anner

Honestly, I think neither of these give a big bang for the buck. I think you'd do better by

seeking out other wedding professionals in your area and taking them out for coffee,

listening to their expertise about getting into the industry, and then exchanging cards with

them. If I had to choose between expo and mag.. at least the expo allows you to have some

kind of personal contact, in order to develop a relationship with a potential client.

Brian - hahahah!! When I think of cach鬠I think of geocaching and all the little trinkets that

you find in random boxes. ;-)

Here's how I define them.. feel free to disagree ;-)

1. Digital Negatives are straight from the camera, as if they were burned directly from the

memory card onto CD/DVD in their original RAW or JPG captured format. For me, the High

Resolution CD/DVD means that the images are print-ready and have enough resolution to

create at least a 16x24" print.

2. I refer to a Flush-Mount allbum as an album in which the images are printed on an

actual photograph and that photograph encompasses an entire page. Typically, the

photograph is mounted to a hard plastic page which is stiff and does not bend. I refer to a

Coffee Table Album as one in which the images are printed directly onto a non-

photographic paper - with or without coating. The pages are often flexible, rippable, and

do not have a protective spray.

3. For me, a proof print is one that has undergone basic color and brightness corrections,

while a final print is one which is competition-ready. I don't watermark or put a copyright

on my proof prints, but I know some people do.

4. Editing- narrowing down the selection of images. Processing- color, brightness,

contrast balance. Retouching- eliminating blemishes, glasses glare, random objects, or

replacing closed eyes with open ones, spot-coloring, hand-tinting, or adding anything

that wasn't there to begin with (for me, retouching also means "photoshopping" an image).

5. Copyright Release to me means that you actually turn over any rights you have to the

image so that you are no longer in charge of what happens to that image- if the person

you give release to, says that you can't use that image on their site- you have given up

your right to that image. Printing Permissions for me is a Non-Commerical, Attribution,

Share-Alike Creative Commons License which gives clients the ability to reprint the image,

share the image, and display the image- as long as I'm given credit for the image and they

don't try to sell the image.

6. To me, Fine Art and Traditional are very similar. I have a hard time distinguishing these

when speaking in terms of wedding photography. They both use light very well- create

beautiful posed portraits, and set-up images of details. The only thing that might

separate Fine Art from Traditional for me is perhaps the use of interesting angles,

compositions, and techniques like selective DOF, dragging the shutter, and spinning or

zooming during an exposure.

7. The word Photojournalism seems to have been bastardized by wedding photographers.

True photojournalism to me means no interaction what-so-ever with the subjects of the

images. However, I think even a newspaper photojournalist knows that there is always

some amount of interaction, since you can never be truly invisible. For me, wedding

photojournalism is like photojournalism in that there is minimal interaction with the

subjects, but there is also an extra concentration on details and scene-setting images,

which embelish the story of the day. Both forms of photojournalism for me are focused on

telling a story of how things happened, not just that they happened.

9. In my mind, an assistant carrys bags, helps with catching posing glitches like stray hair

or unbuttoned tuxes, and is a basic go-to person, but isn't relied on for photographic

coverage. I think a second shooter is relieved of the assistant duties because I want them

to focus on opposing angles or capturing that which is secondary to the main subject.

10. Hand colored to me means adding color to an image where color wasn't present to

begin with - like adding blushing cheeks, or hand-tinting a B&W photograph to create an

overall colored image. Spot coloring to me means coloring only a selective part of the

image, or taking color away from all but one part of the image.

So... maybe we'll all have similar definitions... but maybe not!

How would you define and distinguish the following words for your clients?

1. Digital Negatives vs. High Resolution CD/DVD

2. Flush-Mount Album vs. Coffee Table Album

3. Proof Print vs. Final Print

4. Editing vs. Processing vs. Retouching

5. Copyright Release vs. Printing Permissions

6. Fine Art vs. Traditional

7. Wedding Photojournalism vs. Photojournalism

9. Assistant vs. Second Shooter

10. Hand Colored vs. Spot Colored

Reading the wedding caché post made me think about how so many words are misused in our industry

and how there's a real need to come to a standard defnition and distinction for the sake of our clients and

other photographers entering the industry.

