carl_miller

Not really a cake cutting/smashing photo but its a pose I like to do with the cake. Also

works really well with the kids.<div></div>

Just so long as she doesn't get it made into a Christmas card and sends it to everyone she

knows :

)

Hey Stacy, cool shot! I take it the shadow is from the videographer or someone else's flash

- whatever, I think it added a cool element to the shot. Usually I dread shooting a

reception with a videographer, or worse yet two. I always seem to be opposite their

"artificial sun" at all the choice moments. I think the flood light looks cool on this shot

though.

Hey Stacy - how'd the wedding go? I had a very long wedding last week (26 people in the

wedding party and a reception till midnight)

I really liked your experiment here, I've been wanting to do something like this for awhile

so out of curiosity I went over to eBay and ended up buying this wedding dress for $10!

(+$12 s&h)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8187788934

It'll probably cost more to get it cleaned after a location shoot. Of course at that price I

really wouldn't care if I had to throw it away after a good session.

Thanks for the inspiration - now I'll just have to find the time and place to set something

up. Whenever I get something together I'll put it up for you to check out.<div></div>

Tim, My best advice - since you only want to do 2 weddings a month, do it really well and

after you have a good portfolio, price higher than you are comfortable with. I say that

because if your any good, you'll get a lot of referrals - and if your also "underpriced" you'll

eventually get way too many referrals. By pricing high, you'll be able to keep the number

of weddings down while maximizing your profit.

Even if your cheap, people still expect you to be good. A friend of mine fell into the trap of

only doing "two" weddings a month. He happened to be a really great photographer (but

not all that confident in himself) beside being a helluva nice guy/people person.

He was charging $900 for all day coverage (that sometimes means 12 hrs), all formals in

color and B&W, 4x6 proof album and releasing negs. Eventually he was booking "four"

weddings a month at least 7 months of the year beside turning some down. He thought

people were booking him because they wanted an inexpensive photographer but he was

shooting weddings where they paid over $1000-$2000 for the cake. In reality people

loved his work and personality - but because he was also priced so low he ended up

getting swamped.

I told him almost two years ago he needed to add a $5000 package and he looked at me

like I had just told him I had actually been born a woman. Long story short he's just sold

that package for a third time now. (in dollars that's 16 cheapo' weddings) The only

difference on the actual wedding day he pays a second shooter about $150.

Bottomline - assuming you do decent work, don't sell yourself short. I look at it this way, if

your good but low priced, eventually you'll be turning down a lot of work to keep yourself

at 2 weddings a month. If you do crappy or only so-so work, most people won't want you

to shoot their wedding just because your cheap.

Thanks Michael and Reuben.

Stacy - Thanks, glad you liked it : ) The fog effect I used on your shot is pretty simple. I

just add a layer (in PS) over the image layer and fill with black. I then run the "Render

Clouds" filter on that layer - after that change the blend mode to screen. Then I just play

with the opacity until I get the effect I want. Most times I'll also mess with the curve on the

fog layer to increase the contrast and give it more separation. Of course you also have to

tweek the curve on the actual image underneath a bit to fine tune the look.

Grant - I think your right about looking warmer. I originally thought turning Stacy's shot

B&W and adding the fog would make it look "even more eerie" but I think I just

inadvertently made it look like early morning.

BTW, I think you'll find the bride in my shot above looks far less eerie from the front : )<div></div>

Thanks Stacy.

You have some really great shots here. I hope you don't mind but I just couldn't resist

seeing what this shot looked like in b&w with a little foggy mist.

Keep up the great work.<div></div>

I really like it. It almost looks like it could be part of a series I did. Of course my bride

wasn't standing in water and this was during an actual wedding, but it looks like it was

taken in a marsh setting. Someone mentioned your first shot creeped him out a little - I

see it as "eerily beautiful".

In my shot I isloated the bride by cropping out some of the guests on the right and used

the blue channel for my b&w conversion - then I added a little fog for atmosphere. I

actually liked the eerie aspect of my shot and as soon as I saw your first shot I thought of

mine.

