booray

<p>I think that, for now, I'll be using manual for formals and room lighting but TTL for everything else.</p>

<p>BTW - the TTL remotes can be adjusted from the camera. Since it's TTL, any flash compensation that you make in camera is relayed to the flash. The only thing they don't do is three zone ratio control. They always treat the OCF as one zone, regardless of how many you are using. This is the one thing that Canon's infrared system can do that the PW's can't.</p>

<p>For me, the TTL is very valuable since I use OCF a lot on location. Recently I was shooting an E-session and the girl was in the forefront with the guy in back and a shallow dof. he was wearing a hat and so his face was a little too dark. I grabbed my light stand and placed it so it would hit him and not her. It put perfect fill light on him without me having to set a thing. That was a big "a-ha" moment for me in terms of how versatile these remotes can be.</p>

<p>I recently purchased the new Pocketwizard Mini TT1 and Flex TT5.</p>

<p>One of the things that I see many photographers saying is, "I prefer manual flash because you get consistent light." I can see where this makes sense, especially in a situation where you are lighting a room or lighting for formals. I have been using Cybersyncs for years myself. Set the manual lighting correctly and it nevar changes as you move groups into the shot or light the reception hall.</p>

<p>Just last week I was shooting a seminar and I placed my strobe in the back of the room with a narrow beam so that it went over the heads of the crowd but still lit the speaker. Than I positioned myself to the side and shot the speaker with great 45 degree light. The second speaker was dressed in black and suddenly the flash was too hot so I had to adjust it. At the time, I thought, "This wouldn't happen with manual flash. This is a good example of where TTL off-camera is a hindrance."</p>

<p>But, then I thought, "Wait a minute. If I was shooting with on-camera flash I would have the same problem. Yet, I don't switch my on-camera flash to manual...."</p>

<p>Here's my question (and I do have one): If we shoot with TTL all the time on camera, why is it suddenly a huge burden when applied off-camera? While it's true that I had to adjust the flash when the person in black stepped up, it was no more than I would have done with on-camera flash. Furthermore, because it was TTL, I was able to set up my light and just walk away to the other side of the room (no test shots, no fine-tuning or doing the math..). </p>

<p>I'm beginning to think that the key to embracing off-camera TTL is to think of it as on-camera TTL. If you think of it as just bounce flash from any direction, it's much more intuitive to use (if you are a good bounce flash photographer).</p>

<p>Do you think that TTL off-camera flash can be just as valuable is manual? Is it simply situational or would you apply it to everything, including formals?</p>

<p>If my description of the shoot is confusing I'll be happy to post a shot.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kevin Swan - If you think I won't be using that idea your crazy. Great shot.</p>

<p>Nadine - I read that rule to mean, "Don't start a thread with the intent of posting a bunch of your images just for the sake of showing them off." I started this thread with the intention of sparking some discussion and feedback on creative ways to take a particular type of image at a wedding. I think that squeaks under the wire. :) Thanks for not killing it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't know about the rest of you but I would love it if there were more pictures posted on the forum. For the last couple of years we have held a little "best image" contest at the start of the year but I'm bored and want to look at some pictures so I'm throwing down the gauntlet to my fellow photogs with this post.</p>

<p>Oh sure, everyone has a favorite wedding picture so let's start a thread that celebrates something that doesn't get it's day in the limelight: <em>The Shoes Shot.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Let us gather and celebrate the days we have spent laying on dirty hotel room floors, carefully positioning the bride's shoes for that perfect shot. I invite everyone to post their favorite "Shoe Shot" along with comments and stats. Let's give these underappreciated images a day in the sun!</p>

<p>I'll start:</p>

<p>This picture was taken at a wedding on Clearwater Beach, Florida. I've written a more detailed description on my blog that breaks it down shot-by-shot boorayphotography.blogspot.com/2010/07/wedding-photography-and-shoes so I'll do the short version here:</p>

