fabiopazzini

<p>Mirko,<br>

Just one question: how good are you with Lightroom? If asked about Photoshop skills, I would also respond that I do everything with Lightroom, and the only few things left for Photoshop are 'modifications', such as taking an open eye from one pic to put it into another better pic, or erasing a big object from a pic, and so on. Every step of treatment/development of my RAW files are done in Lightroom, even a few special tricks.<br>

So again, if you're good with Lightroom, that's more than enough. Specially for a wedding photographer, that usually don't need too many 'modifications', more than what Lightroom does. If you're still not too good with LR, you may offer to get good enough with Lightroom and editing.<br>

I believe PS skills might be understood as RAW development skills, just ask what he needs. And, in case you don't know, to start working with RAW in PS, you first need to 'develop' it in Camera RAW, which is a PS Plug in, and is exactly the same engine as LR for development.<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>I have friends that are still taking wedding photos with film, and by choice, not because they can't work with digital. One of these friends is my favorite wedding photographer here in Brazil. Her husband goes as second photographer with a digital SLR, and she tried, but couldn't abandon film, for love. She loves film grain, her work has plenty of grain, and she does a lot of 'pushing', sometimes using iso 800 film pushed to 3200. Yeap, that's it, from 800 to 3200. Lots of contrast, saturation and grain: http://rafaelaazevedo.com/</p>

<p>For some artsy photographers, "old film days" are still on. ;-)</p>

<p>As Nadine pointed out, and others suspected as well, it seems like you're not understanding sharpness, or there's something else going wrong. Do you really understand aperture and speed? In weddings I rarelly take pics at f8, needless to say never above this. Usually I'm in f4~f6.3 for group shots, and with larger apertures for details.<br>

I even suspect you're not understanding 'wide angle'. Your whole question tells me you don't know much about photography. You say you're not getting sharp enough pics, and that's why you want a wide angle? The lens 'angle' (focal lenght) has nothing to do with sharpness.</p>

<blockquote>

<p >Bob Bernardo wrote:</p>

 

<p>"... You probably should avoid the sharpening software. The right camera setup should be very sharp."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Be careful when you say that, because digital cameras use a filter right in front of the sensor to "blur" the image a little bit, in order to avoid the Moire effect. So, this way, every digital picture must be "re-sharpened" back, as a way to achieve what should have been the "real" sharpness.</p>

<p>When you shoot JPG, this sharpening is done in camera.</p>

<p>When you shoot Raw, it should be done in post processing by software.</p>

<p>Now, answering Tina on this, Lightroom standard for Raw is set to sharpen by 25% (radius 1.0). This is their standard for the sake of bringing back sharpness taken away by anti-moire filter. Of course, it's also a matter of taste, as Nadine says she usually stays between 40-50%. I've been tinkering more with this lately, as I used to stay on the 25% before. Also, on every export option at LR (export itself, and 'print to file' on Print module, and Slideshow module), there is a second sharpening that may be done, somehow like an output sharpening. (this is since LR 2.3, I guess)</p>

<p>So, in other words, if you are using Lightroom, then post processing sharpness isn't probably missing. You may still go further on sharpening in LR, but your issue isn't there.</p>

<p>I also have been disappointed with sharpness on my wedding photos. So I'll try to take a look at all the other suggestions offered here.</p>

<p>Leasa,<br /> <br /> William W has really pointed out several good questions, that may guide you through what you need to figure out, in terms of things you need to learn, and things you need to clarify from your own style/technics.<br /> <br /> And I want to add (and agree with him) that you can indeed get better results from the equipment you already own. I've been shooting weddings since 2005 with a Rebel XT and a set of lens very similar to yours. I also own the 17-85mm and the 50mm f1.8, and was shooting with them until the end of 2006, when I bought a 24-105mm f4L. Now I use this last one most of the time, and the 17-85mm when the party rocks, because It's lighter and has the wider angle of the 17mm, that helps me a lot in the middle of the crowd. And the 50mm never lost its use in details, and candid shots (photojournalism style). Every lens has its moments and uses.<br /> <br /> So, there's one thing you seem not to understand about blurred background. It is an effect achieved by a sum of factors: aperture + focal length + distance from the subject and from the background. So, in a quick explanation, you can get a shallower DOF with wider apertures, longer focal lengths, and working with the distances subject/background. It is indeed harder to achieve blurred backgrounds with wide angle lens. So, when you're taking a group portrait with wide angle, there's not much you can do. In this case, if you set a wider aperture than f4, you might end up with people out of focus in the group. The only way would be to have a background further enough to be really out of focus, but that's not usually the case on receptions.<br /> <br /> My suggestion here is to get the camera and practice. Take photos with your 17-85mm on the wide side, get close to subjects, and far away from the background, and you'll see background blur. Then take another one, with the Tele side of the lens (85mm), and you'll see even more blur. Start with this, and try different distances of subject/background, different apertures, and go on trying and learning, 'till you figure out how to get that from your lens.<br /> <br /> And, of course, get good material to read and learn. Study. I explained very roughly, but any photography text will explain better than this.<br /> <br /> Regarding the indoor shots, the use of Flash is something you really have to study. Marius suggested strobist.com and Lighting 101 and 102. That's a very good start. Also, you've got to learn how your camera deals with flash exposure, and how exposure is read when you have a bride all in white, and a groom all in black. Things to get concerned.<br /> <br /> Also, post processing is essential. And what your instructor said was valid (in a sense) for Photoshop a while ago. But as from version CS3, this is no longer true. Things got better. But, if you shoot RAW, then that's absolutely not true. RAW's are "developed" non destructively. When shooting wedding, RAW is a must. You get the best out of your shots, and have plenty of room to work with.<br /> <br /> And all the rest that William pointed. He really got a good point.<br /> <br /> Cheers.</p>

