bakarichavanu

"Try spot metering on an 18% grey target, see how your histogram looks (should be a

dead-center spike) and then manually set your exposure to what the camera came up

with. Adjust a bit from there as needed."

This really sounds useful. Need to practice how to do it. Would using a grey card be

helpful or should I try to locate a grey target in the scene where the photo is being

taken?

Matt, I think you're on target about spot metering and black or white clothing because that's

exactly the outfits the couple wore. First black shirt and then nearly all white outfit. So the

metering seems off. I didn't know that was a reason. I've never read about the point you make

spot metering and dark or white clothing.

Steve, I did shoot in RAW (thank god!) and that's helped a lot with the shadows and highlight

issue. In fact, these are among the best engagement photos I've taken. I'll post some later.

However, I just like not to not fool around with the controls so much and just shoot. I realize that if

I can keep my subjects in even light if would help greatly.

Edward, yes I could have used fill light (maybe shot through a diffuser) on many of the shaded

shots. But I'm always afraid that I'd take too long setting up those type of shots for my clients. It

would be different I guess if I were working with a model and had an assistant. I tend to shoot

pretty free form on engagement shootsﾗcapturing portraits as I go along.

Thanks for the feedback, guys. It's been very helpful.

The resolution in these photos are little weak, so it's hard to judge them in that respect.

But I like the variety of poses and environments. How are you doing with lighting? Are

you using strobes or are you more dependent on existing light? I say this because in

some photos, the highlights or shadows are too strong, and I'm wondering if you might

experiment more with off-camera lighting. Check out Joe McNally's The Moment It

Clicks, which includes lots of techniques on off-camera lighting. Overall, though, I think

you have a good collection and are ready to move to the next level.

This might a dumb or awkward question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. I've been reading and

studying everything I can about exposure, and for the most part I get it. But on an engagement

shoot I did yesterday evening, I kept wondering why I seemed to have to constantly adjust my

exposure through out the shoot. The outdoor light was fairly even, spots of sun here and there, but

it seemed like my photos were either too dark at times or too light, and sometimes right on target.(

I realize that the LCD screen is not always accurate, so I try to use the histogram as much as I

can.)

I was mainly trying to shoot in Av priority, and was using sport metering which is something I

hadn't been doing in past shoots. The spot metering, that is. But the exposure seemed be fluctuate. So I switched spot metering to normal and it seemed to help some.

Anyway, I'm just wondering is it possible to get some consistency in exposure so that I'm

constantly not having to fumble around with camera controls when I'm taking shots? I really want to

take more control of this aspect of shooting so that I can concentrate more on composition and the

like. I'm thinking I should be able to set my camera at ISO 400, f/5.6 or so, Av priority, and keep

the Tv at above 125. Is this possible in a normal fairly outdoor shoot? Hope I'm making sense here.

David, I heard that the G9 was good for details, but I haven't used it at wedding yet.

How well do detail shots work with indoors with flash? I need to give it a try, but just

seeing you have any thought and tips.

Same here. Canon Powershot G9. However, I can tell you now, high ISO stinks for G9,

and probably most compact cameras. So be ready to use noise reduction software.

I concur with Nadine. There are no big compositional or exposure issues with the

photograph. It's very nice.

I think what helps in requesting critiques of one's work or piece of work in a forum like

this is to ask for specific feedback. I'm assuming that you want feedback because

there is something you or your client find troubling about the image. So it would be

good to specify what issues you have so that we can respond in kind. Or you might

simply post the photo for ratings and see what type of responses you get that way.

Get your hands on a book titled Exposure: Photo Workshop, by Jeff Wignall. It's a

seriously accessible book about understanding exposure and how to handle exposure

in various lighting situations.

Opps, sorry, the larger view above is way too big. Try <a

href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2306/2473256041_ec2984fe97_b.jpg">this.</a>

Here's the changes I've made today. I agree that the "romance" stands out too much

in the latter layout, so I thought by making the photo larger it might balance things

out. I'm thinking I should get rid of "Happily Ever After" so that there's one less font

in the layout.

I want to keep everything on the front of the card because I don't plan on using the

card for mailing, but moreso as an extension to my smaller business card.

As it stands now, the card is a little crowded, but I feel it's a little more balanced

than the latter drafts.

Tolik, I agree about the LP "logo" not being centered. I really don't like this logo

because it looks more like a monogram. I need a non-letter logo, but I just can't

figure one out. So I may have to stay with this one for now so that I can get this

puppy printed.

I still appreciate feedback, no matter how critical. I want to make the best card I can

given my capabilities.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bakari/2473256041/" title="postcard 3 by

Bakari, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2306/2473256041_ec2984fe97.jpg" width="500"

height="357" alt="postcard 3" /></a><div></div>

Wow, I really appreciate the tremendous feedback on this card. The feedback is so

very needed. Though my logo looks like monogram, and the name of my business is

not that classy, I'm determined to make the best of it.

I'll be working on the card some more today. Morgan, thanks for allowing me to send

you the file. Any suggestions or improvements will help. I'm pushing to complete the

card by this weekend.

And yes, I have thought about using the picture insert as a business card, but I

need see if I can fit the necessary text into it.

Lol, Lauren, that logo is seriously problematic for me. I want to hire someone to design

a logo for me because that's the best I can come up with. Believe me, I've tried all

kinds of fonts and variations. I need to pay a designer 500 bucks and get something

really professional. But it's going to have to wait for now.

I'll play around with the color. It could be too strong.

