o_brian

<p>I think for a first effort you did pretty well. That said, I'd listen to everything Mark Ridout has to say on the topic. If you bother to go to his website I think you'll find he has some idea of what he's talking about - he's got some really sensational stuff. I've only bookmarked a few photographer websites and his is one of them, and 'no' I'm not plugging him. Never met or talked to the man. Naturally he has a helluva lot more experience than you do and also has the luxury of showing his best efforts from probably hundreds of shoots. You're showing a lot of shots from only one shoot, so it goes without saying that some clunkers make their way onto your website. Getting good exposures is always a good starting point, some consistency in that regard should always be a priority and may need some attention. But the real kicker has to do with what Mr. Ridout highlights regarding composition and the inclusion of background information. When/If you look at his stuff you'll see it immediately. There's more to his photo's than just the couple. There's context which adds so much visual depth. It should also be mentioned that he enjoys a skill level with photoshop that you probably don't and shouldn't be under-appreciated.</p>

<p>In a nutshell, looking at 65 shots from the same shoot takes away from the one or two winners that would survive an experienced pro's editing. Mr. Ridout gives you a 5 out of 10, thankfully the couple you photographed is framing a picture and not a rating. In that regard I think the couple has a nice picture to frame. Scour these forums for aspiring pro's and self- proclaimed pro's and it's easy to find some real garbage. Yours don't fall into that category. And even when you look critically at some of the real pro's like Mr. Ridout you might be able to make the occasional 'observation'. Keeping in mind that I love his stuff, I find it difficult to find any pictures of actual wedding ceremonies or receptions on his website. There's a link to an area I can't access so I can't say they don't exist, but I find it interesting when wedding photographer's only show posed shots (mostly natural light). Makes me wonder if shoe-mounted flash is their achilles heal or if their artistic integrity simply keeps them outdoors. Being that most weddings and receptions are indoors, and shot to a certain degree on-the-fly, I wouldn't hire a 'wedding day' photog that couldn't demonstrate a degree of proficiency with the 'flash'. Just one mans opinion naturally.</p>

<p>Harsh as the sun,<br>

O Brian </p>

<p>Don't know if this will help, but I remember seeing this awhile ago and thought it might interest you: <a href="http://www.dg28.com/technique/flash_fall_off.htm">http://www.dg28.com/technique/flash_fall_off.htm</a> <br />It's also a classroom based shoot. The photographer explains how he did it and why it's more difficult than you'd expect, mainly because of flash fall-off. Hope it helps. If not, the website where I found that is stuffed with 'how to' nuggets in the "technique" section; so there's a chance you might find something else of value. Good luck.</p>

<p>Jim Dockery, those are some fantastic shots. They also hammer home the point about having the right tool for the job. In your case having a quality, easily accessible, P&S is realistically the only way to go. Taking pictures while roped is very difficult. Opportunistic windows last seconds. Only enough time to unzip a pocket, remove camera, and fire without alot time spent framing. The quality of your pic's belie the real difficulty of doing it well. Most are magazine worthy. Kudos!</p>

<p>My 2 cents......<br>

Having done a fair amount of backpacking, mountain climbing, rock climbing, and many other things 'outdoors', I'm a big proponent of "less is more". Lugging a bunch of gear around sucks. It's cumbersome and heavy. I found that most of my memorable shots come from P&S's. That moose just 25 yrds off the trail will most likely just be a memory if you have to unclip your waist belt, wiggle out of your backpack, unzip and forage around for your camera - it'll be long gone. A nice P&S (Canon S90 for example) in a pocket will be quick and do a credible job. Of course you can bring along the heavier gear for when time allows, but many times outdoor activities simply don't allow enough time or are just too darn impractical to carry around when mobility is key (like fly fishing). Now if you're goal is to record other peoples fun akin to being a photographer for Outdoor Magazine, well that's a different animal.</p>

<p>So I'd start by making sure I had a good P&S and THEN expand on the dslr route. And I think David Streets seemingly esoteric Olympus suggestion might warrant a closer look. Naturally the 4/3s thing is a bit of a lightning rod on a Canon forum, but this new 620 body (light, well built, versatile, inboard Im.Stab, slave flash triggered from pop-up flash, swivel lcd - I love the swivel on my canon A610) combined with their 12-60 and 50-200mm lenses provide coverage from a 35mm equivalent of 24mm through 400mm. Both of these lenses have been been very well reviewed. Again they're light, well built, focus super fast, weatherproofed, and did I mention LIGHT. If there's a problem with the Olympus system it ain't the glass. Perhaps not deep enough in variety of lenses for pro's, but a compelling solution for most hobbyist's. Knowing that plugging the Olympus system is like trying to promote leprosy, I'll simply join the camp that suggest's focusing on glass whether it be Canon, Nikon, or whoever and then work my way backwards - body, flash, tripod, etc..... Spend the extra dough for the higher output flash. <br>

