neilambrose

<p>Personally I agree with that definition. If someone asked me what interested me about street phototgraphy that's pretty much how I'd explain it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is this normal or a very special rule for this specific award?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've seen this rule in two other competitions, both of them in the UK. This competition shares some common ground with a wider programme of street photography festivals and workshops in the UK this year, all of which are about observational photography rather than street portraiture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, entry fee of 30 pounds? No thanks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's 30 pounds to enter a series of eight pictures. Plus you get a 28.95 credit to spend on a Blurb book. I've entered a few competitions over the years, and this one is the most affordable / best value. I've seen other competitions where fees are 25 dollars upwards per image.</p>

<p>This is an image I see in b+w. Processed with my conversion and flare removed by hand. Mid-tones boosted for improved contrast and graded texture added to compensate for missing detail in sky.</p>

<p>Irrespective of the point of the exercise, this is an image I enjoy and find interesting for the composition and ingredients. I questioned whether to remove the flare as I wasn't at all convinced it spoiled the image. In the end I took it out to be thorough, although I could just as easily have gone the other way.</p>

<p>I love the layers and my eye finds lots to explore here.</p>

<p><img src="http://balancingpoint.org/singleimages/psw001.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>I agree with Nadine. If you want people to check themselves out then just include a mirror on the back wall of the booth. If you want the best possible illumination (sharp outlines, no ghosting, decent depth of field, no subject movement) then strobes will give better results due to their higher output.</p>

<p>Louis does touch on an important point, which is maintaining equivalent proficiency.</p>

<p>I wouldn't recommend anyone use any equipment, whether primary or backup, unless they're extremely comfortable with it. It's especially important in the case of backups, because if you need to reach for your backup then something has probably gone wrong.... and that just increases the pressure further. Your backup kit has to be absolutely transparent to you ... the 'use it in your sleep' type, that you know you can deliver the goods with no matter what happens.</p>

<p>But once that expertise exists, there's no additional cognitive stress caused by moving from one system to another. Driving a car requires far more complicated mental juggling. There is a subtle advantage to non-identical backups, which is they can prevent you repeating the same mistake, or reduce the likelihood of the same component failing. For example, if a speedlight's foot snaps off in a clamp, then there's a probability that an identical speedlight will also snap it's foot in the same way, if they were manufactured of the same materials and to the same tolerances.</p>

<p>I routinely use different cameras in parallel. In a given wedding I might, at various times, use a Leica, a Rolleiflex, a D700, an F6, a Voigtlander 667... there's no complexity moving between systems providing you're equivalently proficient with each of them.</p>

<p>I take several cameras. I don't use them all at the same time, and some I may not use at all. Best case scenario almost everything stays in the car. But in the worst case I have enough with me for two non-identical systems, each based on two cameras, plus at least one extra (medium format) for formals, etc. It's generally a good idea to figure on redundant backups. Same applies for other key equipment -- batteries, flash, etc.</p>

<p>The reason for non-identical systems is it reduces the risk of repeat failure (or more likely, repeat human error). I was on a shoot once with a Hasselblad which I managed to jam.... and then in the heat of the moment, I also jammed my backup. Fortunately it wasn't a mission critical event, but the lesson stayed with me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>@Neil - when you say bring the couple closer to camera and then set a back light low behind them, I'm assuming you mean if they were against the wall not the window you see?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Barry, yes - all my suggestions were based on the couple standing with the backs to the wall, not the window. One background, four different ideas on lighting schemes. But not that helpful if there was no space.... :-)</p>

<p>This image ought to have potential, but a few things have gone wrong.</p>

<p>It's under-exposed, the bride and groom are each looking at different cameras, the facial expressions aren't flattering, the flash has been been used too close with visible shadows, the composition hasn't been considered (geometrically imbalanced, difficult to crop convincingly, not a good use of background) and the red wall has projected a colour cast, as well as dominating the image in composition.</p>

<p>I've looked at this image with a few different mental interpretations, but I'm not sure there are enough redeeming features to make it a keeper. Even artistic processing will be challenging because the core ingredients aren't favourable.</p>

<p>I think this is one of those occasions when the lighting, environment and moment haven't come together.</p>

