kim long- cincinnati, ohio

The D200 has not disappointed me as high as ISO 1600. I will be able to meter and strategize (and, well, practice) at the rehearsal the day prior to the ceremony. The bride, groom, and wedding coordinator have welcomed my attendance there, so that should help.

D'oh! It would help if I mentioned the primes, wouldn't it? 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 (leaning toward the later, obviously, since reach is in question). Both Nikon, in case that wasn't clear.

Lest I come off sounding frightfully in over my head, I should add that this is <i>not</i> my first time covering an event of any kind in dark, no-flash conditions, but my first church wedding in such conditions. ;-)

I'm shooting an upcoming wedding in a typical old Catholic church- my first in

this dark of a setting, and under any kind of really limiting policies (not that

I think they're unreasonable- I'm aware they are par for the course and that

I've just been fortunate to have covered weddings with so few limitations thus

far). <br><br>I'm trying to decide which lenses I want to use based on the

following parameters: no flash except during the processional and recessional,

and I'm obliged to remain behind the line of the last row of congregants at all

times. Like I said, it's your standard old Catholic church with stained glass.

Not a cave, but definitely dark. Not an enormous aisle, not a grand Cathedral,

but certainly larger than a chapel. Instead of wearing both my bodies, I'm

thinking of having one of them mounted on a tripod in the choir loft. My Nikon

17-55 2.8 is just about a must, I believe, because I really want those interior

wide angle shots, so really it comes down to choosing that second lens. The

speed of either of my primes would certainly come in handy given the lighting

(and flash limitations) I'll be working with. However, given the "stay behind

the last row of congregants" rule, I'm torn, because the reach of the 70-200 2.8

VR would also be very desirable. <br><br>I did a search of the forums and didn't

see an exact discussion on this, but I'll bet it <i>has</i> been hashed out

before, so please don't throw tomatoes at me. I apologize if I missed it. What

do you vote for? Speed of the primes or reach of the zoom? Or, is it reasonable

to attempt to switch between, say, the 17-55 2.8 and one of my primes at

strategic points during the ceremony (my gut is telling me not to)?

Nope- portraits here, specializing in babies and children. In fact, I had not intended to do weddings at all. As was foretold by several friends and mentors, I sort of got sucked into wedding photography. However, I'm fairly discriminating (not in the pejorative sense, mind you) about the weddings I take on. I'm fortunate to be in a position where I don't <i>rely</i> on income from weddings, ergo I invoke the privilege of selectivity. :-) I like to stay true to my style, and have no problem referring someone elsewhere if their desires are too out of step with my own preferred approach. So in that sense, I don't suppose I'll ever really be a "real wedding photographer" in the sense of having that as my proverbial bread and butter.

Unusual, sure. Eccentric? You bet. Hell, I'll even give you morbid/ gothic, maybe. But, dumb? That's harsh. A wedding should be a reflection of the couple's unique individual and combined personalities, and I, for one, find these kinds of quirky affairs to be the most fun to photograph. Not knocking the timeless elegance of traditional formal events, but purely from this photographer's perspective, formulaic conventions can get really boring. I can appreciate that for many couples, adhering to convention *is* an expression of their personality(/ies), but that won't stop my heart from doing a little leap for joy when, say, the bride wears something other than a strapless ball gown and tiara. ;-)

Aha, so Anne knows I get around. :-P Okay, I don't want to hijack poor Katrina's thread, so I'll shut up now. It was just so recent for me, I thought it fit the bill. It was actually a graveyard on private property rather than an actual public cemetery. But those aren't uncommon here, either, seeing as though <a href=http://www.springgrove.org/>Spring Grove</a> is so nearby.

 

Thanks for the kudos, though, guys (oh, and on the camera question, D200 & D70).

There was a graveyard on the property of the last wedding I shot, and the bride and groom wanted pics there. They wanted some with a deliberately eerie feel as well as some regular shots. I posted several in my <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=609727>portfolio</a> here.

Maybe a tad too pink, but...<div></div>

Not an exact formula, but a general method in PS... I dupe the image in a new layer, then adjust color balance in midtones, shadows, and highlights, separately. I will also tweak using the "Selective Color" function, sliding the blacks, neutrals and whites toward whatever tint I desire. I will usually record as I go along and when I get what I want, save it as an action for that group of photos. In Stacy's particular example, I'd most likely finish it off by some gentle dodging and sharpening of the eyes to make them pop just a little (nothing too alient-looking, though).

I know this is controversial, but I make my files available for purchase. The demand in my market for negatives (film or digital) is high. It's a deal-breaker for many couples, in fact. Not that you give them away, but that you at least make them available for purchase. And while I'm not the most expensive wedding photographer in my market by a long shot, I'm certainly not a "budget wedding photographer" by any means, either. I make the full-resolution files available as an a la carte purchase option (with limited copy rights) and so far, this works for me. I make what I want from my coverage (albums are usually an additional sale I can also count on, though not always), and if they choose to purchase the disks in addition, I'm covered for a good amount, probably close to (give or take a little) whatever revenue I could have expected from reprints. If they choose to go that route, what they get is a set of disks of finished proofs, NOT my raw files. The one PITA about this is that I do supply them in several different aspect ratios. It's not exceedingly difficult- I have a cropping program that is pretty efficient, but it does make for a lot of disks. I just don't trust my clients with cropping. I want that control.