Keep in mind, my perspective is from that "light and versatile" viewpoint and from having experienced the downside to the big gear. I like having it, but more times than not my P&S's have done most of the heavy lifting (so to say). Get a good one.<br>

</p>

<p>William W, once again a thoughtful post. You better read this quick.</p>

<p> <br />You've basically gotten to the crux of the critique/advice/discussion problem in this forum setting. As you might be aware, and adroitly sidestepped, being critical on these forums is discouraged. It isn't just a matter of manners or tone, for the most part it simply isn't tolerated. It's ok to critique and support, just don't criticize. I believe it's a business decision, and probably a smart one, to avoid the slide into bickering that eventually becomes tedious to the point of losing followers/subscribers/"hit's". The problem though is that it doesn't allow for "tough love". And in many cases where it's called for, a person is instead politely critiqued/answered - nothing wrong with being polite - but left, almost encouraged, to go on their way to do real and permanent damage to someone else (uneducated, unsuspecting Bride and Groom's).</p>

<p>I started a thread probably 2yrs ago where I drew the analogy of wedding photography to being a short-order cook. I argued that given enough time that I could whip together a fairly credible meal, but that, in itself, didn't qualify me to accept a job as a short-order cook. I'd be underwater within fifteen minutes. Orders would get backed-up, panic would set in, and in 'short order' I'd have a catastrophe on my hands. Now, I'm not a wedding photographer or a professional photographer for that matter, but I don't see where someone with any real sense of what it takes to photograph a wedding could come onto these forums and ask some of the questions they ask. The fact is that they haven't any idea what it takes. They've taken some decent pictures, probably having had enough time to get something just right or through simple good luck, and now think they can make 'the jump'. My guess is that most of these people could use a bit of friendly 'tough love'.</p>

<p>BTW, that 'short-order' thread was deleted shortly after I posted it. I got my own taste of tough love. Photography is a fantastic hobby for 95% of us amateur photographers and should stay that way, a hobby. A good amateur with professional aspirations should serve some form of apprenticeship. If they did, they'd never come on here asking some of the questions they do.</p>

<p>David</p>

I should've made it clear that I'm shooting film. And it's fairly common for me to shoot different subjects in different lighting at different times on one roll of 36. For example, I'll take a few quick shots of my child in Aperture Priority and put the camera down for a week; pick it up to shoot something else in full Manual, etc... So, to some degree I need someone at the lab that's paying attention - mainly to bail me out.

In my search for a good lab here in NY City (C-41 prints) I came across a post back in Feb.08 that

suggested/recommended that if you find 'NNNN' consistently on the back of your prints it would be wise to find a

new lab. Having never heard of this NNNN thing, I immediately started checking my prints. Low and behold, and a

bit floored as well, I found that almost all of my prints from Duggal had this NNNN on them. I was always a little

unhappy with my pictures I had developed and printed there, but couldn't put my finger on why. I just figured that I'd

messed-up exposures on this roll, or that roll. Alkit (the 18th and Park location, since closed), on the other hand

and who I used 85% of the time, consistenly made pleasing prints - not because they were 'consumer' saturated

colors. When I checked the back of those prints I was hard pressed to find ANY with the NNNN on the back. Now I

don't know if this gentlemen in the Feb.08 post is the end-all when it comes to lab print knowledge, but being that I

know squat it seems like that code is sort of an indicator of either time spent getting it right or simply the time it

takes to press one button for an entire roll.

 

Now that Alkit has closed that location I've been searching for a lab in NYC, somewhat conveniet to Greenwich

Village that does GOOD C-41. If anyone has a suggestion please don't keep it a secret.

 

Thanks to the gentlemen of Feb.08 for this revelation.