<p>Ideas for doing things differently:</p>

<ol>

<li>Forget the window as background. Instead, position the couple against the red wall and use the window as illumination. With a wider composition, solid colour background and natural sidelight you could have had a strong picture that would look good in colour or b+w. </li>

<li>Use the flash off-camera from frame right and against the window light to get interesting directionality. </li>

<li>Or bring the b+g closer to camera and away from the wall, and use an off-camera flash bounced upwards from ground level behind them to give amazing rim light. </li>

<li>Or use flash off-camera with a snoot from above the couple, with significant under-exposure of the ambient, to pick them out in a light beam and forget the window entirely.</li>

</ol>

<p>Naturally the above makes a lot of assumptions about what the environment offered. I appreciate circumstances may not have supported it.</p>

<ol> </ol>

<blockquote>

<p>I really want to focus on the delivery process rather than the environment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you researched many birth stories? The ones I've seen are very much about the environment, and shot largely with a wide-angle. Done well, the story is told in echoes and poetry, rather than direct forensic detail.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On most cameras, if you change the f stop or ISO on the camera, and the flash 'picks that up', how is that comping?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, Nadine - I may not have been clear. That's the trouble with writing these things too quickly.</p>

<p>I lock the aperture on the flash unit, adjust aperture on camera. Or vice versa. Or do the same with the ISO setting. What I'm not doing is letting the camera/flash choose -- or in other words, guessing at my intentions and giving me an average exposure for a scene that it doesn't understand, and where it can't see the quality or direction of the light. I appreciate that you can use the flash comp button to the same ends if using i-TTL. The outcome is the same both ways.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In my experience Nikon DSLRs doesn't really communicate well with older Nikon flash units. The body will sense the flash and not exceed max flash sync speed but that is about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I attach my SB-28 to my D700 in A mode, it automatically registers the ISO, aperture and focal length I'm using. The only setting that isn't transferred is the on-camera flash compensation setting. If I want to apply a compensation factor I can adjust aperture or ISO on either camera or flash. In practice, it's no slower than using the flash comp button on camera (it's just a case of rotating a dial or pressing a button) so I don't consider it much of a disadvantage.</p>

<p>The only time I need to transfer all settings manually is when I'm not using a Nikon -- which these days is most of the time. One interesting side effect of using manual cameras like a rangefinder is that, once you remove the automation, it doesn't take long to understand how to use flash in manual mode. With either GNC or A modes, I find I enjoy more control over my results than I ever got with i-TTL, and I don't miss the distraction and lag of the pre-flash. The only material limitation of an older flash unit is not having ultra high ISO. But this is easily overcome by dialling down the power in either 1/3 or whole stops. In practice, you can work at ISO 128,000 if you want.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So basically - get an iTTL capable flash if you want to use it on camera (unless you really know what you are doing).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably sensible advice, but I don't think it took me more than 20 minutes to become comfortable working without it. It's not difficult, and I found the time invested pays dividends in terms of results and flexibility. Not least in working with remote flash: if you understand manual flash you can set effective lighting ratios quickly and simply, over any distance, and don't have to rely on the limitations of CLS or similar systems.</p>

<p>Personally I'd skip the SB-600, 800, 900...</p>

<p>I've always liked the SB-28. It was the best flash Nikon ever made, but is largely overlooked now because it was a film model. But it's very easy to work with (one of the nice features about it is that power output is controlled by simple +/- buttons, so there's no complex interface) and has none of the performance issues of the 800 and later series. It works with external power packs too, so can give sub-second recycling if needed.</p>

<p>The SB-28 is out of production so you have to buy it second hand. But that also makes it very cheap. I bought several at an average of $40 each, with enough money left over to get two pairs of pocket wizards. The SB-28 is very easy to work with (especially with PWs) and you could find it's the cheapest, most versatile and highest performance off-camera rig in town.</p>