<p>I tried several different setups with no joy. I was in a room at a small beach resort and there wasn't much to work with. I also had a 1 million watt sun pouring in from the sliding glass door. After several missed attempts I decided to use the light to my advantage and frame the shoes against it. I used the desk chair to hold the shoes and adjusted my shutter to blow out the sliding glass doors. The main light was my 580EXII bounced in from the left about 15 degrees. I ended up with something I realy liked:</p>

<p><img src="http://boolog.com/web/clearwater-beach-wedding.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="500" /></p>

<p>Your turn! Don't be shy! </p>

<p>I haven't tried the Radio Poppers. I have read some comparison reviews and don't recall seeing anything that made me favor the RP's over the PW's.</p>

<p>I haven't tried the PW's in a reception setting and don't know that I will anytime soon (well, I'll use them in manual). </p>

<p>Where I think the PW's Mini TT1 really shines is off-camera flash in a changing enviroment. Yesterday I did an engagement session in Ybor City (the Cuban section of Tampa). With my strobe on a stand I was able to move around from setup to setup and shoot very fast with minimal adjustments to the flash FEL. Usually, when trying to move quickly, I aim to keep my flash an equal distance from the subjects and maintain the same aperture, adjusting the shutter to control the ambient. With the Mini TT1 and Flex TT5 I was able to move the stand closer or farther or change the aperture at will without having to adjust the flash settings.</p>

<p>The thing that I like is that, while I consider myself to be a fast off-camera flash shooter, I'm a <em>faster</em> on-camera flash shooter. With these remotes, shooting off-camera is the same as on-camera. When using off-camera flash, my thought process is the same as it is for on-camera bounce.</p>

<p>Here's an example of what I like: Yesterday I was shooting my couple against a wall, one close to me and the other in the background. I shot the closest at f2.8 so the back one was blurry. Then I focused on the back and shot it again with the front one blurry. So far so good, no big deal. Then, I changed my aperture to 8.0 and got the shot with both in focus and <em>never touched my off-camera flash</em>. Another time I changed my aperture by two stops and my ISO by three stops and never adjusted the off-camera flash.</p>

<p>There are times when you have to ride the FEL (like when your subjects are at the edge of the frame and the camera is metering an area with a 2-stop difference!). But it's no different than what I would do if I had the flash on-camera and was bouncing onto my subjects. I found it refreshing to be able to think and operate in "bounce-flash" mode when outdoors. </p>

<p>I was under the impression that metering mode affected flash the same as exposure. I wrote about it here:<br>

boorayphotography.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-metering-mode-to-use-when.html#more</p>

<p>Am I wrong? Maybe I shouldn't have said "ambient." <br>

It's my understanding that the flash will vary according to the same information that is used to vary the aperture or shutter in an automatic mode. This is why, when shooting in manual mode and evaluative mode, I get a different amount of flash power when I focus on the dress than I do when I focus on the black tux. Am I wrong about that?</p>

<p>I just finished a couple of shoots with the new PocketWizard Flex TT5 and Mini TT1. I thought that some of you are considering these remotes might want to read my first impressions and see some images.</p> <p>boorayphotography.blogspot.com/2010/09/review-pocketwizard-flex-tt5-and-mini.html#more</p>

<p>I haven't used them at a wedding yet but the Senior Portrait session that I tested them on is a good approximation of how I might use them for wedding portraits, etc. The real question will be if I use them for room fill at a wedding or go back to my manual settings. I suspect I will stick with manual but I plan to test it.</p>

<p>Luca -<br>

Of course I wouldn't expect the B&G to take care of it during the ceremony. I'm sorry if it read that way. </p>

<p>As usual, Nadine has said exactly what I would say. Sometimes I think it's a little spooky the way she seems to think and shoot almost exactly the way that I do. We all love Nadine.</p>