Sean, please know that I mean well. I feel that neither of these cards/designs/photos give

the best first impression. The images, in and of themselves, are fairly weak and unpolished.

In your case, I would scrap the image idea all together and choose a simple color and layout

with a strong and sleek design. A solid color background, in and of itself, will separate your

card from that of other business cards that may be roaming around in a potential client's

wallet or purse. Create more mystery by not showing an image up front, and getting clients

to call you or visit your website (which you really need to have if you're going to be in this

business).

Larry - in most cases, there is some source of light for the reception photos. I use whatever I

can get. If I have a great video light or DJ lights to work off of, I use those. If I don't have

enough alternative light, I use flash - sometimes bounced, sometimes off-camerea, but

rarely ever direct flash.

... and then, of course, there's the whole problem of your camera's flash metering off the

white dress vs. the black tux... sooooo many things to think about!

one more thought... in looking at your images... with the use of such a slow shutter, I would

have cranked up the aperture to allow less light in at a time.. that way only the brightest

lights would read in the camera.

Kari - did you see more of the "sparkler tunnel" examples I posted on flickr? I didn't want

to hog your whole post with my pics, but it shows that most of my shots where the bride &

groom were moving through the tunnel were shot at 1/60th or close to that.

I would never trust myself to handhold at 1/8th either... in fact, for the shot of the kids, I

turned myself into a human tripod on the ground with my arms braced on my knees... of

course this wouldn't work with a moving subject, but the kids were standing still trying to

draw things and I was trying to capture the movement of the light... not the movement of

the subjects (as mentioned in last post.)

In any case... good luck next time, and hopefully my examples will help someone out

there.

Sorry.. I know it's late to add these thoughts.. but here they are..

With a tunnel full of sparklers.. you have a very bright and STREAMING light source on

both sides of the couple. This is why a long exposure doesn't work like it would if you

were using a FLASH of light. In the examples from the previous thread, all of those were

made to capture the movement of the light, and not to freeze the movement of a person

surrounded by light. Also, because of the smoke produced by sparklers, wait to use your

flash until they are at the end of the tunnel, so that you aren't illuminating all of the

smoke. I know the timing is only seconds that you have to achieve this, but it is possible.

You can also ask the couple to pause at the end of the tunnel and kiss, or wave good bye

to everyone.. which would buy you a few seconds as well.

Hi Kari,<br>

Sorry I didn't see this earlier, I may have been able to help you out!! I think a lot of people

underestimate how much light a sparkler produces, and because of that, they tend to use

an exposure that's too slow. I say bump up that ISO if you've got it and shoot faster to

stop motion. I have a lot of examples in a set on flickr - <a

href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/annemarlow/sets/72057594085854585/">::Click

Here::</a> to see the whole set.<br>

<br>

Here are a few examples...<br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/37/114903960_9d5fd8cd91_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/138/323648348_b4b9fbc99e_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/144/323651647_ea48245990_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

Gina, thank you so much for your compliments!! I'm always learning, and always eager to

share what I've learned. I agree that at first I felt like it was cheating too, but when you

think about the things that a machine like a Fuji Frontier would do when it prints images,

there are a set of automatic controls that print the images with slightly higher contrast and

saturation than what they appear to be in their original state. Also, when you're

developing in the dark room, you have quite a bit of control over the final print outcome.

So, I definitely think it's safe to say that it's OK, and pretty much expected as a

professional, that you'll make an image look a little better in its final state.

Marc - Hi!! I hope all is well in Franklin! I've found the time for import into Lightroom to

be almost as long as the time it takes for bridge to develop RAW previews for the same

images, but I agree that the developing process is still not fast enough for RAW in

Lightroom. I have also found the export to take as much time as it does when I'm working

in ACR... but, since they have not integrated an option to add photoshop actions, there is

still that extra step.

I'm curious as well about final cost and release date, but I have heard a little rumor that

Adobe will be releasing CS3 for free in beta version to all Mac users who have registered

CS2.

(I always wish I could see the other responses on photo.net when I respond to a post - I

always end up opening two windows in order to respond to people.)

How funny.... I just went back and started reading the other responses... it looks like women

named Anne think alike. ;-)

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this, I think it's more of a style question.