<p>If you've been reading the strobist site you'll notice that these units get recommended a lot. They've basically got the all the features you need, none of the ones you don't, and are both powerful and affordable.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How do most of you enforce a few instruction on couples to follow simple poses at the altar ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anyone who is a reportage type photographer (your site seems to be marketing this as your speciality) is in the business of documenting, interpreting and playing back the story of the wedding. Telling people to do things (especially to be aware of the camera, or look in a given direction at a given time) is at odds with this approach.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you look at my wedding images the others seem to make up for it I guess. Have a quick look over and perhaps give an opinion please.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your site says you're a 'modern photojournalist' yet on the same page talks about 'the traditional garter shot' and 'cutting the cake' - two of the most common set-up shots in the traditional repertoire. The mindset of reportage photographers is to respond to people, their relationship to each other, and the events of the day.... and interpret them in a way that will be significant to them later. Your examples are a little off target: a picture of a guest showing you his camera, or a wide shot of a crowd from thirty feet, or a bride posing with a pageboy, isn't likely to be what people have in mind.</p>

<p>I notice you have a section called 'traditional' too, and I'd say that on balance your strengths probably lie more in this direction (at least, based on the very few shots in your portfolio). The photographs in that section are consistent with that approach and executed to a given standard, and appear to be pretty much in line with many people's expectations of that genre.</p>

<p>You could do with a more comprehensive portfolio, as you're really only showing a handful of pictures. Anyone who has been to a wedding as a guest almost certainly has shots exactly like these, so you may not be doing enough to establish your credentials. I also don't personally respond to captions on wedding photos. A good picture should tell its own story; if you have to explain it, then it's probably not strong enough.</p>

<p>On the plus side, I like your site design and branding. It has a nice quality feel which is pleasantly refreshing. Although surprisingly inconsistent with your pricing (can you really cover a half-day wedding for £250 and make any money?).</p>

<p>Bill, thanks for sharing your thinking and preparation. I knew it would all have a purpose, consistent with your usual planning. Yes, I missed your extension tubes - when you said 3xrings, I was thinking step-up rings. Looking at your preparation, I think it would be instructive to work with you one day, as your approach is likely very different to mine.</p>

<p>John, I take your point about time and opportunity. Plenty of times we have to take what we can get. I work entirely in documentary mode myself, so I'm very aware of what it takes to make (or lose) the shot. In fact, my best portfolio is the shots that got away... :-) Although I try and improve the odds in my favour using two cameras, each with complimentary lenses and settings. Sometimes there's time to drop one and grab the other.</p>

<p>If the damage to the card is only to the case or micro-circuits then it may still be salvaged.</p>

<p>Not sure what your lab did, but if the card's case is still intact then they probably didn't do much more than load it into a reader. That's not a thorough solution. It's fairly straightforward to get data off a card by removing the memory circuit and mounting it on a PCB board. This is what a forensic recovery expert would do (or anyone good with microelectronics).</p>

<p>You may want to explore more options for recovering the data -- not in terms of saving your fee or reputation, but so you can do as much as possible for your clients.</p>

<p>Otherwise a 50% refund sounds very reasonable. Unless you've got a very thorough contract covering non-performance, liabilities, waiver and consequential losses then I suggest you take it. But you might want to issue a waiver with it that indemnifies you from further action.</p>

<p>John, not sure this is an image I respond to strongly.</p>

<p>I struggle a little with the framing, perspective and composition. For me this would probably be one I'd consider didn't quite work out... I might include it in the final set for the boy's expression, but I wouldn't consider it a hero. Nice (maybe even safe), but not as good as it could have been, if you know what I mean.</p>

<p>Things that would make me feel differently:</p>

<p>1. Wider framing. At this distance I'd look for more context with the bride and more of the guests. For me this is an image that's better wide open and up close, rather than telephoto from a few metres away.</p>

<p>2. Subject separation. I think it would be stronger with less depth of field. You shot it on F13. I'd prefer F5.6, possibly even wider if you had enough subject-camera distance. I see faint catchlights in the boy's eyes so assume you were constrained by flash sync. But doesn't the D90 sync at 1/250? There may have been room to work wider, or use HSS, or even not use flash at all. The flash isn't doing much (low power catch-lights) so a wider aperture might have give you more.</p>

<p>3. Not in colour. The dominant subject is the boy, but the dominant element of the composition is the dense blocks of green and black. The colour works against the intent of the image rather than supporting it. Using colour is difficult and doesn't always suit the situation.</p>

<p>4. Balanced toning. The boy and hands need to pop out of the frame. Your original is pretty flat.</p>

<p>Thanks for taking the time to post it. It was thought provoking. All the above are personal reactions only - I'm sure others will feel differently.</p>

Bill, I have to ask..... what's the purpose of some of the stuff in your kit? I know you've got good reasons for

everything that's in there, but it's intriguing. The tape measure and ruler seem incongruous at first glance - unless perhaps

you're using extension tubes?