 

As part of all my packages, I do provide a full set of printed 4x6" proofs in a pretty custom proof box, and while this may not wholly counteract the quandary of "well, they can get crappy prints made anywhere and it's a reflection of my work", it makes me feel better knowing they at least have one quality print of each photo personally approved by me. I like to think that because they are packaged so elegantly, these are the ones they are going to show their friends (or if they order an album from me, even better).

 

As far as the copyright being printed on them, I think just about any pro lab will do that. Am I understanding that part of the question right? I think that's standard practice.

I agree with Jim. As soon as I read the price in your post, I thought, "Well, there you go." I'm not saying all "budget brides" can be painted with a broad brush, but there is part of me that can't help but generalize to an extent. If the shoe fits, you know?

Thanks for the feedback, all. My idea was very much along the line of Kari's. Just to sort of make the maximum impression with the images. I'll continue to think this over...

My residence is an old urban warehouse converted to loft apartments, and one of

the amenities we enjoy is a really cool media room. It's very private, pretty

spacious, and has a big screen and DVD projector, complete with vintage movie

theatre seating, old popcorn machine, fridge, etc. Great place for parties.

Anyway, I'm thinking of taking advantage of it for proof viewing. I was thinking

that I could burn a DVD slideshow of the wedding proofs and play it for the

couple and any of their invited guests at a kind of "reveal" party, with light

refreshments served and everything. Is this idea totally overboard and

impractical, do you think? All three of my coverage plans include a complete set

of printed 4x6" proofs in a custom proof box (I use Cypress) anyway, so maybe

this would just be overkill. It's just that I have access to this kick-arse

facility and this idea started circling in my brain after hosting my daughter's

birthday party there this past winter.

 

What do you think? Yea, nay, maybe?<div></div>

:-D Tom. I was thinking the same thing and I'm glad to see I'm not the only theatre geek here. Well, okay, maybe the only geek, but not the only one who relates things back to theatre.

 

Libbie, I'm an ambient light snob, so this colors my perspective, but my thoughts are that these are the kinds of shots that work better without flash. Granted, to pull that off, you need reasonably fast lenses, but as has been said, when you have great window light to work with, making best use of that will usually give very pleasant results. I'm not against flash. I use flash. There are situations where I find it absolutely necessary. I actually don't use a bracket, but I do find my lightphere very useful for diffusing purposes, and often find that bouncing my flash behind me and slightly upward works well (of course, anyone behind me might beg to differ- I try to warn them first if I can).

Some of these are really making me laugh- good to see we're all capable of "keeping it real" too. And Stacy- you said none of those made the album, but tell me they did make the proof set. It would be neat to have a remembrance of those days when the "sizzle" was still very fresh. :-D

 

Thanks for the compliments on the cig shot, too. Hope the bride likes it. Not expecting print orders of it or anything, but it'll definitely go in the proof set they get to keep. The lighting was just gorgeous afternoon sunlight (and channel mixing in PS during conversion to really make it "pop"). Now what *really* would have been the ultimate unconventional "WTF" shot would have been when the bride was examining her friend's brand new boobs. Didn't get a shot of that, but got some great shots of the two of them in conversation.

LOL David... whatever gave you the idea? What a wicked sense of humour. :-D I bet they loved it.

Sounds like you've already taken the advice given here, but I was just going to chime in with a big, fat "ditto" to the suggestions to keep it clean and simple. A less fussy site will do proper justice to your fine work. Definitely have someone proofread your content as well. The random capitalizations, in particular, were dizzying.

Well, I think a lot of it depends on the style of wedding photography you are contracted to provide. It also depends on how unobtrusive you are about getting your shots. I try to get most of my shots as discreetly as possible, and read people's cues if I'm being too overbearing in my coverage.

So far, this shot has gotten very mixed reactions from those who've seen it. The

couple has not seen it yet, as this was a very recent wedding and the proofs are

not complete yet. I'm including it with the proof set, as regardless of one's

personal views on smoking or its "place" at a wedding, the reality is that the

bride and groom were smokers, and were smoking a lot that day. It seemed like a

significant part of their personalities. Anyway, thought I'd share it here.

Anyone else have any examples of shots they've taken which were true to the

couple and/or day's events, but quite outside conventions of wedding photography?<div></div>

I got an op/tech reporter strap, and I've practiced with it out and about, but this weekend's wedding is the first time I'm using it on the job, instead of having one camera around my neck and one over the shoulder. I'll let you know how it works. I also carry extra lenses, flash units, batteries and flash cards on a lowepro around my waist. I'm short and short-waisted, so it doesn't take much before it appears I'm lost under all my equipment. I'm well aware of how ridiculous I look, but hey, I have a job to do. :-D

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>