nancy s.

I do a more traditional style of photography and this is a shot I always get.

I guess the way I think about the formals is that this is the archival information for future generations. I do these shots for the Bride and Groom but also as sort of a geneology documentation. If I can get all the generations together I do it because a wedding is one place they all seem to come together.

My B&G are posed center for this shot.. His parents next to him and his Granparents next to his parents. Same thing on the other side for the Bride.. Her parents then her Grandparents.

If the single row gets to large, I seat the B&G and then arrange people around them.

However, if you are a candid shooter.. do not do formals at all or only limted formals, then you won't get all of these shots.

One thing I have noticed.. if I do a wedding that is mostly candids the customer usually wants all the formals in the finished album.. so go figure. I think most people want the traditional and the journalist style all in one.

I just looked through your portfolio. You have a lot of very nice things there.. really like your photos of people in the city.

And to return a comment to you I have to agree... I really don't like over worked photoshopped to death photos for the most part. Paint it or photograph it... but don't bury it under layers of photoshop! This is why I shoot film a LOT still.

Of course, this is just my personal opinion which is not necessarily either accepted or agreed with by many.

I sit at a computer all day for my "day job." As such I avoid post processing as much as possible by getting it right in the VF and in the camera (at point of capture).

time at the computer is time wasted when I could be doing more shooting.

I will add one thing:

220 film is limited in availability of different types of film and ISO. It is actually becoming more limited with time. Unless you are shooting weddings and changing film is a hassle, I recommend using 120 film and 120 inserts as you have availabile more variety of films.

You do have to change film more often (you get 15 shots with 120 in 645 format) but it's really not a problem.

The negative strips are all numbered and these numbers are on the prints. I use what the lab provides and stick with that numbering system and there are no mix ups. sounds to me like you are re-numbering these and, at leat with both pro labs I use, should not be necessary.

BTW I give the proof album with 4X6 prints to the bride and retain the guide sheet and the negatives for the album(s) ordered after word. At the $400 you are quoting I must say I cannot recall ever charging so little for an album...

Nice six. Will look REALLY good all wrapped up in little packages in the freezer.....

.. and even better on the grill with a little dry rub....

Thank you and Amen, Marc.

Hybrid shooting is certainly the answer. If it really matters I still shoot it on film..

I would say that 1 - 2 % would be generous. IF the question was how many make 1/3 or 1/4 of their living from Photography the % would jump right up.

Ask how many make 1/3 to 1/4 of their income from photography and have done so for over 10 years and the #'s will drop way back again...

Would be an interesting poll....

Have you tried KEH?

If not, try them. Also try Harry Taylor at Classic Enlargers: http://www.classic-enlargers.com/

He is THE Omega Man, but he might have what you need for the Besseler or know where you can get it.

Love H.P.'s shot. Reminds me of my X BF....

Curly Hair. Geeky. Focused. Totally TOTALLY self absorbed (except for his techno skills with cameras). LOL

I have always admired the guys who did press coverage with Crown Graphics... and have wished I had their skills. Maybe when I retire, I can get a crown graphic and have some fun.

Oh yeah.. by then I might not be able to get B&W sheet film!

I used to live just north of NYC and I have been paid $0 to $250 when I was there. I know of someone who did contract shooting and got $250 for all day weddings and he did this as the primary shooter.. and he also got a 1099 in the mail so had to claim the income.

In view of today's market with all the people wanting to apprentice and help shoot and to learn, I think you are paying very generously.

I believe you could pay a second shooter less if you allowed them to keep their photos and use them to build their own portfolio.. and forget Cab Fare.. Getting to work is your responsibility, not your boss's.

That is my opinion. Paying a second shooter $475 means you should be charging about $4,750 for a basic wedding.

I would have cropped that light out when taking the shot.. I would have stood in a different place or not taken the shot.

