May 2, 2011, 18:57
So, who actually watched / was caught up in the Royal Wedding fever between Prince William and Kate Middleton? I was mostly oblivious to it, but watched glimpses out of curiosity. Interestingly, the official wedding photographer for the portraits, Hugo Burnand, said that he took the official portraits in 26 minutes, which is pretty impressive. He says that it went so smoothly because he was ultra-prepared - spares for the spares, and did rehearsals of the portrait sessions with stand-ins.
http://www.wwd.com/eyescoop/royal-photog...s/20110501
Also, he says he bribed the little ones with promises of jelly beans
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/r...tures.html
Anyway, just wondering if anyone had any critique or comments about the portraits from a technical perspective?
Here is a better view of the portraits:
http://www.hollywire.com/2011/04/royal-w...-portraits
One of my friends who is a wedding photographer offered up the following:
http://www.wwd.com/eyescoop/royal-photog...s/20110501
Also, he says he bribed the little ones with promises of jelly beans

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/r...tures.html
Anyway, just wondering if anyone had any critique or comments about the portraits from a technical perspective?
Here is a better view of the portraits:
http://www.hollywire.com/2011/04/royal-w...-portraits
One of my friends who is a wedding photographer offered up the following:
Quote:but look how awkward, poor posture, hand placement - that bouquet looked like it required more muscle than it does - poor direction. Lighting was flat, and boring, lot's of nice details in the dress looked subdued rather than drawn out - an eek that crease on the right leg - made me wonder whether that was "official" as advised or a "snap".Not sure I agree or not - yes, I can pick out those flaws if I look closely, but on the whole, portraits being portraits and people being people, I think they were well done.