<p>I also never bother my clients with petty stuff during the wedding. I'm a firm believer in a hassle free day for the couple. That's why I alert them to what "Uncle Bob" can do <em>before</em> the wedding. That way they can choose whether or not to address it beforehand. I've had a few cases where the B&G said, "OMG, my mother (or whomever) would totally do that!" They then tell their mother about the picture they saw at my studio and Mom is less likely to jump into the aisle during the processional. Or, they can say nothing and let the chips fall. I personally don't care what they do. I just want them to be aware of the possiblity so they can make an informed decision.</p>

<p>I'll never forget the disappointed reaction of the bride who had her first kiss blocked by "Uncle Bob" (who happened to be her father, btw). If simply showing my B&G a picture of "Uncle Bob" in action can prevent that, it's worth it to me.</p>

<p>Luca -</p>

<p>William is right, of course.</p>

<p>You said, "it's the results that count, not the process." When the "process" is occurring in the middle of your wedding. it counts a great deal. I can't tell you how many times I have had a client tell me that they attended a wedding where the photographer was pushy or demanding during the formals. The last thing I want to do is become a distraction because I am desperate to achieve a result that is more important to me than the B&G. However, if the B&G are depending on me to get certain results, I will get them. I discuss this beforehand so that I have a clear idea of how far I should push to get the shot.</p>

<p>The best example I can give you of why I discuss "Uncle Bob" with my clients (and they always laugh when I explain that the phenomenon is so common that we have given it a name) is from a wedding last year (told to me by the bride after the wedding). I was shooting the groomsmen in the center aisle and people kept wandering into my shot. After asking three times for everyone to please stop standing at the altar, a bridesmaid turned to the bride and asked, "Why is the photographer being such an a**hole?" The bride replied, "Because I told him to be..."</p>

<p>As for the groom's perspective... that's about right. The bride, however, is usually much more concerned about the photography. Waiting until after the honeymoon to think it's "important" is too late. Educating the client as to some of the situations that might interfere with their images is my responsibility. I also ask if there are any pranksters in the wedding party who might spoil a desired shot. The example I cite is the wedding where the bride specifically asked me to get a shot of the two of them looking out the window of the car, only to discover that one of the groomsmen had covered the window in condoms. I don't care if the window is covered in condoms, I'm there to document the event. However, the bride might care and she will appreciate being given the opportunity to address that problem before it happens. The groom rarely cares about the photography but for many brides it's second only to the dress in importance. </p>

<p>I shot a wedding last year where the clergy mentioned me before the start of the wedding (with no prompting on my part). He was explaining what was about to happen (it was a catholic mass) when he pointed to me and said, "You'll all notice that Cheryl and Matt have hired a professional photographer to take incredible pictures of their wedding. That means you don't have to. Please don't take pictures during the ceremony or get in his way" I could have kissed the guy. (BTW - when I approached him at the rehearsal to ask about lighting restrictions, he said, "What do you mean?" </p>

<p>"Most catholic churches don't allow flash photography during the ceremony," I said.</p>

<p>"Oh, I don't care about that," he said, "My only rule is: If you see steps, don't go up them."</p>

<p>Coolest. Priest. Ever.</p>

<p>Justine said:</p>

<p><em> I'm also not sure that I'll buy Booray's argument either. I've never been to a wedding where there haven't been people (relatives, wedding party, etc) taking pictures of the formal shots at the same time as the photographer. Have you really not had that happen? And if you have, I'm sure the majority of them have ended up on facebook and you were never once mentioned. I personally am not sure that that photo would be anything special at all taken by Uncle Bob and put online. Isn't the photo about composition, framing, settings, and post processing? 10 people could take that same picture all in a line and come up with completely different results at the end.</em></p>

<p>Let's keep in mind that the original poster said that the other photographer was building a portfolio and in my comment I said, " However, if someone with good equipment were to try and take the shot below and claim it as their own..." I'm not talking about the P&S people. I'm talking about the beginner who is shooting with the intention of marketing themselves as a wedding photographer.</p>