 

David

Anybody that has an slr and a p&s knows that the low light capabilities of a p&s stink relative to a slr. For the most part you can't shoot at ISO 400 with a p&s and, in low light, iso 400 is pretty much the starting point for recovering any degree of ambient background light. That, coupled with the slower fixed lens on most p&s's, leaves you taking pictures at iso 100-200 with an onboard flash with similiarly limited capability. The result is usually a decently exposed subject with a severely underexposed background; consequently, I'd recommend a slr. The superior high-ISO capability enables/facilitates natural low light photography and the onboard pop-up flash on consumer and semi-pro slr's does a (very) respectable job. It lacks the versatility of the shoe-mounted variety, but it's there when you need it without the fuss and geek factor of the shoe-mount. Put a fairly fast lens (f1.8) on a slr and you've got a formidable low light weapon.

 

Opinions, of course, are like ..........., everyone's got one.

 

David

www.nationalweddingphotographer.com

Sounds like the photographer has gone digital and now wants you to help pay for it.

William, I have to say that you consistently give very thoughtful and insightful responses. If I ever had any aspirations of turning pro, which thankfully I don't, I'd try to hire you as a consultant. And I'm not kidding.

 

Off for a brief vacation tomorrow, so ....... au'voir!

 

David

I was a bit hesitant to recommend Program mode over Auto because I thought having to control/adjust the ISO was a potentially tricky business. Maybe I'm not giving the guy enough credit. And if I had to choose between teaching him the benefits of using 'exposure compensation' or how to utilize the different ISO values I'd probably choose ISO. I say that not to open up a fresh round of debate, rather to simply weigh in on which I thought was easier to grasp. I'm sure, however, that a strong arguement could be made in favor of exp. comp.

 

question: how 'lossy'/damaging is post processing on jpegs?

slowly making inroads......

 

turns out he has a canon 30D with a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens.

 

Don't know the lens myself, but the range ain't bad for a safari-ish type trip; could be worse and for an all-in-one kit solution, definitely ballpark. With an equivalent 35mm range of 45mm-215mm on his 30D it's obviously limited on the 'wide' side, but I personally think 'wides' are difficult to use well without a fair amount of practice.

 

It was another chance meeting, this time in the hall of our apt building, so there wasn't time for lengthy technical chat. Sometimes the pace of NY City has its drawbacks.

 

David

it obviously took me too long to write, edit, re-write, and fullfill my role as Captain Interesting with my 4yr old girl. I missed some of the additional post's. Like from Colin Southern on down. Thanks everyone.

Craig might be onto something..... thats the type of sensible solution only a true neighborly-type would come up with. My kind of guy. Having said that, I'm not quite sure the groom will share our enthusiasm for the logic of such a sacrifice (yes, giving up my p&s would hurt if only for awhile). On the other hand, the trip will encompass some safari stuff so the risk of some beast goring his expensive slr might be a consideration.

 

RAW: thought process took into account that the trip was important enough to go buy a new expensive digital slr so figured he might be willing to drop a couple hundred bucks (lab post-processing) to make those once in a lifetime shots/memories as good as possible. Given the 'lossy' nature of the Jpeg format when p.processing (I think that's right), once again, figured RAW provided flexibility without necessarily making 'post' compulsory. Does shooting RAW necessitate 'post', or can you print straight from original file? Again, I shoot film and my digital p&S limits me to jpeg; hence the ignorance.

 

I like the idea of using the picto-graph symbols. They would AUTOmatically choose favorable settings. The flipside.... it might possibly compromise ensuing shots if forgotten to re-adjust. The other idea of learning exposure compensation is one of most important I've learned but one fraught with variables. The knowledge and experience needed to ride that wheel (canon) needs to be second nature. The eye's on this guy would glaze over if I tried teaching him that. It's an invaluable skill, but given the time limitation just not practical. As far as composition, I was hoping to give the 101 version of: try to fill the frame, learn to press shutter halfway and recompose, there's a fine line between empty space and adding to the shot, the downside of sky/too much sky in the picture (re:exposure), etc, etc.... The list of do's and don'ts regarding composition could be lengthy so the key ones get the attention. The list of rules for exposing correctly, well...... forget it! Consequently I'm trying to come up with the most simplistic route. If the concensus on RAW is to skip it in favor of large, fine, jpeg than so be it. However, if some of you thought that shooting RAW and then lab-p.processed made sense I might at least make the suggestion to him and let him decide.

 

painfully wordy as usual,

David

Apologies for the 'off-topic' question, but it doesn't fit neatly anywhere

else either.