White balance at the camera for Flourescent lights is always an issue since flourescent color temperature is all over the place. Shooting digital you can do a custom white balance for each situation and save it (or you can iwth the Fuji S 2 etc.) as Cus 1, Cus 2 etc.

With film, the way to correct white balance for flourexcent lighting is to use flash. Remote strobes with a radio slave or an assistant with a slave light can help provide flash in addition to the flash on a bracket at the camera. the same will work for Digital. I used both but use mostly film.

I do not think I would have taken the shot you took of the wedding party/vows at all in the first place (in looking at it again). The perspective makes the Groomsman appear to be midgets. Remember, every image you take is of a 3 dimensional situation that is transferred to a 2 dimensional medium (print, film, image.. it matters not!).

When shooting a ceremony you only need to take a few shots.. and if they do not allow flash, the officient usually will cooperate in a reinactment of the vows, rings etc. and you can use flash then.

My last shot, if flash is not allowed, is the shot of the Father kissing the bride as he gives her away. Then I SIT DOWN (it is a religious ceremony, and it is important to respect that) and the next shot I take is of the first kiss and then the recessional. After the Receiving line, I do the reinactment and alter returns.

Just the way I do it and what I do and what I might have done here.

The best way to do this is to take three shots and be certain they are paying attention to YOU not to anyone behgind you. Sometimes you have to ask ppl behind you to cease and desist distracting behavior (don't know if this was your problem or not). Yes, you take the photos and get them all looking at you and take the shot.. count to three and shoot at three for one, at two for the next one (tho you count to three) and just before you say 3 on the last one.

Never had a problem doing it this way. Still shooting film so PS isn't an option I want to use.

The industry is transitioning and has transitioned more quickly in the last 5 years than it has in the previous 25 years. In the previous 25 years the advancements were in camera technology (Auto focus, Auto Exposure, Micro chips that allow the lens and the camera and the flash to all "talk" to each other etc.) and film technology.

Digital has forced rapid change utilizing the camera technology already there and building on it and adding computer technology and skills... and allowing the photographer to post process an image he might have tossed on film into something acceptable and, sometimes, even really great.

I do not think the rapid pace of change is about to slow at this point. I think the video/stills is probably a future change.

The question is, who will embrace it? Will the customer embrace it???

I still shoot film and I hate dealing with the computer and learning software. Meanwhile, those behind me shoot digital and embrace the computer.

And those of the future will be building on this and the video with stills may be taht future, if customers see and advantage and want it.

Personally, I doubt I will go that route. I don't relish the idea of shooting video.

So, it is likely that it is a good thing I have a day job! :)

as much as I dislike doing these, I would consider doing table shots for this event.. just to document all that attended.

As others have said, do as many candids as possible, keep it as light as you can, get as many family shots as you can.. and friends photos.. if you see two people talking, get it. If the turn and look at you and smile, get it...

Do you have a back up camera body, flash bracket to get the flash off the camera and an back up flash? If not you need these.

Depending on the back ground and the amount of ambient exposure I want, I alter the shutter speed accordingly. If I do not want the back ground to show, I go to 1/250th, F5.6 or f8 and use flash (assuming the synch speed is 1/250th or less for the flash). If I want the back ground to expose I will shoot at 1/30th and f 4...

Are you shooting RAW? do you have enought compact flash card memory?

If I had that much money I would no longer need to shoot weddings...... I could just take the equipment and go and play and travel!

:)

Seriously? Good Laptop with great Video card and Speed. Same at home with second system for back up and a hi def LCD monitor. Newer software for all of this stuff.

Two Full frame digital cameras (the big, expensive, out of reach Canons) and a Pentax 67 system.

Fast, constant aperture zooms.

More flash equipment.

A newer car to get to Gigs and enough $$ to not worry about the gas I was wasting turning on the AC and to not worry about the insurance bills!

In the studio it is typically along the lens axis. It looks the most natural there and works best for capturing light at the film or sensor plane.