<p>I spent time setting up that shot. I told them where to stand, how to stand and exactly what to do with their hands. <em>They aren't just hanging out</em>. Now, whether or not it's a <em>great</em> portrait is debatable but there is no doubt that it is <em>my</em> portrait. For anyone else to shoot it and claim it as an example of their talent and expertise would be unethical.</p>

 

<p>For me it's just a matter of educating the B&G before the event. I'm lucky (or not!) that I have an image from a wedding I shot where the first kiss is blocked by someone standing up in the middle of the aisle to take a picture. I always show this picture at my final consultation before the wedding and ask, "Will you have anyone at your wedding who might do this?" It never fails to create an "Oh my God" moment. I find that it immediatly makes the couple aware of the danger of allowing too much "free reign" from friends and family. </p>

<p>I don't worry too much about enthusiastic amateurs running around the wedding or getting into my shots. I have a responsibility to my client but it stops short of telling guests what to do. </p>

<p>Where I do have a problem is when someone wants to shoot my setups. An earlier comment mentioned that more and more people are getting good equipment and that's true... but great equipment doesn't teach you to pose and position a shot. Whenever I am posing I respectfully ask people not to take pictures because it causes the subjects to look away. That's the main reason but close behind is my desire to protect my pose from showing up in some other photographer's portfolio.</p>

<p>I don't protect every setup. If I position the bridal party in the traditional altar shot I'll let people take pictures after I am finished. That pose is universal. However, if someone with good equipment were to try and take the shot below and claim it as their own, I'd have a serious problem with it. The artistic value of this shot has nothing to do with the person operating the camera. It's the <em>posing</em> that makes it unique.</p>

<p><img src="http://boolog.com/images/clearwater-wedding-photography.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="300" /></p>

<p>If someone shot this pose and tried to pass it off as their work... would they be out of line? </p>

<p>According to everything I've read. The E-TTL system on Canon flashes works by firing a pre-flash, metering it, then setting the flash to the correct power and taking the picture. This is why you can add a shoot-thru umbrella to a speedlight and still get the correct exposure if you are using Canon's infrared system or a wire.</p>

<p>I just purchased the Pocket Wizard FlexTT5 and MiniTT1. I am noticing a change in exposure when <em>I</em> back up and the off-camera flash doesn't. The flash will overexpose. My first thought was, "Well, the camera thinks the flash is 20 feet back with me so it's adding power to the strobe." But then I realized that can't be the case because the system works off a pre-flash.</p>

<p>So, why is the flash power changing and washing out my image? Shouldn't the image be correct regardless of where the camera and flash are positioned?</p>

<p>Wow, ya'll are gonna scare the pants off this poor guy. :)</p>

<p>Here's my 2 cents:</p>

<p>Don't sweat it. Get an on-camera flash with a pivot head. Set your ISO to the highest setting that you can without getting unacceptable noise. Set your camera to TV mode (SS for Nikon, I believe) and set your shuutter speed at the lowest speed you can manage and still stop motion. Pivot the flash to shoot over your left shoulder. Point and shoot.</p>

<p>Worrying about low-light lenses and off-camera flashes is getting ahead of the game, IMO. The settings I described above will produce good images with creative flash, leaving you free to focus on composition. Composition is the real key to these "getting ready" pictures. Don't spend so much time fiddling with your settings that you don't have time to concentrate on being creative. It's the creative aspect that will be noticed by the couple... far more than what lens you were using. Get low, get high, zoom in tight, shoot wide... have fun and try to <em>create. </em>Once you have gotten a feel for that you can start to worry more about special gear to take your vision further.</p>

<p>Since the consensus is on second camera and flash, let's talk about what to get <em>afte</em>r that. If I had your gear and was re-building my kit the next thing I would buy is a 70-200mm IS f2.8 lens. With the addition of that lens for dark churches and stunning portraits, I would be in pretty good shape.</p>