 

Situation: neighbor getting married; neighbor going to Africa for honeymoon;

went out and bought canon digital slr - off hand he didn't know the type

(30D "rings a bell"; kit lens... he didn't know details); asked me if I could

help figure "how to use it"; obviously doesn't know squat (give him a guitar

and he's in his element, photography just isn't his thing).

 

Preface: the conversation took place on an elevator, so details are sketchy.

In a nutshell, I've gathered that he doesn't know a lot and has about 3 weeks

to a month till Africa. I'm a film guy (35mm) who also shoots with a digital

p&s.

 

Question: what advice would you give to a neophyte hoping to come home with

decent shots?

 

My inclination is to suggest shooting in Auto; use RAW; concentrate on

composition; don't be scared to use flash in middle of the day. I'd be

attempting to adhere to the KISS principle. With only a month of pre-wedding

chaos, trying to cram sophistication into the equation could jeopardize the

desired result. Shooting Auto would let the camera's meter at least get

respectable/workable exposures; using RAW would allow 'post' polishing (likely

at a lab); and concentrating on composition is always a good idea.

 

Open to additional thoughts,

David

www.nationalweddingphotographer.com

Welcome to the grey, grey world of business ethics and even greyer area of verbal agreements. I spent 15 years on Wall Street and learned an incredible amount about people. Some I'd gladly make a commmitment too with nothing more than a handshake and others I'd never do business with even if I had a contract thoroughly cleaned and pressed. Naturally I would never recommend relying on a handshake, but I'm serious when I say I've done it. As a corollary, I think one of those traits I valued most in superiors/employers/clients/etc was the degree to which they were 'approachable'. Meaning, if I had a problem by error or misunderstanding could I approach that person in a professional way and expect a fair 'hearing' and reasonable response. Not always mind you, but most of the time. There's alwasys a chance the person rips your head off because they just got off the phone with their childs school principal - those calls are never good. If there's a point to this it's that you've got to be able to read people, whether they're your boss or perspective client. Contracts certainly have there place, but the courts are busting at the seams with deals gone bad and lawyers knit picking over semantics.

 

Bottom line: you've worked for the person for at least six months. You've seen the way he treats you, treats clients, and possibly how he treats his own family. You should know if the guy is 'approachable' by now. If he's a prima donna but really knows his business than hang awhile and absorb as much as you can. If on the other hand, he's a fairly decent guy than he just might appreciate you talking to him rather than quiting - something young people tend to do because they let a problem fester instead of giving communication a chance. In any case, you'll have a learning lesson to help prepare you for future events.

 

Wordy as always,

David

D.Wegwart, I think the point you bring up about being "happy to stand virtually toe to toe with your subject" is actually the type feedback or advice that the unknowing need. In fact, I'd bet that it's a skill underappreciated by those wanting to "make the jump". Personally I don't know if I could do it. I don't like to impose. Can you imagine what future I'd have.

Greg, cool answer. Makes total sense. Admittedly, my thesis had a bias toward the difficulty of composition without any consideration given to focus or camera shake. Obviously, your real-world experience speaks volumes about one of the challenges faced by wedding photogs. But to continue my thought...... I think most amateurs, handed a 70-200mm for the first time, will unconsciously fill the frame better than they ever would with a 24mm. Hence my 'keeper rate' assumption/speculation. They take one look at that head shot with a bit of bokeh from the 200mm and they think it's time to hang out their shingle. The results from the 24mm are likely much more mixed compositionally. They won't be able to put a finger on it but there just won't be any drama or anything dynamic about the shots.

 

Keep in mind I'm addressing the problem faced by those who aren't already out there shooting weddings, but thinking about it. Having the gear is only part of the equation. You've got to know how to use it. And from my experience getting good results from the Wides (again, from a composition standpoint) is more difficult.

 

Eric, the issue of 'keeper's should probably have its own thread. Personally I'm brutal on myself. If I get 1 or 2 keepers per roll of 36 (yes I'm still shooting neg. 35mm) I'm tickled. Often it's less than that. But than again I've found it has more to do with shooting environment. A good setting with good light will yield many keepers. Bad light and that number shrinks quickly. Bad light AND bad setting/subject......well, I'd be better off just trying to extract the silver from the film for anything of value.

Conrad, I was checking out your site the other day and you're the type that would do better with a single 50/1.4 on a full frame than I would with all my kit. Of course you'd prefer to be fully armed, but if pressed into action you'd come out of it with a lot of quality pictures and an overall competent result.

