fotografz

As an advertising art director I had the good fortune to work with many different photographers and cinematographers. The element you cannot divorce from the discussion is skill and experience. Most masters of lighting can do almost anything with the right tools. I worked with one still shooter that always used continuous lighting and employed the subtractive method of controlling the light. He had all sorts of flags and scrims of all sizes. Very hard (not impossible) to do that technique with strobes. This goes to the "Logistics" of capturing an image Michael mentioned. Aesthetic differences? I doubt it all things being equal. Which is easier to say, than do.

I just ordered the VC15/4.5-III in M mount. This is improved for use on digital cameras. I got it to use on a Sony A7R-II with adapter and on a Leica M-Monochrome. Oddly, reviews state that the Sony E mount version of the same lens is not as good in the corners. 15mm is certainly wide, but no more so than the fairly common 16-35 zoom on DSLRs. I have a M21/1.4 ASPH which I use on both cameras and it is often not wide enough for interior work. f/4.5 max aperture doesn't bother me that much as both the Sony and Leica MM are excellent high ISO cameras … and for interior pro work, I'm using lighting at f/5.6 or f/8 with most lenses anyway. f/4.5 doesn't matter for focusing because both cameras are mirror-less.

What do you mean by ... " ...but now I'm starting to do larger weddings" ? How do you envision use of off-camera lighting to help with larger weddings? In what way do the Canon RT Speed-lights fall short? If you get the highly reliable standard Pocket Wizard units, you will lose TTL ... therefore have to adjust the off-camera speed-lights manually. - marc

Assuming you know most of the tips offered, and you are just looking for ideas ... That is tough to do without specifics. What society? What do they do, or what do they stand for? The though would be to customize the shoot more exclusively to them. I agree with the tip to discuss any idea with the client before committing to it. They very well may simply want a record of who's who at the gathering.

Times have changed. This business is substantially more difficult to enter and/or make a viable profit from than when I started. Probably the same for many established photographers here. There are many reasons for the changes in wedding photography as a business, but few would debate that it hasn't become more difficult in the past ten or even five years. Old methods and approaches that once worked have been far less successful these days. This may require a "rethink" on how to gain experience and build a portfolio. One suggestion would be to pay a successful Wedding/Event/Portrait photographer to teach and advise you ... both on the job, and with some one-on-one consultations. Think about it ... you pump thousands into gear, pay for a web-site, but expect a free education from a busy professional. Once upon a time, I could afford to take on clueless assistants to play it forward for the industry ... but trust me, their contribution in the beginning was less than zero because of "Hit the ball and drag Billy" efforts while in the middle of a hectic shoot : -) They got an intense education that translated into a viable career in photography ... and I paid them ... ???? That's like going to a college where the professors pay you for attending their classes. Your thoughts? - Marc

frolickingbits is right on ... in open sun shooting a group of people that are backlit or side lit, no modifier is really necessary and just wastes precious light. The size of a medium softbox at a distance produces almost the same specular quality as no modifier. For best effect, place the lights opposite the angle that the sun is striking the subjects ... which is exactly what frolickingbits did in his example. It is even easier to pull off when at the beach because you get all sorts of fill light help from the beach itself. Like this shot using on-camera speed-light and a profoto B2 with a 9" Magnum reflector for a little fill. I used a 85mm lens to get some distance from the subjects which allowed the light spread to cover the whole group. It was windy and no modifier would have worked other than a simple reflector.

The OP is curious about becoming more creative. Anyone can become more creative because "more" is relative to the current state of their creative mindset, not the aggregate of all creative people. Rather than defining creativity, which is a slippery slope, perhaps we can identify ways to become more personally creative? I think it all starts with a desire to create something different. To see something differently, to explore a different notion of something, someone, someplace, or some idea that already exists. The platitude that "there is nothing new under the sun" is mistakenly applied to creativity. The role of creativity is to forward some new way of intellectually, intuitively, and/or emotionally interacting with what is immutable. This suggests "purpose" is an underlying tenet of creativity. Fine artist do produce and publish their "Intent". As the early Cubist painters intuitively explored the concept, they formulated an intent to visualize "Time and Space" in a new way. Plus, they intended on it being seen ... as Picasso once said "A painting kept in the closet, might as well be kept in the head". The trouble dealing with personal photographic creativity today is that there are billions of images everyone can access almost instantly. How can one hear themselves think with such a visual cacophony? I think it is a matter of introspection to bolster belief in your own uniqueness, and then taking an outward view of that which is part of your world see as only through your eyes.

Like many here, I learned exposure on manual everything cameras ... mostly in the prehistoric days of film : -) My early Leica M cameras didn't even have a built-in meter. However, negative film had the advantage of great exposure latitude (especially in the highlights) that digital is only now beginning to approach. Many photographers who thought they were good at setting exposure were unknowingly saved by their lab (I have friends who run labs that told me this many times). I use any means and any settings to get the best exposure possible as often as possible. Sometimes it is aperture preferred when the lighting averages out to medium tones. But, I WILL use Program when in a stress situation ... I teach my students/assistants that "P" stands for Panic ... when flummoxed set the camera to P! The problem with most exposure guidelines is that too many photographers do not know the basis of exposure metering. if you use "A", "P", 'S" or "M" to meter a black wall, it'll show settings to make it medium grey ... meter a white wall and it'll show different settings to make that wall medium grey also. Modern meters are pretty smart, but when faced with a strongly back-lit subject, you'll get an underexposed subject. Or if the background is very dark, you'll get an overexposed subject. This happens a lot with ambient light wedding work. It is also the reason why so many wedding shooters use on-camera flash to even out the light between the background and the subject. A sort of revolution in using manual exposure has come about with the mirror-less digital cameras. If shooting ambient light, you set the camera to show exactly what you will get in the viewfinder. WYSIWYG ... What You See Is What You Get. I now use a Sony A7R-II for weddings and always set the exposure manually because I can immediately see the effect of any adjustment right in the viewfinder.

