Well, you seem to have nailed that one, Doug.  The dress and the man's
shirt are spot on, max brightness around 240, and the shadows can be
lifted somewhat as well.  The guy's tux reads about 4 to 8, so not
completely black.  Not a shot I would want to do and guarantee to get it
right.

Colin D.

Yes, I've been *much* too harsh.  Let's put it behind us.  (O:

So, let's stick to the topic shall we?  Here, you post an image and
your explanatory notes say:

No, I *don't* quite understand the 'challenge'.  I've not used the 20D,
but I've used many SLR cameras in similar conditions, and shot *many*
weddings using Bronica SQ MFequipment for an upmarket studio in a
metropolitan area..  This type of night-time lighting was a very common
situation for evening weddings/receptions - a roll of reasonably fast
film was a given, although it can be done quite effectively at lower
ISOs..  It is *not* particularly challenging, and with the excellent
performance of the 20D at high ISO levels, it would be a damn sight
easier to get a decent shot than with 800/1600 (shudder) speed film.
And I simply cannot fathom why a 'pro' would *not* use a tripod for a
set, posed shot like this, where a slow shutter speed would be
necessary to get a decent background exposure.  Were you not carrying
one?  Did you think it would be 'fun' to experiment at the client's
expense?  And why on earth had you not practised this type of lighting
environment, do you seriously mean to tell us you shoot weddings
professionally in a metro area, and you haven't had to do something
like this before???

So, here's my critique, that you clearly, eagerly invite.  And I invite
other *experienced* wedding photographers, or indeed any 'pro' who
shoots this sort of stuff regularly, to comment on my observations.

1. Composition.
Subject is too centralised and too far away.  Much wasted space at top
(how much black do we need to see?) and bottom (crop at carpet to avoid
the brightlit pavers).  Cropping of car also looks awkward, especially
with the brightly lit wheel and rear end, which adds nothing and is
very distracting.  You should have been about 5-10 feet to the left,
and closer or zoomed in, which would solve ALL those problems.

2. Pose
The bride is awkwardly posed, almost facing side on, and her arm looks
very uncomfortable.  The groom is almost square on, and the whole thing
looks over-posed.  When posing a couple for a shot like this, they
should have been angled slightly towards each other, with the
photographer more square on, to avoid the 'arm across chest' look.

3. Exposure
Background is still way underexposed, and could be at least a stop,
probably two, brighter to avoid that 'ghost at night' effect more often
associated with cheap point and shoot cameras.  There is NO excuse for
not using a tripod here - it is a *posed* shot, for heaven's sake!  For
1600 ISO, this looks like the shutter speed may have been in the order
of 1/8 to even 1/30 depending on the aperture, so not that huge a
challenge to handhold anyway..  (EXIF, please?)  By using a tripod, you
could have extended the exposure time *easily* to much better balance
the background and foreground.  And the car lights should NOT be on.
They add a distraction - is there something interesting about those
pavers? And of course they have helped light up the (blown-out)
reflective sign.  You also refer to a 'home-made' mini soft box - and
yet it is clear from the very hard shadows around the bride that it has
done nothing useful.  A softbox would have to be towards a foot wide to
have much effect at that range.  As I mentioned above, a city-based
wedding photographer should have MUCH experience with this sort of
shot, and the words 'lets see if it works', and 'nearly impossible' are
a dead giveaway.  Even cheap P&S cameras often have a 'night portrait'
mode that will attempt to balance a night scene with a flash lit
foreground.   You say you are a professional wedding photographer, yet
you think this is something difficult?  For a *posed* shot....????  You
really need to get out more.

No, you POST-PROCESS differently for prints or the Internet.  The
dynamic range of a monitor is in fact significantly greater than a
print.  How you 'spread' the data over the visible range, be it print
or screen, gives a measure of your skill, or lack thereof.  Color gamut
is a different issue, but you referred specifically to detail in
'black' areas. A monitor will show that detail better than a print, all
things being equal and correctly adjusted.

My honest opinion?  I would expect such a shot from one of the guests
at the wedding with a P&S, while the professional was setting up to get
the 'real' image.  Frankly, I would be embarrassed to print that to
poster size, as the potential is there for a MUCH better image.  Maybe
next time..

But I guess we all have different quality expectations, and I'm sure
there is a market for your work, so by all means keep it up, Douglas.
Hey, there might even be some tips for you in what I said above..

Like I said, I would love to hear other comments addressing the points
I make above.

OT....
(Interested observers please note that I *have* questioned Douglas'
'professionalism' with this post.  That's it, no other insults.  But
note the preliminary attack above, and I'm sure there will be another
coming!  Gee, I even made it to his sig - but he keeps re-iterating
that I don't bother him..  ah well, I'll stick to the photography
issues.)