First time shooting a Wedding!

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Indeed. We used to use multiple cards but at an event a couple of years ago one of my cards went missing and was never found. Thankfully my assistant had covered most of those shots as well. We now use one or two large capacity cards instead. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>If one is going to quote and make a quip- then quote the whole passage - such that the meaning is maintained:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I would never put all the shots on one card...that's a no no. You would be looking at a complete loss."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you are not “looking at a complete loss”.<br />However, it would be “a complete loss” if the one card was lost stolen or completely and irretrievably corrupted. - <em>there is a difference in the meaning<strong> and there is also the question - "what's the probability?"</strong></em><br>

<em><strong></strong></em> <br>

WW</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Agreed. It's like the usual advice: <em>"you need a backup camera".</em></p>

<p>If everything goes well, you don't <em>need</em> one at all.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Agreed. It's like the usual advice: <em>"you need a backup camera".</em><br />If everything goes well, you don't <em>need</em> one at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes.<br />That's the first part of the point I was making - the meaning of the words.<br />but MORE IMPORTANTLY . . .<br />The second part was (for the OP) to weigh up the probability of which problem would be more likely. To stuff up a card change or for one card to irreparably fail.<br />I was encouraging her to keep the whole day “<strong>as simple as possible</strong>”, and that be her main tenet.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I believe . . . [the point] in countering your "looking at a total loss" comment is mainly that a data error on a card usually doesn't mean loss of all the images on that card, but rather just some portion of them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not "mainly", but yes that was a part of my point also: which is why I used the phase : "<em><strong>completely</strong></em> and <em><strong>irretrievably</strong> </em>corrupted".</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<p> . . . still reading Crystal?</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I was encouraging her to keep the whole day “<strong>as simple as possible</strong>”,</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Which is very good advice.</p>

<p>These days, people think they need all the latest gear, fastest lenses and cameras with super high ISO settings. My father spent many years photographing weddings with a Rolleiflex. One standard focal length lens (ok, two) ISO 160 film and a primative flash.</p>

[crystal_rice1]

<p> I am still reading.<br>

I have added to my equipment:<br>

50mm 1.8 lens <br>

metz flash<br>

2- 16GB class 10 SD cards (plus the two I already have)<br>

Still trying to get my hands on a 70-200, but no luck. Hopefully I will do ok with the 70-300<br>

so I am up to<br>

-2 bodies<br>

-4 SD cards<br>

-50mm 1.8, 60mm macro, 3 kit lenses and one 70-300mm<br>

-two flashes<br>

-tons of batteries<br>

-tripod<br>

And I have been practicing like crazy with the flashes, because that is my weak area. I tend to prefer natural light. I have been getting good results and I am really liking my new flash!</p>

<p> </p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Crystal, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 it would be a very good lens for you to invest in, it's quite cheap and it's great quality. </p>

[marc_weintraub]

<p>My thought about "help, I'm shooting a wedding" questions is that it's better to be battered around by random strangers on the internet who might give you good advice than having to deal with a cranky bride and her mother after screwing up the day's photos.<br>

I agree with Lindsay's original suggestion, but since you are confident in yourself and willing to try harder, you will probably do fine.</p>

[frolickingbits]

<p>Good choice adding the 50mm and the flash to the mix. I would also suggest getting lots of extra batteries for your flash-I bring at least 32 AA to every wedding I shoot, and 4 batteries for each camera. <br>

Also check out borrowlenses.com, you can rent cameras and lenses for pretty decent rates. I've used the Rebel xs a few times, and it is dreadfully slow and not very good at all in low light. You could rent a 60D, 16-35 f2.8 and a 430EX flash for about $200 for a week, and a 70-200 would be about $100 for the week. If you decided you liked the 60D kit, it would be about $2,000 to buy with a Tokina instead of Canon lens.<br>

Something that hasn't been mentioned is how you are planning to deal with all the photos after the wedding. You will want some sort of software program to sort through everything, pick out the best, get rid of the not so great, and do editing. I use both Aperture and Lightroom, and personally prefer the latter, but they are both good programs. You will also want to get a backup drive for your computer. And how are you delivering photos? If you are just putting them on a disc and giving them to the couple, that's fine, but I would suggest also giving them a list of good labs to go for prints (I like MPix). If you want to post them online and allow people to buy prints, I would suggest SmugMug.</p>

[crystal_rice1]

<p>I am planning on buying myself a larger format camera at some point. I will maybe see about renting some different ones to try before I buy.<br>

As for the editing and printing I have both Aperture and Photoshop elements. I prefer Aperture as it seems faster and easier to use. (I'm a Mac girl!)<br>

They Bride and Groom have requested a CD only. I offered them a proof album of 150 photos. I will be using a printing company in the city. They came highly recommended to me from another photographer in the area.<br>

I will definatly check out SmugMug</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I am still reading.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very Good.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />I have added to my equipment:<br />50mm 1.8 lens <br />metz flash<br />2- 16GB class 10 SD cards (plus the two I already have)<br />Still trying to get my hands on a 70-200, but no luck. Hopefully I will do ok with the 70-300</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm why the 70 to 200???<br />I am not sure the 70 to 200 will give you a great big bang for the buck; all things considered.<br>

Have a look at what you get in your frame with the 70 to 300 set at 100mm using your APS-C cameras and how far away you are standing from the Subject(s) – A Wedding Coverage is not a generally collection of Tight Headshots or Tight Bust Shots.<br>