I think the arm position in the second shot changes the whole feel completely, it's a little

more animated - personally, in the first shot, I think if her arm was up and she was

gasping a branch, like for balance, it wouldn't look as eerie. Personally I happen to love a

little "eerie". : )<div></div>

Actually I haven't but it doesn't sound like such a bad idea. The fingerprint issue can be

quickly negated by spaying them with a matte finish like Sureguard or equivalent.

You could keep one set of 8x10's in a nice album and have a second set loose. Maybe

keep the loose set as 5x7's since they would also be easier to handle and spread out - and

just have the album handy to see a larger comparison if they want.

One of the things I forgot to mention I liked most about PhotoReflect was that you had the

option of filling the order yourself -- either through your regular lab or self-printing. Most

other online companies require you to use their printing services.

PhotoReflect is totally free, non-committal with unlimited storage space. You make up

custom packages and set the retail prices and they take about an 18% cut of gross sales

and send you the balance.

If they had better Mac friendly software I'd still use them.

Download "iView Media Pro" - full version usable for 21 day trial. I could not work without

it. Just drag a folder of RAW files into a catalog and just like that you can view them, batch

rename, batch export to JPGs, TIFs etc.

It's truly the one piece of software that I can honestly say is worth every penny of $200.

Like I said, try it out for 21 days - you'll be amazed. Also try Extensis Portfolio at the same

time and compare the two, also a free trial - also $200.

They're very similar programs but I found iView to be much faster with some cooler

features - but I'm on a Mac and I've heard iView works a little better on Mac and Portfolio

better on Windows. Try em' both and see for yourself.

http://www.iview-multimedia.com/

http://www.extensis.com/en/products/product_family.jsp?locale=en_US&id=prod60005

I used an OmniBounce on my 10D/550EX combo (already a subject of flash exp issues)

and I went right back to bare flash. The light fall-off was so pronounced that it was almost

useless outside of 15-20 ft. I was initially excited by the results of my first few "tests"

myself but as soon as I started using it at the next wedding, it's limitations became quickly

apparent.

BTW, try this test with your camera - I noticed that the when I bounced the flash about

60deg, the flash intensity was higher than shooting straight on.

If you think about how that diffuses, it makes sense - the higher intensity light comes out

the "sides" of the box instead of straight out the front, hence when you flip up your flash,

you get the redirected light from the "bottom" of the OmniBounce (more intense than out

the front). If that's the case, guess where all the rest of your diffused light is going in a big

church or reception hall.

I imagine it like a flash grenade, unless your in a normal size room only a very small

percentage of your flash gets to the subject and the rest is wasted, unless it can bounce

off a ceiling or wall - unlike the "catchers mitt" style bounce which is more directional.

I think the layout is a good idea but I think this dress is too plain looking - if I were to use

one word I would say "generic". Personally I could see this same layout with either a dress

that had more detail in it - or better yet the bride holding the bouquet in front of her for a

touch of color.

Good luck

Hey Gary - I've been using "Photo Reflect" for about two years but I've just recently

switched to "Printroom" because they have a much better Mac compatible software. (See

the links below to check out both of my sites)

Using "Photo Reflect" you have the option of using their processing service or you could do

the printing yourself. Their cut came out to about 18% of the gross (you set the retail

prices) for use of the web site (unlimited storage) and order/credit card processing. After

the 18% you need to figure your processing costs, whether you use their lab, your local lab

or print the orders yourself.

Like I said, I had to switch to Printroom mostly because of the Mac compatibility issue but

they charge $99 a year for 300mb storage space. I find them to be a little more

professional as well with a few more features. I used to print my own stuff but with

Printroom I'm just having them do the printing and drop shipping direct to the customer -

you just have to upload the high quality files to their site (or send CD) for them to process

the orders as they come.

Photo Reflect is the first I would recommend to try out because there is no commitment

what-so-ever. You can set-up a site for free, create your packages and retail costs and

start directing people there. The only thing you pay is the 18% off the order but if you

don't sell anything you don't pay anything - they just send checks out twice a month

minus their cut.

http://www.photoreflect.com/scripts/prsm.dll?storefront?b=1&c=06OG

http://www.printroom.com/ghome.asp?domain_name=titustouch

You'll find blown highlights more acceptable in photojournalistic style shots (like in the

example) where the mood is more important than technical perfection. It is subjective but

just like when you look at that shot, you just know you like it - even though a

photographer's "technical" mind says "that corners' blown out". In this case it ADDS to the

shot rather than takes away.

