Subject: Canon 20D + 24-70mmL = $ucce$$ful 'practice wedding'

[gaetano catelli]

as a favor to me, the daughter of a friend arranged for me to be her

guest at the wedding of a friend of hers, so that i could get some

shots to start a wedding portfolio. as things turned out, we didn't

arrive on time for the ceremony, but i did get about 650 shots of the

reception.

<p>

i was able to avoid using flash by shooting the 20D at ISO 1600. i

couldn't avoid motion blur in every case, but an amazing number of

shots were acceptably steady -- even with the lens zoomed-in to 70mm

and the shutter speed at 1/40 sec.

<p>

i was very glad i spent the extra money for an L lens. the main

advantage turned out to be because, to my surprise, the videographer

had a habit of shining his spotlight directly into my lens. yet,

there was virtually no flare -- what a relief!

<p>

notwithstanding the ridicule and contempt heaped on my work over on

the Wedding and Special Event Forum, after i sent out albums with

about 130 4x6 prints each (19 cents per print from the

Adorama.com 'pro lab') to the bride and groom and their respective

parents as a token of my appreciation, the bride phoned me to say

that after a hard day's work (as a medical doctor), it was very nice

to come home and see the album.

<p>

although i had only been a guest, and they had hired a 'pro' to cover

the entire wedding, her father called me the next day and insisted on

paying me for the photos. i quoted a price, and a few days later he

sent me a check that was 30% more than the price i quoted. a medical

doctor himself (as well as an immigrant from Uzbekistan), he included

the following note:

<p>

"Thank you for a joy we have had with the photos. They are really the

wonderful masterpieces of our memory."

<p>

i have no regrets about paying the extra bucks for the L glass. nor

do i regret using the 20D's ISO 1600 capability to shoot with

available light.

<p>

<img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/1513-1faa800.jpg">

<p>

[rob_m.___portland__or.]

Yippee.

[jon_austin]

Boy, but this forum is getting hostile lately...

[ozone42]

Lovely story, thanks for sharing it with us.

[wedding-photography-denver]

7/7. Great shot :-)

[james_taylor11]

Very nice!

[christopher_diao1]

where is your thread on the wedding social forum

 

where do i find those pictures?

[gaetano catelli]

thanks to all for the supportive comments. here're some more examples:

<center><p>

 

<img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/IMG_1154-1a700.jpg">

<p>

<img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/IMG_1204-1aaf750.jpg">

<p>

<img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/IMG_1208-1a750.jpg">

<p>

<img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/IMG_1582-1b700.jpg">

<p>

<img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/IMG_1778-2a650-bw.jpg">

<p>

<img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/IMG_1847-1a750.jpg">

<p>

<img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/IMG_1863-1a750.jpg">

<p>

<img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/IMG_1872-1aa-cr750.jpg">

<p>

<img src="http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/lina/IMG_1907-1aa750.jpg">

</center><p>

[KenPapai]

Nice photos... but straying pretty darned far from the Canon EOS forum theme, esp. posting 100's of images.

[gaetano catelli]

many are wondering whether to buy a 20D, especially if they already have a 10D. many are wondering if the 24-70mmL f/2.8 is worth the extra cost and weight. there may even be some people who want to see examples from a 'live' job, rather than a postage stamp magnified 100 times.

 

indeed, one poster specifically asked to see some examples.

[stephen_f2]

much blurry

[gaetano catelli]

yes, there is some motion-blur in those shots in which there is, uh, motion.

 

however, there seems to be little or no bluriness from the subject(s) being out of focus (kudos to the 20D's auto-focus capability). the focus in those shots in which the subjects are not moving at all is perhaps a bit soft by the standards of Leica or Hasselblad users. but, imo, weddings don't call for tack-sharp focus.

 

of course, using flash would have frozen the action. but, that's part of what makes flash seem unnatural to me, which is why i try to avoid flash. there is also the problem that when the shutter speed is high enough for flash to stop the action, the background becomes unnaturally darkened.

 

some flash users try to compensate for this by 'dragging the shutter'. that is, they shoot at a shutter speed slow enough (say, 1/30 sec) that the background does not seem unnaturally dark. however, unless the flash output has been color-balanced to conform to the ambient light, the color balance of the one will clash with that of the other. in cases like the wedding hall where i was shooting, there were yellow and blue floodlights -- mixed with tungsten light elsewhere. the result of using flash while dragging the shutter in this lighting might have caused some of the boomer generation to have "LSD flashbacks" when looking at the resulting photos.