 

Ken, chances are that you already know how to use a 14mm even if you've never shot with one, but perhaps more importantly you probably know when and why to use it.

 

Mr. Wegwart........, I honestly chuckled when I read your response. And the honest answer is that I'm too ignorant to ask an intelligient question; so, I just 'pass go' straight to thinking out loud for good or ill. That aside, I chose to raise a point rather than pose a question. The point partly being that many suggestions from the pro's/more-knowledgeable often leapfrog fundamental issues that lead those less-knowledgeable to think that it's the equipment that makes a pro. The use of equipment by the pro's is often so second nature that they forget the skill actually needed to properly use it. Lighting/Flash is probably the best example, but the use of lenses is very often overlooked. As an amateur, I'm painfully aware how difficult it is to use a 24mm effectively (on full-frame). I've gotten better with it but I certainly remember how difficult it was to get a decent shot. In fact I'm willing to go out on the limb (here I go again) and venture that most amateurs will get decent results 60-70% of the time with a 70-200mm, 40-50% of the time with a 50mm, and no more than 20% of the time with a 24mm - from there forget it, only pure luck will help. Now, those 'keeper' rates are largely guesswork for the sake of arguement but the suggestion is in the trend. I'd love to hear what others thought about those 'keeper' rate percentages.

 

happily amateurish,

David

.....UNLESS you know how to use them.

 

I often see questions or opinions regarding the need for certain zooms or wide

angle (WA) lenses to fill holes/gaps in someones equipment line-up. But as

someone on a recent thread emphasized, (paraphrasing here) you've got to learn

how to deal with that 2.8 DOF on a 70-200. It made me think of the even more

difficult learning curve in effectively using wide angle lenses (say 24mm on

down). I'm still battling the challenge and have a whole slew of 'flat',

undynamic, boring, two dimensional shots to prove it. Having these zooms and

WA lenses does not make the photographer. You've got to know how to use

them. I'd venture to guess that a talented/skilled wedding photographer could

much more effectively cover a wedding with a single 50mm/1.4 - on a full frame

camera - than the hacks like me with all the gear. That might be a reach, but

I wouldn't bet against it. The talent and skill is knowing how to create.

 

Where/how to learn WA? Not quite sure, but good landscape photographers

certainly know how to use them and there are a zillion and one of those types

of pic's on line. And the good ones usually have something prominent in the

immediate foreground. Maybe just a silly observation on my part. And Zooms

you ask....., probably an easier learning curve. Again, learning the vagaries

of that shallow DOF is likely the biggest thing. But don't forget the Minimum

Focus Distance on those type of lenses. I've got plenty of blurry shots from

my Sigma 70-200. Not because of shallow DOF, but because I was only 4 or 5

feet away when I shot instead of the needed minimum of 6ft on the sigma

(usually 5ft on canon,nikon) - amazing what difference a foot makes. Silly

me. My guess is that a B&G might not want to stop walking down the aisle out

of respect to ones Minimum Focus Distance.

 

That's all. I'll stop now

Mike, after a little sniffing around I see that you had mentioned the planetneil website in one of your post's just the other day. Sorry for any appearance of stepping over/on/or around you. Not trying to steal anyones thunder here. I didn't do a search.

 

I'm in NY City. My wife was in Philly last weekend for a friends BIG 40th bday. It turns out she was the only person to have brought a camera - one of mine as an afterthought (canon A610 p&S). She's no photog, but the host's were happy nonetheless. Surprising in this day and age that no one else had a camera.

 

Don't know what you do professionally, but if wedding photography is your thing than it looks like you've got some very stiff competition from Conrad Erb.

Conrad, I'm quite familiar with that Strobist site. For OFF-camera lighting with standard flashes, it's amazing. I didn't mention it for two reasons: I didn't want to press my luck by posting numerous outside links (websites), and secondly I thought that the planetneil sites emphasis on ON-camera flash was more applicable/appropriate.

 

David

w w w . planetneil . c o m

 

click "photo techniques", then "techniques for using flash" found upper right.

 

I don't know how receptive the forum is to 'link' recommendations, but being

there are so many suggestions for people to learn how to properly use flash

yet little in the way of concrete instruction, I figured "what's the harm".

If there's a section that covers this type of stuff on photo.net then naughty

on me - and please accept my apology. Otherwise, 'link and be happy'.

 

David