Just looking at Marc's shot (mid shadows), it looks like it may have been originally

underexposed and he pushed the curves to bring in the detail and just let the corner blow

out since it enhanced the effectiveness of this shot.

Here is one that I would have normally tossed (non-flash) that I brought back to life by

purposely pushing to bring in more detail and blowing the highlights - then I just added

some texture.

Yeah, no way around it really. You can always have the bride remain very still and bracket

your shots to expose for both the bride and the window separately - then combine them

in PS. If your just doing a wedding here or there as a favor that's certainly a reasonable

alternative, I just wouldn't ever do that on a regular basis.

You have to use flash - even with film you couldn't get a balanced exposure without using

flash.

The trial version of PS CS is 100% working for 30 days. On thing FOR SURE - if you've never

used Photoshop before and your looking to do REAL work on it - it will just boggle your

mind more than anything.

That's not to say it's not worth trying out, it's just that in 30 days you'll realize you haven't

scratched the surface of what it can do and then you'll come to the realization that after

30 days your already ADDICTED - and to continue it will cost you $700. You've been

warned. : )

BTW, don't even try Illustrator in the same 30 day period, you'll just waste the trial period,

these are almost limitless "career" type programs - besides most of what I used to do in

Illustrator I now just do in PS. I think you'll find Illustrator is mostly redundant for a

photographer.

Flash bracket is a must have if you don't want to be haunted by that ugly side shadow on

every vertical shot (and you will). Borrow or rent one if you don't want to buy one -

seriously. Other than that don't sweat it - with your len's selection just drop in some 800

for the ceremony (better still have another body already to go for the no-flash ceremony)

A monopod and steady hand should wield excellent results.

The flash is mostly a no-brainer (shooting film anyway) - just set on auto and have a good

time. As far as exposure comp that's a matter of opinion - but for film I would tend toward

overexposure. I occasionally work with a photographer that always has his cameras and

flash exposures set at +1 to ensure neg density. I personally think that's too much -

although his proofs look fine anything raw scanned to CD looks washed out. The point

being if your shooting film go to the plus side.

One last thing - definitely continue to use the flash for the outside shots.

Good luck!

I agree with Beau that polarizers do not do well for skin tones - although my "Moose"

warming polarizer does a better job on skin tones than a standard polarizer. As Beau also

mentioned they are good for cutting glare (glasses for one).

A more valuable filter (or set) for outside use is a "graduated neutral density filter" so you

can cut back some light and get a better sky exposure. They are invaluable for sunny,

outside shots and they vary in density and degree of graduation.

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/content/2003/aug/howto_graduated.html

-Carl

Andrew - the best thing I've found in this (Mac) situation is to splurge for "Virtual PC". If

you get it with Windows XP your talking $220 just by itself - but then your not limited to

any software platform issues.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?

productLearnMore=T9715LL/A

Then you can run something like Fuji Studiomaster Pro on your Mac (which is a really great

album designer)

http://www.studiomasterpro.com/

The really nice proof boxes work great. Not only does it save you mucho time but clients

seem to really like it because they can thumb through and seperate into piles like "yes",

"no", "maybe". A small album looks very nice but you spend a whole lot of time putting it

together but yet it makes it harder to compare and pick the "keepers" without taking them

back out or putting stickies on them and then going back and counting them etc.

The boxes really do, in my opinion, work better for you and the client equally. They do

vary wildly in price though. I happen to like these and the price isn't too bad @ $7 ea.

http://www.archivalmethods.com/Product.cfm?categoryid=1&Productid=89

I think you'll find the on camera meter to be right in the ballpark (especially with film) -

just try not to meter directly off black tux or pure white dress. Seriously, I wouldn't worry

too much with the latitude film allows, it's not that critical. Your expose would have to be

seriously out of whack to cause problems that couldn't be brought back in line during

processing. If your really concerned just spot meter off a gray card.

Digital on the other hand is quite a different story.