david_bain1

I'm another golden oldie who can't get his head round what - in some cases - passes for wedding coverage these days. The "PJ" approach often hides bad technique, PS is used to reclaim bad exposures and piles of prints are supposed to make up for the poor overall quality of what's on offer. I think the most amateurish habits I've seen are bulking and not editing. I've always done formals and added a few grab shots for fun. The latter can always be added or left out of the album as the client wishes. What we see so often are seventeen shots of the same setup because the photographer either can't make up their mind which one is best or doesn't want to reduce the number of prints. Following on from this is the colour/black and white conundrum. This PS affliction stumps those who create monochrome from colour originals then include both. To me it's always obvious which works better so the dud needs to be sidelined. Here in the UK we have a TV show called "Grumpy Old Men" maybe there's a market for one called "Grumpy Old Photographers"!

This is another example of why initial payments or deposits MUST cover your costs. As others have said, cover the wedding; the expenses for doing so are paid for by the deposit. This is not only to avoid being the bad guy ( or girl ) but because you then have something as a hostage which is much more valuable to them than an appointment.

I find it easiest to accept the glass of wine graciously then quietly put it down somewhere. With a meal it's just a matter of doing what the Queen does: take a sip for politeness' sake then slide it to one side.

Be strong. Bin it.

There is no one setting which will work with every photograph. It's necessary to juggle the various settings to get an effect you're happy with and, as always, practice makes perfect. Most importantly, make usm the last thing you do. In particular you must do it after resizing to your desired finished size.

I think I linked in from myolympus at Yahoogroups. I like the level of experience / expertise of the group. Some can be a little touchy at times, but that's just people. I live in South Yorkshire, UK, I'm professionally qualified and looking to start up wedding work again after a ten year rest; I'm trying to catch up on current fads and trends before I commit. Being an ageing Luddite I'll be using Nikon and film, of course!

I owned one Nikon model, from new, for fifteen years and never used Program. I do use aperture priority most of the time but selecting the area and locking the reading. I did a christening last year with digital - what a shambles. The thing is so automatic it sent me into a spin until I unautomated everything and took over. For critical focussing, as Gary mentioned, it's my film SLR every time.

I think you're probably doing the best thing as you are to smooth things over until the real stars of the show get back and take her in hand. I also agree with those who don't let anyone see the photographs before the B & G. That's always been my policy and part of the delay can, if necessary, be put down to film processing time. Is this a situation where digital is just too quick and convenient?

It's a combination of a copying job and - usually - restoration. Simply photograph each image as usual then you can remove the ravages of the years - the dirt and rips, not the wrinkles - in PS, Gimp or whatever your chosen program is. If you haven't done much copying, the keys are even lighting and keeping the camera back parallel to the subject plane.

 

If you create good-sized files you'll be surprised just how big you can blow them up and get a presentable result. Once they're digital, of course, you can save them however you like and you can vary the colour of your final prints to match the originals.

 

Don't underestimate how long the restoration can take. I've just scanned and cleaned up my railway locomotive photographs from the 1960s. Making them presentable took up to three hours each!

I never cease to be amazed at how some people go off the deep end when presented with something they don't want to hear. As Mary pointed out, this is a forum of words without the usual non-verbal communication which is an essential part of the subtlety of language. Another important point is that it is international and so cultural subtleties come into it, let alone the oft-repeated "two nations divided by a common language". I work and mix with people who use a dry and often acid humour all day every day. I know that I can't translate that so that those of you in the colonies ( see what I mean ) will pick up my exact meaning and not - in some cases - take offence. I am, therefore, careful to reread what I have written before I post it. In the case of someone taking posts off-topic and becoming offensive, the recommendation to report and ignore seems, to me, to best option.

I haven't had any real bother in the past perhaps because I'm never in any doubt who's the professional but can put that over without upsetting anyone. As so many contributors have emphasised people skills are essential. At one wedding a guest turned up with Nikon gear worth twice my Nikon gear. We got chatting, I had a quick play with his kit and he didn't get in the way once.

