those are by no means the pictures the bride and groom are getting. What they get is up to my buddy... these are the ones I edited myself for my own pleasure. and inside the tent, lighting was horrible. The only thing w/ lights on it was the band.
this is no comment on your photography, but at a glance the sausage in 17 looks like a turd. maybe it's just me.
You got some crazy white balance issues going on. Compare the boots in 7 to 14. The skin tones are completely different in 11 and 12. Different white balance in 19 and 20. And 22-25 have a green hue; the skin tones in 24 look especially unnatural. But they definitely got better as I scrolled.
I am not gonna lie - when I see any wedding photos, I end up unfairly judge them against the wedding shots that (.)(.) does. And none ever seem to compare. now if the bride had a hole in her dress for her pregnant belly to stick out of, then that would be impressive
(*)(*) is in a league of his own, and I'm no (*)(*)!!! But that all comes from experience. He's been doing it a lot longer than me and has more weddings under his belt. Practice doesn't make perfect, but it sure does get you better... all in due time though, in due time!!!
I was the second shooter for a friend, doing mostly candids. That's the reason for the non-zooms. I didn't take the 70-200 VR off my D300 the whole night, and my D80 and 10-20 was in our barn "group photo booth".