Some clients want a photographer who is very hands on, and they expect a photographer

to step in and make sure everything is being done "perfectly". Other clients want a

photographer who is very hands off, and they expect that a photographer will be invisible

on the wedding day getting important shots without ever interrupting. The key is to find

the clients who share your ideals about what a photographer's role should be on the

wedding day.

Personally, I talk to the bride & groom a lot before the wedding, asking them questions

about how much time they'd like to take for posed images, what order of events they're

planning on, etc. I pose questions and things to think about to help their day go

smoothly, but ultimately I want them to be the organizers. I let them know that when it

comes to the wedding day, I'm entirely hands-off and that they should ignore me, unless

I've been asked to pose people. More often than not, if something isn't running smoothly,

I'm still one of the first people they turn to for help because I'm usually close by (unless

they have a coordinator).

Even though they understand my hands-off approach, I still get people asking me how

they should cut the cake - and I don't have a certain way I want them to do it, because I

want them to do what feels natural to them. There are photographers who take this

opportunity to put the bride & groom's hands in a specific position, or tell them to move

very slowly, etc. Do I think one way is better than the other? No - I think they're just

different.

Regardless of the choices you make about how you handle your clients or photographic

moments, as long as you have taken the time to help your clients understand what they

should expect of you in advance, and they agree with it, than that's all that matters.

Ultimately there's no right way - only different ways. There are clients for all types of

photographers. All you can do is decide what works best for you, and market your style to

find the clients who appreciate what you do best.

I'm all for archiving on HD. However, I had a 300 GB HD fail on me very recently, which

forced me to retreive my DVD backups. Of course there is no perfect media, eventually it can

all fail us at some point, so having multiple options is always advantageous.

Tana - I mentioned this in my last paragraph in the initial post....

"Just to be clear, I don't think Lightroom will be a replacement for Photoshop (but it could

replace Bridge/ACR), because it doesn't do things like cloning, blurs, overlays, or selective

coloring, but it will allow photographers to streamline their post processing workflow so

that they rarely need to use photoshop to achieve a beautiful digital image regardless of

the format it was captured in. It also has incredible printing, web sharing, and slideshow

features which are excellent ways to display your work either at a wedding, or afterward. If

you haven't checked it out yet... I highly recommend you learn to use it now while it's still

FREE!!!"

Neil, I totally agree that post-processing is not the ONLY thing that separates

photographers, and that truly exquisite imagery comes from an understanding of

EVERYTHING that makes an image beautiful including lighting, composition, timing, and

other in- camera choices made at the time of *click*. However, I know there was quite a

bit of work done on both of the images you posted, and it would be interesting if you

shared the originals with us as well.

This post is not meant to stir up controversy over the use of photoshop or other post-

processing programs, but rather to share the reality that many images are not perfect

straight from the camera and to introduce a tool which can help improve and streamline a

digital wedding photographer's post production. Obviously, if you love what you have and

it works for you... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I agree that at this time it's too slow for my 5D RAW files on my Intel Mac. I still use ACR

when I shoot RAW. However, when I shoot JPG, I use Lightroom exclusively.

What do you usually end up batching in PS?

Well, it's no secret that what happens in post-processing is ultimately what separates digital

photographers apart from each other. Ten photographers could use the same equipment and take the

exact same picture, yet go ten different directions in post-processing with the same image. I love the

flexibility and freedom that "going digital" has given me over the last few years, but I hate Photoshop. I

love saving money on lab bills and not having to wait weeks before seeing my images printed from

negatives, but let's face it, digital images straight from the camera... no matter how good your skills

are... just don't have a big "wow" factor. <br>

<br>

I think eventually more professional labs will catch on and start processing RAW images the way they

develop film, but until that happens, many digital photographers are their own lab and do their own

processing. When you shoot 1,000++ images at a wedding, being your own lab can be incredibly time

consuming!! Luckily Adobe Camera RAW Developer was created to batch process white balance,

exposure, and other file enhancing tweaks.... IF you shoot RAW. However, if you like Sepia, Split Tones,

or Warm B&W tones, you've probably already discovered some of ACR's limitations.<br>

<br>

Then came <a href="http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/">Adobe Lightroom Beta</a>.

Finally, you can process JPG and RAW side by side, batch processing white balance, split toning, B&W,

vignettes, and more in one super streamlined format. Fix one posed formal shot in tungsten lighting,

select the other 30 and hit "sync" and bam, you're done. Lightroom has sped up my workflow

tremendously and made it just as easy for me to shoot RAW or JPG - depending on what my needs are.