<p>Next would be a Demb Diffuser. I would also make some <a href="

Ugly Gels.</a></p>

<p>Next I would buy a tripod for the second flash and some radio remotes (I use Cyber Syncs). This would open me up to off-camera lighting and more versatility when lighting a dark reception hall. A shoot-thru umbrella is good as well.</p>

<p>Then a good bag with wheels to carry it all. I use <a href="http://www.naneubags.com/products.mdv?p=ug-u220">this one</a></p>

<p>Then a <a href="http://www.blackrapid.com/">Black Rapid</a> double sling for carrying both cameras at the same time.</p>

<p>Then two flash battery packs for fast recycling.</p>

<p>Finally, a good tripod with a fast head. My Manfrotto with a pistol grip head wasn't cheap but it's rock solid when you need it and should last forever.</p>

<p>That's the basic make-up of my current kit, not counting other useless stuff that I carry "just in case."</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>I wrote a long post but it didn't show so I'm re-writing a shorter one. Apologies if the original shows up and this is a double post.</em></p>

<p>I searched "nashville wedding photographers" on Google. You were on the right side, second from the top. I clicked your ad and searched again. Click, search. Click, search (you dropped to third), click, search and you were gone. Then I searched yahoo and Bing. You were not on the first page for either. Then I searched from another computer and my phone and you were not on the first page with either one.</p>

<p>Read what Google has to say on the matter:</p>

<p><a href="http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=6546">http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=6546</a></p>

<p><em> "All I am saying is that by using a company that has agreements with all the search engines, there is no pay per click. It can be clicked forever and it will not come off the front page."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

That's not true. All google adwords are subject to the same rules and fees, regardless of who initiates the campaign. To do otherwise would violate anti-trust laws and result in the largest class-action lawsuit in history.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There seems to be some confusion here. When you say "I am always at the top" what do you mean? Do you mean the top listing which is in a yellow box? That listing is a Google Adwords listing. If you are referring to the listings below that one, without the yellow box, those are organic listings. If you are at the top in the yellow box, that's a Google Adwords account. Bing and Yahoo have the same service. It's called "Pay-per-Click." </p>

<p>From the website:</p>

<p>" With over six years experience managing thousands of Pay Per Click campaigns..."</p>

<p>They set up the accounts, they research the best keywords for your business, they figure the cost of the bids and average clicks per month, they add profit for themselves and that's you"low monthly rate." It's a valuable service for anyone who doesn't want to bother managing several accounts and ads but it's not magic. They create an ad for you and out-bid the competition.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I did check my facts. I read the "more info" page on the website. It's all explained right there.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't understand. You say not to use Google Adwords yet you pay a company to run Goggle Adwords for you, which means they are skimming profit off the top. Ideal Position is one of many companies that simply sets up an adword campaign for the client and overcharges for it (not that they are wrong to do so, that's how they make their money).</p>

<p>Getting a lot of good info here, thanks guys.</p>

<p>I'm not talking about a list of links on the main page but rather a single blog post about each photographer. Since Blogger generates a new page for each post, there would only be one out-bound link on the page. Also, there is no recipricol link because I link to William's website from my blog and he links to my website from his blog. Our websites get an inbound link from a blog post and have no outgoing link back. I can see where this wouldn't work if you are a photographer who uses your blog as your professional website because you would be trading links to the same domain but if you are like me and have two seperate domains for blog and website than your website would be getting written about on several blogs with no links back to those blogs. I suspect that has value with Google.</p>

<p>The biggest drawback I see is the length of the content. Since Blogger generates a new page, will Google only evaluate the info on that page or will it look at all the blog posts in the domain?</p>

<p>William makes a good point that I was about to make as well! Will and I chatted on the phone after I first approached him with the idea and now we comment on Facebook etc... I feel like, regardless of the SEO success, it's great to interact with fellow professionals on a daily basis. :)</p>