Thanks bunches for you input.

Tolik, thank you, thank you. You pointed nearly everything that I read about in Robin

Williams's basic design book but failed to apply in this postcard. Okay, so here's

some changes. Could you provide some suggestions on burning the sides? I tried

using a vignetting technique I use, but that didn't work well.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bakari/2472100553/" title="postcard 2 by

Bakari, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2258/2472100553_4896fa2bb6.jpg" width="500"

height="358" alt="postcard 2" /></a>

Here's the card:

<a href=" title="postcard by Bakari,

on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/2472658864_945580988e.jpg"

width="500" height="357" alt="postcard" /></a>

I of course am not a professional designer, so I really would appreciate some feedback on this

postcard layout. I've taken a while to develop it, but useful suggestions would be helpful. Should I

take the WPPI logo off--is that distracting? Is my LP logo to simple and plain?

I just signed up with Smugmug, mainly because I upload photos to the print site right from

within Aperture 2.0. The set is fairly easy and I hear that the prints are good, but I need to

order a few for myself.

I use the 85mm for portraits, but rarely use it for candid shots. The 70-200mm has saved

my butt more than a few times in low light situations where a flash can't be used. Also

great for candids.

Hey Craig, you make good point about the weather. While I don't expect rain, the wind

could be a problem. I'm definitely going to practice with the two flashes because I've never

used two flashes in a wedding shoot. Thanks. BTW, like your nikon vs. canon blog. Great

idea.

One more suggestion, Matthew. It's not always important to show all your work for criticism.

Show a small amount of work that you tried to do really well. Explain what you tried to do,

how well you think you did it, and what suggestions others have for improvement.

Finally, these are some excellent books that have helped me:

Digital Wedding Photography, by Paul Gero

Digital Capture and Workflow, by Tom Lee

Digital Wedding Photography, Glenn Johnson (a must read)

Scott Kelby's The Digital Photography Book: vol. 1 and 2 (both major bestsellers)

All the above are very accessible and must-reads if you're serious about improving your

work.

Nadine, thanks so much. I'm pushing that we shoot outdoors. I believe the event starts

around 5pm. I need to make the strobes work because I just can't see investing in more

expensive equipment right now without ROI.

Maybe I can push them to get all the shots done between say 5 and 7pm while there's

pretty good light. Otherwise, I'll try to use the 50mm indoors with the 580 and the 430

through the umbrella off to the side, raised higher up?

Thanks again. As usual your feedback is always practical and helpful.

FYI for others: I did find what seems like a pretty good tutorial site about using Canon

flashes: http://super.nova.org/DPR/

Oh, and also, I plan to shoot with my Canon 30D and 85mm and 50mm primes--both 1.8.

I do have a 70-200 f/2.8, but I don't think that would be practical for family shots portraits

indoors.

Okay, I just landed a job to shoot family portrait photos at a fundraising event. I need to see if there's a

way I can pull this off with just the equipment I already have. I have 580EX and a 430EX, (along with a ST-E2 Speedlite Transmitter), one umbrella with stand, and a 5-in-one round diffuser. So I don't have

enough for traditional three point-lighting set up, but is there way to shoot with what I have?

I'm going to visit the place tomorrow, but I was told that the area may be an indoor foyer with average

ambient lighting. I thought it might be best to do the shoot outdoors.

I really want to make the best of this shoot because it could possibly lead to other jobs.

I'm looking through the book and DVD resources I have and searching on the internet, but I'd appreciate

some direct helpful feedback from those with experience with type of shoot. Up to now, my experience

has been with wedding photography. I kinda knew this day would come when I needed to know more

about lighting, but though I'm not fully prepared, I don't want to miss this opportunity.

Thanks for any and all help.

"I appreciate the constructive criticism, but this might be a little excessive. When you're

charging $4,000 a wedding, that might be true, but my clients could only afford to pay

$250 to get a record of the event. I make it clear that I'm not a master."

Matthew, when you come to a site like this and ask for feedback, most responders *are*

professionals and they/we take the profession very seriously. So first off, you can't just

look at this as just you doing something on a part-time, part-time basis for 250 bucks.

No matter what you're paid, you should treat every job as if it were an high end wedding,

especially if you're serious about getting more work in this business. If you're simply just

shooting weddings on the cheap, then providing you feedback in this forum is probably

not a big deal and may be a waste of time.

I'm not master of photography and I don't pretend to be, but I try to do my best on every

job I shoot. I constantly search out strategies and techniques that will help me do the best

job possible. And I think that's what the feedback in this thread is all about. If you haven't

picked up and read a few books on wedding photography, Photoshop, and just plain photography in general, then it may be not be a good idea to request feedback on this

site.

Please don't take what I say in as negative. I think it's great when someone wants to be a

wedding photographer, but I think it's mistake for people to think they can shoot wedding

250 bucks and use that as an excuse to settle for mediocre work. We all can do better

than that. In fact, many of the shots you posted can be greatly approved if you pick up a

good book on Photoshop and apply some of the suggestions. You've made your 250

bucks, but now you have the opportunity to learn and improve your post-production skills

with this shoot. (For example, just going through many of the photos and cropping them

would really help. Read about using curve adjustments and good greyscale conversion....)

Anyway, hang in their man. If you're serious about this, then really stay involved with it

and learn all you can. You've received the kind of feedback that can be found in almost

any good book on photography, and would cost you lots of money if you payed for a

workshop to find out this same information. So believe me, none of the feedback you've

received has really been excessive. It's been very generous.