BTW the light ratios.. in Woolley's book he has it reading both ways. 4:1 and 1:4 means the same thing.

All this stuff was figured out long b4 me and my time. It was figured out by guys like Degas and Rembrandt... and then copied by guys like George Hurrell and Monte Zucker and Joe Zeltsman.

Best to learn from the masters cuz that saves you a pile of time experimenting to come up with the same stuff on your own.

If you are going to be an engineer and design a digital camera it is best to start with an existing design which compiles the knowledge of many and add to it.

Of course, this is not to say you should never strike out on your own after seeing what has gone b4 you. Never know. Might design something entirely new that works better..

Along with Zeltsman:

http://jzportraits.home.att.net/

Get the book, "Photographic Lighting" by A.E. Woolley. It is out of print. It is very good.

When you look at Zeltman you will think the ppl look wooden etc. However, READ the TEXT. That is where the information is. If you have that you can then move on to more inspirational work.

For Inspiration, pick up a book of George Hurrell's work. It is Hollywood stars from back when (Colark Gabel etc.) but the images are truly great. OK... he used large format and times were different but light is light is light and a pose is a pose is a pose.....

First of all I suggest you get a copy of "Photographic Lighting" by A.E. Woolley. It is old, decidely out of print and absolutely excellent.

After you read that, read Susan McCartney's book on Flash Photography.

And, yes, read and understandZeltsman's lessons.. internalize them so you can spot a good pose vs. something awkward. Yes, the images are dated and posed, but the information (you gotta READ it) is dead on.

The job of fill light is to reduce the shadows. IOW if you use key light only, the shadows will become black caves with no detail. The fill light is not always at the camera but it is TYPICALLY at the camera.

A Light ratio of 1:1 is created when key and fill lights are at the same intensity. If you want a ration of 1:4 then the key light is 4 times stronger than the fill in lamp. You can use continuous lighting with the same power and move the lights closer or further from the subject to change the ratio (learn the Inverse Square Rule for light fall off and suddenly those F stop numbers start to make sense). You can use lights of different intensity for the same effect. Your choice. Use a light meter.

The fill light is ALWAYS 1 in the ratio. Period. There is no argument. Steve is correct. This is how light ratios are figured. The number that is altered is the Key light which varied in intensity against the fill light.

Ultimately, the fill light and the key light need to have a ratio that your media capture and paper can handle. This is vastly different than what the eye can see. A 1:4 light ratio is pretty dramatic and still allows shadow detail, but it is a ratio that is pretty harsh to look at.

If you add other lighting, such as a hair light or a kicker, the TOTAL foot candles (yes, physics!) of illumination is increased. For the camera xposure you will need to take an over all meter reading.

Light is light is light. It behaves according to the laws of physics. It is not mysterious. You can measure it. You can change it. It still behaves the same as the laws of physics describes it. It is based in Wave Theory and there are really no secrets if you are willing to pick up a book and read about it. Fact is, it is quite interesting.

First of all, I find it interesting that only one woman responded to this thread. I guess most of us are busy working and being "real Women" and not sitting in at the computer on a photo forum? :) OK.. it is 5:00PM and I am here but this thing was OFF most of the day!

Second of all, the misery of being female is thus:

As women age they become "old." As men age they become "distinguished."

An older woman can have plenty of security financially and due to wrinkles, sags and the business of life happening, she just ages and looks old. Hair Color and make up can do just so much. The camera takes photos and the women look "old."

Men, as they become older, usually become more mature and garner financial success and security which makes them attractive, wrinkles and all, to women young and old. Their wrinkles give them "character" and "interest" in front of the lens.

Of course, there are older men (and women) who are financial wrecks and who look old and who can never get it together.. and eventually, they are unattractive to anyone EXCEPT the lens depicting their shop worn look of "character..."

And those images win Juried Shows (if the photographer manages to catch it all).

