dave_shilling__sacramento_

I think its entirely possible to cover a wedding with a fifty. Use your legs to zoom. The entire purpose of the exercise would indeed be a creativity measure. "How do I get the fisheye, the closeup on the brides nostril, putting on the ring when I'm standing across the street?" the answer is.. YOU DONT!!! So the challenge is to make an artistic and classy wedding album with what you DO have, the one lens. As long as you can get an invite to the rehearsal, I think its completely possible. You'll just have to leave out some shots that the internet has taught many people to believe is a "required" photo for the album. I'm doing the whole "un-official-photog-but-guest-who-will-take-pictures" gig, and I think I'll post my results of the 50mm only wedding.

I though it was relatively easy to navigate. Its very basic though, not very progressive. As it may be a first impression, you may want to consider doing something with flash to modernize it. example: http://www.joeyl.com/. To be honest, my first impression was that you specialized in aerial photos, since its called "Eagle Eye" and has a city panorama in the front. I would love to see self explanatory photos become links to that portion of your business....i.e. click on the bride for weddings, the hockey punch for sports, etc. Also, take off the hit counter. Its tacky. Overall, not too bad!

I think you'll be much happier learning to embrace flash. It will make you more versatile as a photographer for the fast movement stuff. otherwise, you're getting into ultra fast lens territory, like 50/1.4, then you lose your DoF. If you must use ambient lght only, i would go the 1.4 route, and a 1600 ISO if its printable. You can also get more grain tolerance print-wise if its B/W.

The umbrella lights are a good start.... looks like you prefer a white background, so I would pick up a professional backdrop that photographs better. The loose fabric just adds unnecessary texture to the background. I would move at least one light higher up, and try to move the subjects forther away from the backdrop. Then, you can shoot a flash directly into the backdrop to help eliminate the shadows and give you a crisp white background. This would also allow you to use gels to change the color of your background easily. Also, I personally thought the whole Lensbaby thing was too much. I think a crisp, well executed photo will be more effective than an average one with Lensbaby effects.

There's a reason that the cliche maternity pictures are cliche... they look good. I personally wasn't feeling the maternity set, and not because they arent the classic poses. The first few had shadows from flash, and I just thought the toga was weird. I thought 12, 15, and 18 weren't too bad though. I guess the most important thing is whether or not your clients were satisfied. Just because we dont think that women who are 8 months pregnant look natural in togas, doesnt mean that the client agrees. IF they are quirky people, they may like a different photo set. Good news is.. nobody learns anything new by copying whats already been done. Keep on doing what you're doing! Perhaps you could introduce some off-camera lighting with or without gels to help you create a fashion look to your belly shots.

I looked at some of the photos in Araceli and Davids set, and noticed that you may be using on-camera flash.... It casts a dark shadow behind your subject. It reminds me more that a picture was a taken, and less that I'm seeing what I would see if I were there. If you are using a speed light, bounce flash would be better. Point your flash to the ceiling, either straight up, or at an angle. This will fill the room, and we're used to seeing people lit from above. You can also use an omnibounce to spread the light up AND out to fill in eye sockets. There is no reason to use the flash for a pair of shoes... just use a tripod or a mini tripod, and lower your shutter speed. Move the shoes to good light if you have to. You def had some good use of window light... keep doing that. In Ruby and Fabians wedding, I cant see both rings in the ring shot.... her ring is the most important one usually, we need to see it. There are many headless shots as well. This may not be a bad thing, I just wouldnt overdo it. For the record, I like the one with the Bible.

 

Some of the posed shots also looked like there was another photographer, and you were taking photos off to the side, when you should be in the middle with all eyes one you. I love the cake topper. The couple obviously hand-picked it, great job making sure it was included!

 

You didnt ask for it, but I wanted to recommend that you pick up a real backdrop for your kids photos.... Denny has a 10 foot by 10 foot backdrop for $100 that will do much better at giving you the "picture people" effect than the loose fabric you are using. What lighting setup are you using for your kids portraits? Some of the photos looked like they could have been taken with a cheap digital camera, and it may be because of the lighting. I would recommend www.strobist.com for learning some lighting concepts.

I am also going to do my first wedding, albeit much sooner. I have been stacking up "engagement" photo sessions on my calendar with friends. You would be suprised how even your friends adopt a customer mindset...

 

Regarding your portfolio...everything there was willing to hold still while you do a test shot, a re-take, a new angle, etc. People may not. Another HUGE difference that I have learned through practicing is that People have no preconceived notion about what "the old street" and "the sunset bridge" are supposed to look like. They weren't there, so they assume it looks EXACTLY like you shot it. But when you photograph people, everything is different. We know what people look like. And if your pictures dont match that mental representation of the faces your client is familiar with (including their own), they will be less satisfied. From one almost first-timer to another... read excessively. Review photos online and deconstruct them. And practice. Let me repeat that one. Practice.

 

You know a couple who wouldnt mind having their picture taken? Make a practice session by having him wear all black, she wears all white, and choose a setting similar to the one you'll be at. Its a low-pressure environment that lets you have "re-do's" and take notes. Obviously, things wont be exactly the same, but you'll have some experience to fall back on.

 

I would do an engagement set with the B and G so they are comfortable with you doing the photos at the wedding, esp the more intimate portions, like getting ready, in between wedding and reception, etc where there are less people and you are more of a focus. I would also try to visit the venue within a couple weeks of the event with them, and do some test shots. The beauty of digital is that they can check those out and they can pick out compositions that they like. Plus if they really want them, they can have those ones too. Bonus!

 

I'm def nervous, but I'm going to be as prepared as I possibly can. I'm just happy its not indoors, cause I cant afford pro glass yet, and the whole wedding would be done with a 50mm, or bounce flash. I have another in Yosemite in july that I;m super stoked about doing. I'm going to channel the spirit of Ansel.

If you're looking for only one lens to do a full wedding... you def want one that is versatile. I agree that a f2.8 lens with a medium range would be best... this varies depending on what system you're using. For the cheapest possible lens available to get the job done, I would suggest a 50mm f/1.8. Its the classic fast prime lens, and it costs about $100.00. Sure, you're losing some versatility without zoom, but I get the impression that you are not looking to become a paid professional. You can always zoom manually, meaning walk closer or further away. I'm sure there have been excellent wedding sets done with only this one lens.

I believe this was done on digital by a guy named.... get ready for it.... Joey Lawrence. www.joeyl.com. What a mind boggling coincidence that you share the same name!!!!