<p>Dave - it's light, pleasurable to use, and I can work just a few feet away with no one noticing or caring. It's also quiet enough that I can fire it in the middle of a hushed ceremony and everyone is oblivious.</p>

<p>With a high capacity card and a couple of spare batteries in my pocket, it's all I need. Extra lenses fit in pockets or a small bag. It's also made a real difference to my comfort. I used to get hand and wrist ache from holding a D700+24-70 for ten hours, but I can use the M9 all day and night and don't even notice. One reason why bandages and painkillers don't feature in my kit list.</p>

<p>Actually, Gary (above) is the one who convinced me about the M9. I've been a Leica user for years and have always shot an MP at weddings, but problems I encountered with the M8 put me off trying the M9. It was on his recommendation and after he showed me the image quality that I ordered one. Alongside my MP it lets me shoot film, digital or both while keeping the same approach to working distance, perspective and framing.</p>

<p> </p>

Leica M9 and MP, plus 85/2, 50/1 and 24/1.4. SB-28 if needed. Compact, light, effective and can be carried in a small

satchel. I've sometimes got less gear than the guests.

 

I have other stuff but it stays in reserve and I prefer not to use it, emergencies excepted.

<blockquote>

<p>I have had clients that wanted 1,000 images or more...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you have an opportunity to explain and educate.</p>

<p>I tell clients if I'm having a good day they can expect 350. But if I'm having a great day I might be able to give them 200. And the only way I could give them 1000 would be if I kept my eyes closed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not sure if abrasive, zero people skill and no marketing sense works as well in Wedding Photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, I bet you struggled to keep a straight face when you wrote that :-) Merry Christmas!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a risk...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? Only £240 for targeted advertising, vendor recommendation, point of sale exposure and access to brides, their mothers and bridemaids at the most important part of the purchase cycle ..... for an entire year?</p>

<p>By comparison, an advertising campaign in a decent magazine to reach the exact same demographic would cost upwards of £5,000.</p>

<p>Personally I'd call it a free gift.</p>

<p>I have a lot of different gear for weddings, but my preferred set-up is very simple: just two rangefinders and two primes. I've shot almost the whole year using this ultra light kit. So, in practice, yes -- it's perfectly possible to shoot a wedding with minimum gear, and your equipment list is perfectly adequate in that regard.</p>

<p>But you also have to be equipped for what <em>might </em>happen, as well as what you expect to happen. So, despite a strong preference for working with available light, this past weekend when I shot a wedding in adverse weather (-12 degrees C, 15 inches of snow, heavy cloud cover with little daylight and a late afternoon hailstorm), I just adapted and shot the day with flash, lightstands and wireless triggers.</p>

<p>Hence all the good advice about backups. I don't go to any wedding without a primary system, two redundant systems, and some form of additional lighting. Even though I expect everything except the primary system to stay in the car.</p>

<p>One basic rule of weddings is you'll inevitably need what you don't have. So it's best to make sure you have it.</p>

<p>It's a very fair deal on the grounds that it's inexpensive, and you can't reasonably expect another vendor to help you unless you reciprocate in some way.</p>

<p>But don't miss the opportunity to offer them some photography services. If you give them only money you'll get your book in the shop but nothing more. But if you work with them -- perhaps offering to shoot dresses for a catalog, or make large pictures they can use as point of sales material -- you'll build a relationship and demonstrate your services first hand. And that's going to be a lot more valuable to both you and them, and will carry more traction with prospective brides. A book on the counter in the shop is easily missed. A 40" framed print on the wall, beautifully lit and perfectly produced, is not missable at all.</p>

<p>The key to useful relationships is figuring out how to build in mututal benefit rather than paid for services.</p>