 

One line I will use if necessary is - "Oh, you're using digital?" used in an " oh, you poor deluded thing" tone. I'm a confirmed film user for anything other than snapshots and eBay sales!

I have a dioptre adjustment on my viewfinder which makes it match my distance glasses so I can keep them on. Could that be the answer for you?

 

My digital's screen is more of a problem as I have to wear my reading glasses to see it. Luckily the distance glasses have only a small correction so I can see distance reasonably well over the top of the readers without them. If that wasn't the case I'd have double the trouble!

Too old is an attitude of mind. My mother's 82 but she's been old since she was 40. At 58 I'm looking for weddings after a ten year layoff. I've had time to remember all the fun and forget all the aggravation!

 

I will, of course travel light as always and won't stand if I can sit.

Anthony isn't alone!

 

Nikon body, 50mm lens, Vivitar 283 and bounce card, tripod. Fuji 160 or, in a hurry, 100. Everything on manual - I'm in charge! When using digitals of any variety is as intuitive as using a film camera I'll jump on the bus but until then my digital is my backup. Ordering a cd of scans at the time of processing is easy and if I don't I can always scan the negs at home to allow some "photoshoppery".

Make sure you get the shot of the dippy old aunt having hysterics because the room is full of bugs!!

Overall underexposure. If you look at the shadows the fill ratio looks about right; increasing the fill will make them more obvious. As someone mentioned, custom white balance is definitely needed, too. The improved colour might be ALL that's needed, but I suspect a half stop overall should do it. Meter off the palm of your hand and add a stop and see how that compares.

In the midst of taking formals in the foyer of an expensive Edinburgh hotel my Mecablitz started to smoke . . .

 

To make it worse I'd left my backup at home and had a half hour round trip to scrounge another. Thankfully the B and G laughed it off and they're still happily married thirty years later!

In the kiss shot the shadows would be much less obvious if the crop was tighter. Get rid of most of that top area of brickwork to concentrate attention on the subject. The bottom edge of the darker brick near the centre should be about right.

Isn't it a hoot? When you've done a few weddings you realise that there's also a lot of truth in there - especially the dealings with badly-behaved brats and their badly-behaved parents.

The only one I subscribe to is "f2 Freelance and Digital". There's a sample copy online at:

 

www.f2photo.co.uk

 

I find it's the only magazine which informs rather than being an extended manufacturer's PR department like the rest. It's owned and produced and contributed to by real working photographers who have been there, done that over many years.

Thank you for the reassurance re safety. The pages I remember being problematic years ago were those which were like the amateur tacky albums which are still available. Where the whole area of the print was in contact with the low-tack adhesive it caused chemicals to leach from one to another and the prints faded. The new system sounds much better.

The last time I dabbled in peel and stick albums was about twenty years ago and the word on the street then was that the adhesive was bad for the prints'longevity. Has this changed? Adhesives have moved on by miles since then but it would be useful if someone in the know could confirm or deny from a position of authority.

Use a tripod. In my experience, here in the UK, it's one of the things which makes you a "professional".

There's no doubting your photographic ability from what I've seen. Now you just need to learn the craft of wedding photography. It's part salesman, part diplomat, part dictator( a very small part )and in some cases, part referee! At the back of all these is the part you like best - part photographer. Lots of good photographers make bad wedding photographers because they get these in the wrong order.

 

Keep in mind - the bride and groom are the most important people there; not you, not the bride's mother, not even the bride's dad who's picking up the bill. Everyone is looking to enjoy the day, so contribute to that, don't detract from it. By balancing and juggling the parts it's possible to have the photo shoot run exactly as you want while everyone else thinks it's running the way THEY want.

Paul's crack about video paralleled my thoughts when I saw some of the figures quoted.

 

Never mind the quality, feel the width!