<p>Thanks for the tip. I'm just working off what I hear from the many SEO solicitations I get every month. Even if it doesn't help (and I think it will), it's such a small amount of effort to try it. :)</p>

<p>It seems to me that the single most important thing that you need to help you with search engines like Google is "inbound links." These are links that point to your website along with text that includes some version of what the google user is searching for. </p>

<p>To this end I am starting a web-ring for wedding and event photographers. It's totally free, only one photographer will be accepted per market and it will take very little time. </p>

<p>I started a new "series" called "Photographer Spotlight" and wrote a short post about William Porter, a fellow photographer in Dallas. He did the same for me. The next person to join the ring will post about each of us and we will return the favor, and so on, and so on.... Imagine 100 blogs all with a post that points to you and mentions "<em>your city</em> wedding photography." That's got to help the Google ranking on your website. </p>

<p>The only qualification you need to join the ring is that you do quality work, are an active blogger and are the first person in your market to ask to join. I think that we can build a nice network of pro's who can help each other out with very little effort. :)</p>

<p>Contact me directly to join or if you have questions.</p>

<p>I pass the shipping cost on to my client if I have it drop shipped to their home. If they want to pick it up, I just eat the cost myself. I use Nations Lab because they have great customer service, the prints are less expensive and they have no minimum. Also, they charge the same for shipping to me or the customer. So, on that rare occasion where I have a client order two 5x7's and pickup, it costs me $8.20 ($7 shipping, .60 per print). If they want it shipped to them it costs me $1.20. The same order from Miller's would cost $10 (the min.) to me and $16 to the client (min. + drop-ship charge).</p>

<p>I looked into Smug Mug and Pictage and concluded that it's cheaper than what I use (PhotoBiz) as long as I have less than $300 a month in online sales. (Smug and Pic take a big commission but PhotoBiz charges you for the hosting) However, PhotoBiz allows me to sell whatever I want with no commission charge and just added a nifty invoicing feature which is great for installment payments on albums, session fees, etc. </p>

<p>This is a question that many people struggle with and I think that it really comes down to budget more than anything else.</p>

<p>I also covet the 5dmkII (me wants it, my precious) but I can't justify the increased cost. I currently shoot with two Canon 40d's and I wear them both during the ceremony and frequently at other times as well since I am often shooting on the beach and you really don't want to remove a lens on the beach if you can avoid it.</p>

<p>So, to make the switch I need two 5dmkII's since I can't imagine switching between two cameras during a ceremony when one has such better low-light capability. Then there's the increased memory cost sonce the 5dmkII writes much bigger files. My $800 10-22mm EF-S lens would have to go, plus I'd lose 50% of the reach from my 70-200mm which I would miss during the ring exchange and in most Catholic weddings where they want you to stay in the back or, preferably, across the street at the Gas-n-Sip.</p>

<p>Now, I could jump to the 7D but I have a friend who has a 7D and I did some noise comparisons. While it is better than my 40D I'm not sure that It's $3000 better, which is what it would cost me to buy two of them. (I figure that the 7D gets me about 2 stops more light with the same noise so a 7D at ISO 6400 equals a 40D at 1600. I'm guessing the 5DmkII is even better.) In a year, would I make $3000 more money because of the extra stops the new camera gives me? I don't think so</p>

<p>Whenever I find myself starting to think too much about a big upgrade, I just remind myself that 20 years ago there was nothing anywhere near as advanced as the 40D and yet there were some incredible photographers. Sometimes I have to remind myself that it's a business and I can't just buy the latest and greatest because I want to play with it.</p>

<p>However, if someone wants to <em>give me one</em>.... that's another story! :)</p>

<p>I just want to say that I love that Dave posted a picture from his wedding!</p>

<p>Natalie, do you have a big, beautiful sample album? </p>