To show you what's possible, I've included a lot of images on my blog, along with a link to all of the

original, straight from camera images so you can see how not-awesome I am. ;-) <a href="http://

anneruthmann.blogspot.com/">**CLICK HERE**</a> to visit my blog and see more examples of what's

possible within Lightroom.<br>

<br>

Here's just one example of something that's possible with Lightroom, but not with ACR... <br>

<br>

<br>

Original Image, straight from camera, captured in JPG... (normally my exposures are better than

this, but I wanted a dramatic example to show you)<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/138/321220548_bd6d05c91a_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

Final image, all processing done in Lightroom (only slight sharpening for web and logo were done in

photoshop). Most people have to use a photoshop action to achieve this Warm B&W, and it's nearly

impossible to achieve in ACR..<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/140/321220651_5b260e7ce4_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

<br>

Just to be clear, I don't think Lightroom will be a replacement for Photoshop (but it could replace

Bridge/ACR), because it doesn't do things like cloning, blurs, overlays, or selective coloring, but it will

allow photographers to streamline their post processing workflow so that they rarely need to use

photoshop to achieve a beautiful digital image regardless of the format it was captured in. It also has

incredible printing, web sharing, and slideshow features which are excellent ways to display your work

either at a wedding, or afterward. If you haven't checked it out yet... I highly recommend you learn to

use it now while it's still FREE!!!

If I were a bride, I'd probably be more likely to ask if I could see a "real" wedding album vs. an

album of your greatest hits. Hopefully they've already seen your best work online, and if

you've shown them entire weddings, they may want to see how you'd take one of those and

turn it into an album. I think that there may be more credibility in showing them something

that could turn out to be a real album, vs. something that is obviously not a real example.

I have sooo many favorite photographer blogs, it's crrrrazy!!! I really don't have time to

look at them all, but I can definitely say that even if it's subconscious, I know certain

images stick in my mind and later come back to me as an "idea" when I'm shooting.

On top of ones that have already been mentioned... here are few more of my favorite

wedding photographer blogs...

http://www.thewiebners.com/articles.cfm/

http://www.altf.com/blog/

http://s1blog.blogspot.com/

http://www.angelicaglass.com/blog.html

http://www.kuperblog.com/

http://uberphotography.blogspot.com/

I really wish the following blogs had feeds!! But there is also something to be said for

builing it into the front page of their websites...

http://www.dqstudios.com/

http://www.easthillphoto.com/

I think that's a better question for Wiki, Google, or About...

http://weblogs.about.com/od/rssandcontentsyndication/

My bookmark bar is full too!! One thing that I've started using to help me keep up with

blogs when they post new content without checking them first, has been to use http://

www.bloglines.com which makes it really easy to type in the web address of the blog and

it will automatically check to see if there's an RSS or ATOM feed available so that you can

track all of your favorite blogs in one place. A fellow OSP photographer created a blogroll

called http://ospsouth.com that instantly creates links to new posts from all of the

photographers who expressed interest in attending the recent OSP get together that I

mentioned last week. However, this only works if someone's blog has a feed or

syndication option (and if yours doesn't have the option- it's time to get a different blog!)

Sometimes I feel like no one is reading the blog if they don't post comments, but in truth,

there's often nothing to invite them to leave comments unless they are major lovecats and

just like to publicly ooooh and ahhh over everything we do. So if comments are what you

seek, ask questions. ;-)

The best way to guage your web traffic is to use a statistic cookie counter. I use http://

www.statcounter.com to keep track of my blog traffic and where it comes from, which tells

me that I do have visitors, and quite a few of them, even if they never leave a comment. It

also helps if your blog has an RSS or ATOM feed as well as a place for people who don't

understand these feedburners to subscribe with just their email address.

If I read someone's blog, I often leave a message, simply because that's what I wish people

would do when they read my blog. So, if someone leaves a comment for me and provides

a link to their blog... I'll often check out their blog and leave a message for them as well!

Since external links pointing to your website are another thing that boosts search engine

ratings, it's in your best interest to post comments on other search engine friendly blogs

with a link back to your website or blog.