Gerald, I have thought about the Dog thing. The problem is that so many dogs are like so many children.. Ill Behaved and ill disciplined (and poorly parented.. both dogs and children!).. so you have to be the one to set the well behaved example.

When I was at Glacier about a year ago, dogs were allowed in specific areas. The problem is there is a leash law and if you don't obey it and the dog wanders off the path and finds a bear, it often comes running back to you with said bear in tow (Ranger told me this). Bears cannot see well and are curious!

Any trip with a canine companion takes planning. I would love to go to Waterton and then on up to Calgary etc. when out there next time. However, THAT trip may need to be dog-less as crossing the international border with a dog could be an issue!

In all this dog/no dog discussion I find that I would love to find places to go that did not allow Children under the age of 16... and also banned computer games and boom boxes.

Nothing worse than getting on a shuttle in a NP to see something and be stuck in the bus with the screaming children!

I had a hammered DJ as the host for a wedding I did. He got into really offensive jokes as the night wore on.. the sort that make a sailor blush and there were underage children in attendance. Quite honestly I will say I will NEVER forget that wedding hall!

Worse than that was the DJ Crack Head who was doing hits between songs. He was off the wall.. would stop in mid sentence etc.

For the entrance he lined the wedding party up IN THE DINING ROOM and left them STANDING there for 20 MINUTES while he was outside smoking more CRACK! Just TRY to get nice photos???!!

After the cake cutting (yeah.. he managed to recognize, with the photographer and hall owners there WAS a cake) his (at least) 400 pound (sic) GF showed up to "help" him. She was decidely NOT dressed for a wedding (can you say spandex?).

One day while assisting a big name photographer in the area we drove by the hall where the crakc head DJ had performed. I noted the place, "Oh Look, We are going past XXXXX Hall!" He asked me, "What exactly is XXXXX Hall?" I deadpanned to him, "The reason to raise your prices...."

I went through this very dilemma when I went to college lo those many years ago. What to Study? I am a naturally talented artist but I knew if I pursued art it was likely I would starve to death.. much more talented artists than I are out there starving...

And, you know, the bottom line is that Money Makes the World Go Round....

Sooooo.... I started out pursuing Physics, Chemistry and math.. core subjects that give you a solid base for good paying jobs in a LOT of different fields. I wasn't very good at those things at that time. However, I was good at drawing and art and I loved being out doors.

I switched fields to (GASP) Geography. Mapping and Aerial imagery and Remote sensing. It was fun, I could do it and I liked it. I minored in Geology (which forced me to take some of those core math/science courses).

I graduated and became a dairy farmer for 20 years (worked on a farm to put my self thru college). Eventually I went to work as a Real Estate Appraiser for the State.. and then switched over to Engineering (Civil/ Bridge Design) and Surveying. Suveying is where I finally USED my Geography training.

Today I work as a Real Estate Appraiser (again) and I actually USE GIS and ArcMap so I am finally using my education. A little. :)

My point is that you need to pattern your education so you are never a "one Trick Pony." One Trick Ponies can do one thing very well, but if no one needs that trick anymore, they are out of a job and there isn't another one to be had.

My advice is to major in something NOT photography but related. Get those blasted core math and science courses which are the basis for many many good paying jobs and minor in Photography/arts.

When you graduate, if a great photography career opens up for you, GREAT! You will be ready. However, if you are broad based in your education, you will open your own opportunities upon graduation.

The one thing you do need to consider is that doing something you love in a college situation or on your own often changes drastically when you start doing it for a living. My Dad was a mechanic because that is what he loved doing when he was 20 years old. When he was 60 years old still doing it he no longer loved it and, in fact, threatened us kids with major bodily harm if any of us even discussed becoming mechanics!

Another side thought on this... by taking different things when you start in college you may find you really love doing something else you always perceived as "dull" or "boring" and find your niche there.

Don't become a one trick pony. Leave the door open to all opportuinities. Good Luck.