allen_d.

I rarely eat, and maybe have a glass of water sometime during the reception. I haven't had a wedding last more than 8 hours though. I'm too focused on the events to even think about food until maybe the last hour or so when things have calmed down some. Man I'm hungry on the way home though!!

Sorry Gary, I guess I could have picked some less flattering shots!! Yes a big 200+ wedding would prove to be a challenge unless you had a competent partner, which I don't (work alone), and my weddings have yet to be that large. And yes it does take some time for these shots, and often several shots. I even think it's challenging to find that candid moment on guests that are particularly stubborn! Anyway, I just wanted to make the point that you can have a nice shot of someone without them looking directly at the camera. I don't rule out straight shots like those as I have plenty of them, I just don't go looking for them, they find me!

Very hard to choose...<div></div>

Second that Sarah, I use Art Leather and that is what came to my mind...Not sure why a bride would ask for the album by name though - a bit odd, I'd say.

I think you guys just aren't watching closely enough (at least those that think you have to do table shots). If you do, there are moments, that you can catch which presents a candid, not always flattering, but very real "moment" that MOST people enjoy looking at versus a boring straight on shot. That moment takes more work to catch, but is well worth it. I'll attach a couple that show that you can show a image of someone being there without being a cheesy table shot.<div></div>

You can see the reflection of the light on the floor, but it also adds dimension to the dress.

This is most effective and much easily accomplished using an older manual flash like an older quantum (doesn't have to be a digital model) with pocketwizards. I'll attach an example that shows from this setup.<div></div>

Your post is getting we wound up as well. If you hired a photojournalist, getting each person to "stop and make them look at the camera" is about the least photojournalistic thing you can do. That is very traditional photography and it is something I make clear to each of my prospective clients about the differences between the two. In fact almost everyone that comes to me does not want the shots where the person is just looking at the camera, i.e. table shots. I don't think you were selective enough about choosing your photographer.

I got a lot more calls when I was at the lowest bracket than now since there were fewer people there - 1 page. Now I'm in the next bracket up sharing space with 4 pages of other photogs. Not nearly as effective ad space now. I get much more hits on my website from google ads than the knot. I can't really say which produces better leads though. I really don't know if I'll continue with the knot next year.

I've noticed this too, can't figure out why, and once in a while all my preferences get reset for no reason, like I just reinstalled it, but of course I haven't.

Actually, in your most recent pic, the group is much smaller and nearly in the same plane so a single flash and omnibounce can handle it nicely. With your other image (#3), that is a huge group and one flash is just not enough simply because since there are about 4-5 rows, the flash coverage on the front row will not be the same as the back. A second flash or third would have helped, but it's just a tough shot either way especially with the low ceiling.

20 GB total, 3 4GBs for the 5D and 4 2GBs for the 20d, and considering adding another 4G just in case since the prices have dropped so much.

Concerning some of your other concerns: IR assist from a 580 is a MUST in these situations. And manually selecting the focus point is also critical as your subject is often not in the center or even what the camera may think you want! I don't think tracking is very effective with IR either. Be prepared to take several shots still as even the IR assist isn't 100%.

Here's one outdoors, bare bulb<div></div>

If you really want to improve those, get an old quantum (doesn't need to be a digital one) and flash meter and an umbrella (for indoors, outdoors would just be bare bulb). Takes all the guess work out of formals and gives much better lighting. For indoors, combine with the 580 diffused on camera for fill.<div></div>

I shoot most of my receptions now wide open (WO) because they usually are so dark and I prefer to have some ambient light show if possible. WO will also give you some white balance issues, so shooting raw is a must. This was a 5D with a 24 1.4 at 800ISO 1/125s WO. Evaluative metering with flash dialed down 1/3. I felt the light blended Ok with this shot, but often these images will end up B&W. Even with a wide angle lens, shallow DOF is possible.<div></div>

I've been using Epson 4800 prints very successfully with Art Leather's Cache Album. They do not coat (spray) the prints, so you need to before sending them in however. They suggest, as do I now, using Ilford smooth pearl paper for it's thickness.

Use PW's here as well in the same manner as you Ben. Except I usually use it to just add a little more dimension instead of trying to light the whole room. Hundreds of exposures per wedding and rarely a misfire. I'll attach a pic in a good size room. As far as heavy rigs, I have my 5D on a cusom bracket, 580 EX, and the Canon battery pack and PW attached to the bracket. Think I'm going to need a wrist brace soon!<div></div>

How does any auto maker justify charging 30 grand for a car that (hypothetically) costs only 5 grand in raw materials to make?? The final product that you show to the client is what should justify the cost. It needs to be a sample of YOUR work and there should be no question about it's quality and value.

I believe cartridge is the appropriate spelling?!

I don't think there is such a thing as "load 100 sheets and walk away" with inkjet printers. If one little nozzle clogs on page 20, you'll have 80 pages of trash! If you could monitor occasionally while doing other work, that would be ideal. The printer will not stop if a nozzle clogs. I'm using the Epson 4800 and though it doesn't happen that often, it does happen.

 

I started out on the R800, but with increasing printing demands, I needed something more cost effective. So I stepped up to the 4800. Your ink cost will be cut in half using the 220ml cartriges vs the little cartriges in the R800/2400 (although fill ups are a little pricier at $85 per cartrige!). Another thing, don't know if you could print 100 pages on the R800/2400 without changing an ink cartrige.

In the church, using multiple flashes bouncing off walls and ceilings is fine, if the ceilings/wall allow it. I would keep at least one on camera (to avoid having to use the STE2) and have another bounce off a wall or use a diffuser.

 

Outdoors, I think you're better off using a single flash on camera as fill. Just meter for ambient light and dial your flash down 1 1/3 to 1 2/3 in the shade. As long as you dial down the flash, it won't look flashy.

 

Myself, I'm using a quantum off camera for all my formals now, sometimes in combination with 580 on camera for some bounce fill indoors. The following was 2 580s one on camera, and one on the left. Both flashes had stofens. I really think multiple flashes outdoors is overkill.<div></div>

OK, seems like everytime I post images on photo.net, a discussion soon ensues about diagonals. Well, I guess I like them, but let me say that I often shoot first straight (traditional) and then usually recompose. Why? Who knows what's going through my neurons at the time: maybe I see a leading line or a curve in the tracks. I admit that I am guilty of often trying to push an image to sometimes be something more. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't. So here is an example of a shot that I first shot straight, then recomposed and shot again. Honestly, I think the diagonal emphasizes the vanishing point with the street/sidewalk lines and the banners above. I guess I'm just partial to diagonals. I'll tell you one thing - my father doesn't like them, he'd just say - looks nice, why is it crooked?!?!<div></div>

I was going for something a little on the serious side on this particular pose as I have many others showing other (happy, loving) emotions. I know it's a matter of taste as well and like to be able to see/offer a variety of expressions to choose from.

I attended a workshop about posing by Doug Gordon last week and decided to try

to apply what I have learned about "ground posing". Just wanted to share my

favorite image from an engagement shoot this weekend. I have a few more in my

engagements folder - comments are welcome. Also, concerning my previous post

about selling my 70-200IS, I'm deciding to keep it, as I shot this whole shoot

with that lens, and apparently that's the only lens Mr. Gordon uses!<div></div>