Leica M Rangefinder film cameras and a Canon film camera of some sort, plus, like a lot of wedding shooters back then, I also did some formal work with a Hasselblad V camera ... eventually the Canon became a Contax film camera and I didn't return to Canon until digital cameras became usable for weddings. I think my first Canon digital was 3 meg crop frame ... LOL! (The photo below was shot with that first Canon digital).

The best piece of gear I can employ to create something special is my brain. Given the specifics of the coming wedding, where it will be held and when, I pre-plan some special shots for the client ... then go to the wedding prepared for it. This one was shot at a museum which was dark ... so I had powerful OC lighting with me.

<p><blockquote>Ellis, some people just want the experience. Maybe OP has another job - or her spouse/parents cover the expenses. It's not always about the money.</blockquote></p> <p> I hear that all the time ... <em >"I'm working super cheap for the experience, it's not about the money"</em></p> <p>So, in this case, that logic is flawed. If, as you suppose, the OP is working for less than slinging hamburgers to gain experience, and the second shooter is working for even less (or nothing) to gain experience ... who has the experience to gain from?</p> <p>Shoot cheap, shoot profitably .... doesn't change that clients expect results, and as evidence of this client calling insisting on more photos, they do not adjust their expectations just because you charged a pittance.</p> <p>Now the OP is charged with tracking down her second shooter to get more photos that may or may not exist or be useable.</p>

<p>It isn't THAT hard. Just study other sites and then have the existing person you are contracted to use for your site make some adjustments.<br> Here's an example of a grabber site that spurs you on further.</p> <p><a href="http://www.adamalex.com/">http://www.adamalex.com/</a></p> <p>Also check out his "about" part ... it's all about why he has a passion for wedding work without ever using the word passion. He also personifies what I said about the wedding being about the client, not us.</p> <p><a href="http://www.adamalex.com/about/">http://www.adamalex.com/about/</a></p> <p>- Marc</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi Michael. Hopefully you will see success as you start your new venture in 2017!</p> <p>I reviewed your site and have a few comments and hopefully constructive suggestions based on many years of doing weddings ... plus my main career was in advertising and marketing as a Creative Director.</p> <p>Over-all it is a bit amateurish and doesn't really showcase your better work ... work which is good for a start up wedding company!</p> <p>Consider having a graphic designer help you out. </p> <p>IMO, stating that you will shoot in any style the client wants sounds wishy-washy and places the creative direction in the hands of the client, or can be confusing at a time when a bride may be looking at a number of sites to define what they want ... they tend to respond to what they see as opposed to what you say.</p> <p>Your current work is pretty consistent, which is a good thing because the client can count on you to deliver. When offering to do any style, in a few cases expect tear sheets of magazine ads etc. with a style that you may be hard pressed to duplicate.</p> <p>Perhaps think about what YOU emotionally stand for visually, without direct references to "style". </p> <p>Your landing page should demonstrate that visual "WoW! factor, and have just enough words to entice them to continue. </p> <p>Everyone says they are passionate about photography, feel privileged to be a part of the client's special day, etc. What is it that is different and special about you? </p> <p>All those photos in the Image Gallery are packed in together which makes it difficult to for anything to stand out ... especially if the client is using a cell phone. </p> <p>Highlight the best, suppress the rest.</p> <p>While I am now semi-retired and have removed my wedding site, it was successful for many years because: 1) I took a position which was not common back <em>then</em> ... "Romantic Photojournalism" and supported it with images, and 2) Tailored my approach to reflect the clients personality rather than fit it to a "style". It is about them not us.</p> <p>You mention a relaxed unobtrusive and candid style as opposed to the more traditional posed approach ... yet a vast majority of your samples are posed (?). Generally, the candid approach has run it course as a main draw anyway, and trends are running in different directions ... so what you are doing with further enhancements may prove more successful </p> <p> </p>

<p>Which camera? And is it with the same lens? (exif info for the shots will tell you).</p> <p>I had a similar intermittent situation ... which turned out to be a sticking lens aperture. Rather than stopping down upon release, it stayed wide open and grossly over-exposed the shot with the B1. </p> <p>- Marc</p>

<p>Ditto Rodeo Joe.</p> <p>What you need is a responsive camera. Less lag between pressing the shutter button, acquiring AF lock, and capturing the shot. Generally a three shot burst is more than enough to catch squirmy kids, hyper pets and fleeting expressions. You also need a camera that can track subject focus in continuous AF mode ... not all cameras are great at this, especially in low interior light. </p> <p>Modern flash (speed-lights) may be able to recycle this 3 shot burst IF set at a lower power level. They also may STILL shut down due to built-in thermal limiters after a few bursts. Plus, at lower levels, it is doubtful that the speed-light can overwhelm the apartment ambient color temp ... which can produce ugly skin tones really fast.</p> <p>Technology cannot always replace skill and intuitive timing. With a little practice, anticipation goes a long way toward capturing the decisive moment that even 12 FPS may miss if you aren't tuned in to your subject.</p> <p>- Marc</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>