<p>Linda, my guess is that she is really not using the flash correctly. Either she doesn't know how to use the flash, or she have changed a few settings on the camera/flash, that she might not even know about. As your shots seem well lit, my advice is to first give her some lessons. Get into practice with her, and see how she's doing it.<br /> <br /> Now, from my experience with flash on wedding receptions (and I use Canon), my reading about these photos are:<br /> First one (couple dancing):<br /> - looks like the flash bounced off an on-flash bouncer, or the actual flash bouncer (that white piece of plastic), but it is underexposed; might have been due to flash compensation on the camera (flash exposure compensation), or to flash not fully recycling at the moment of the shot (as the flash does go off even if not fully recycled); also, it might have been due to exposure on the dress, what might underexposes the rest of the pic. <br /> - on yours, I clearly see the flash bouncing off the ceiling, but what you think is ambient light, for me it is actually the flash illuminating the whole scene.<br /> <br /> Second (couple standing in front of the table):<br /> - again, I clearly see your flash bounced off the ceiling, and off the left side of the pic (means: not straight up, but angled).<br /> - on hers, I could believe the flash went off because there's a bit of light on the flowers, on bottom left; again, looks like Flash Exposure Compensation really dialed down. But apart from the flowers, I would never say there was flash on this pic.<br /> <br /> Third (couple with cake):<br /> - seems to me like a classic exposure reading from the cake on the foreground, and the couple gets underexposed. For me, it really looks like flash light, so it did went off, but she is not bouncing it correctly (if she is ever bouncing);<br /> - on yours, again, I see it bouncing off the ceiling, and even illuminating the background; that's what bouncing off the ceiling does.<br /> <br /> Last (couple dancing, light form the left):<br /> - Ok, on this one she seems to have tried to bounce the flash off a surface somewhere on the left side on the pic. BUT, to me, it seems like there was light coming directly from the flash. My guess: she had the flash head 45º angled, what might have let light come direct from flash, instead of a bounce surface, but as it's angled, it just lit half the scene. That is a terrible mistake I see many people doing. They twist the flash head up in an angle that light from the flash can still hit the scene directly, but only part on the scene gets lit, and light does not bounce.</p>

<p>Check all her settings (Flash Exposure Compensation, exposue mode). Check if she's paying attention to where the flash bounces. Ask her to be carefull with objects on the foreground, as they may fool the TTL reading. And, as a tip, I don't know if you do that, when bouncing off ceilings, put the flash zoom to 105mm, to concentrate the light.</p>

<p>- Dance and theater (plays) = NO flash! (please) :-)<br>

- If the background is black (it usually is, with some scene objects), turn your exposure to -1 point at least. Or be close to that if you're shooting manual.<br>

- Try, and try. Take lots of shots. Count on the LCD as a guide, don't just trust on it (and maybe dimming the light of the LCD).<br>

- The 30D is good up to iso 1600, and ok up to 3200. The Rebel is good up to iso 800, and ok on 1600 on emergencies.<br>

- on both cameras, there's a way for you to autofocus not on the shutter button, so that you keep the same focus for several pics. It's a bit tricky to learn, but it's veeeery helpful on stage, so you don't have to be focusing on every shot on a sequence. Go on the menu 'custom functions'; then to the 'Shutter button/AE lock button' function; set it to 3:AE/AF. no AE lock (it's #3 on the Rebel, not sure if it's the same on the 30D); then use the '*' button on the back to focus (usually, it's the Exposure lock button). Try it, it's helpfull. It helps a lot when you focus on a subject, and then move the camera a bit to change the composition.<br>

- good luck, and be happy. :-)</p>