The idea of a 17 to 50ish F/2.8 zoom resonates much much better with me.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I have been <em><strong>practicing like crazy with the flashes</strong></em>, because that is my weak area. I tend to prefer natural light. I have been getting good results and I am really liking my new flash!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Better than Very Good – excellent, indeed.</p>

<p>If you have glossed over this piece of advice I shall re-iterate: You need to DEFINITELY know if there is any point in the Ceremony that you CANNOT use flash.</p>

<p>The 50/1.8 will be very nice for Bridal Portraiture (and other uses) – used at about F/2.2~ 2.5 – if you have the time you should experiment with Available Light – but get the “must haves”, first.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[crystal_rice1]

<p>I will have the opportunity to see the church tomorrow evening and check out the surroundings. At that time I will be inquiring about what the church will allow.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p>:)</p>

[crystal_rice1]

<p>:)</p>

 

[travis_osterhaus]

<p>One of the most important things to remember is..have fun! This is what you do and love so if you are having fun then there everyone else is probably too</p>

[markonestudios]

<blockquote>

<p>Hmm why the 70 to 200???</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 to that. I suspect that many who immediately recommend this lens as a wedding staple will likely find that not a large proportion of their images were taken with that lens. I agree with WW's suggestion and implication, that this is by no means a must-have lens. You will more often than not be in tight quarters rather than wide open spaces. It has its uses, but if I were you I would prioritize a 17-xx f/2.8 lens.</p>

[crystal_rice1]

<p>OK so no flash in the church. Will not need a telephoto lens at all. And the T3i is a way better choice for shooting in the church. Very small, but beautiful church.<br>

Tomorrow is the day! </p>

[ianivey]

<p>Best wishes, Crystal, and please return and let us know how it turns out for you, would you? </p>

[personalphotos]

<p>I'm impatient. I've been following this thread and wondering how the wedding went.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Mark AK, in general, I certainly agree with you, but I have to add that when you need it, you *really* need it. I just shot an outdoor wedding this weekend. The ceremony was outdoors, and the only way to get shots of it (ie, no re-creation was going to happen) without being intrusive was to use my 70-200 VR2 + an extender + monopod, and a 2nd camera with my trusty old 28-70 /2.8 on an identical 2nd body. I looked like I was shooting sports, but it worked fabulously well.</p>

<p>BTW, Crystal, w.r.t. the very sound advice given about the importance of having backups of everything, at the wedding I shot this weekend:</p>

<p>a) Just as the toasts and speeches started, the little PC-to-3.5 mm wire used to connect the camera to my Pocket Wizard transmitter started falling out of my d700 and just wouldn't stay in. If I didn't have a "Plan B", it would have been an absolute disaster as that one little $5 wire controlled all my off camera lights. Fortunately, after a few seconds of playing around with a rubber band, I gave up on that approach because I had commissioned my daughter's boyfriend as a go-fer and he had my 2nd d700 (that I had already set up identically including a 2nd wire and Pocket Wizard) in my hands in probably less than 30 seconds. When I got a minute or two, I used a tip conditioner and both cameras were back in operation.</p>

<p>b) The night before the wedding, I came down with the mother of all head colds and wasn't sure if I would even be able to make it though the day. I called a buddy of mine who was able to drive out and spell me for table shots and the beginning of dancing. I then was able to use the time to get some liquids into me, eat something and rest, and then I was able to shoot the end of dancing, garter & bouquet, dollar dance, jump group shot (their idea, not mine), etc.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - Peter, be patient, Crystal is probably figuring out (like the rest of us have done) how in the world one best deals with a thousand or so images ... maybe from more than one camera. ;-)</p>

[ianivey]

<p>I don't know about that PS, Tom. If she's like most people shooting her first full wedding, she's probably figuring out how in the world one best deals with <em><strong>two</strong></em> thousand images. :)</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>;-)</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Very true, I'll shoot around or just over a thousand at most weddings. Crystal probably has 3x that. I'll wade in on the 70-200mm as well. Last year I shot an outdoor wedding where the minister (not a WC but an ordained minister) conducted the service and even after going through the rehearsal he suddenly announced, 30 minutes before the service, that there was to be no photography of any type from anyone during the service.</p>

<p>I never use my 300mm f4 for weddings but I had that in the trunk of the car and fortunately an APSc D90 'carry around' camera that also never gets used for weddings (primary's are D700's). So the 70-200mm with a 1.4x Tamron TC went on one D700 and the 300mm went on the D90. The 2 cameras render different images but with the help of Lightroom and some CS5 work, the D90 did a decent job. The minister was a little mad that I still shot the wedding service but I was so far away that it didn't disturb anyone and you'd never know I wasn't standing 15 feet from the B&G for most of the shots (other than the long lens compression).</p>

<p>I use the 70-200mm at every wedding and wouldn't want to be without it. Certainly it would be possible to do a wedding without one but it does things shorter lenses can't.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>If she's like most people shooting her first full wedding, she's probably figuring out how in the world one best deals with <em><strong>two</strong></em> thousand images</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not like me then. I did my first wedding about three years ago and had three rolls of 120 film to deal with - each with ten images. <br>

The best way to deal with 2000 images is to get rid of 1,900 of them</p>