 

however, i confess that i lost a number of shots due to 'camera shake', a far different proposition aesthetically than a little motion blur or soft focus. so, the next time i'm shooting in similarly low-light conditions, i'll probably use my 50mm f/1.8 II prime lens.

[james_taylor11]

Hello again,

 

I was wondering about the black and white photos. Did you use the black and white setting on the 20D, or take out the color after the wedding. I recently purchased a 20D and I really like the way your photos came out. I would like to experiment with B&W and I'm wondering what the best technique would be.

 

Thanks,

 

-James

[ronald_smith2]

Personally, if you intend to use available-light, the images need to be MUCH sharper. I'd look at a fast wide angle (like the EF 28mm f/1.8 or the EF 35mm f/1.4 L) Blur is OK for dancing but not acceptable for anything else; you may have to use more flash if you intend to stay in business.

[gaetano catelli]

James, i shot at the highest jpg setting in color. then i used Photoshop CS2 to change the Mode to grayscale, and then fiddled with levels, the curve, and added a teeny bit of increased contrast. (i've tried some of the more exotic methods of B&W conversion, but, personally, could find no advantage to using them.)

 

the one thing i will do differently next time, in addition to trying the 50 mm f/1.8 in low light, is to shoot in RAW next time. i only had one 6GB microdrive before, and was afraid of running out of capacity. now i have 2 such drives, totaling 12GB.

 

to tell the truth, i hadn't planned on doing B&W. the picture in my first post of the bride and groom's dance-number finale was originally taken in color. when i looked at it, i just asked myself, ~hmmmm .... i wonder what this would look like in B&W?~

 

as a side note, the bride and groom, and their respective families, have not yet seen the B&W version; they've only seen the color version as 4x6 proof. but, i took the file (32-bit .tif) to Chromazone, 69 Leonard Street, in tribeca and had it converted to a 6cm x 9cm TXP320 negative -- it wasn't cheap :-( -- then i printed the negative on 16x20 Ilford Multigrade fiber-based paper. the results were so good i nearly peed in my pants.

 

i bought a frame from AI Friedman, and, after i have a chance to wash the prints in Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner (for permanence, not toning),

i'm going to present the framed picture to the bride and groom as a surprise.

 

as far as the business model goes, i'm going to do what i've always done: try to take the most pleasing photographs i can. if they're commercially viable, fine. if not, i'll continue making a living in other ways, and taking pictures as my vision determines.

[thomas_sullivan]

you'll love the 20D @ 1600 from a RAW file...I am constantly amazed at this combination.

 

As far as the motion blur.....well, you've seen my stuff....motion blur you got here is very appropriate for dancing. I did the same, purposely, at my daughter's wedding a couple years ago (albiet film). I can see why the family liked this stuff.......nice going.

[thomas_sullivan]

...oh, one thing, take some time to learn how to get rid of the color shift due to the tungsten lighting. It;s not terrible in these pics, but I personally would have worked a little at getting them closer to the daylight balance. A little left over reddishnish don't hurt but too much just dont look right.........in my opinion.

[gaetano catelli]

thanks, Thomas, for the encouraging words.

 

i did, in fact, color correct -- to get from the orange tone of the original file to the tungsten-like tone they have now. (except for the two shots of the father dancing with the bride, in which i tried to affect an old-fashioned mezotint look. along with the other shots i posted above, these became the occasion for cries of consternation (from more than one poster) that my shots were so bad that they were undermining the credibility of using a digital camera to shoot a wedding.)

 

on the same thread, since deleted, someone posted a daylight-corrected version of the shot above that's an informal portrait of the bride gazing to her left. (this triggered snickering from certain quarters about the ineptitude of "amateurs".)

 

however, low-color-temperature tungsten lighting was the illumination of the actual scene itself for a reason -- it flatters the human complexion. personally, though i didn't say so at the time, i thought the daylight-corrected version was not nearly as pleasing as the warmer tones i have chosen. jmo.

 

thanks also for added encouragement to shoot with the 20D in RAW mode at ISO 1600.