data in the black.

Don't make the mistake of thinking you always have to have an abundance of data in the white area. If nothing is white in your photo, you won't have data there.

Excellent info, guys, thanks a lot. Really appreciate it.

Yes I'll probably have to play around with some other methods of black and white conversion... I think the diffuse glow effect somehow decreased the contrast of the photos.

Thanks Justin for the advice, it was my first wedding so I kinda limped along while trying to correct some mistakes on the spot - it was fun though! I'll try to get a bit more "creative" once I feel comfortable with the technical side of things... for now it's more about getting it right with exposure and lighting control. Note to self: get a reflector. lol

and yes I shot everything in RAW simply cuz I wanted some room for mistakes and for corrections later on in PP, just in case.