blairhall

<p>Oh, and for the sake of mentioning it... my favorite 3+ years shot is Sergey Usik's. I looooove this guy's b/w stuff from his portfolio.</p>

<p>Yeeha!</p>

<p>What I'm really liking about this thread, is that pretty much everyone has a different favorite. It's really cool to see people with such diverse tastes, who are all still linked together by the common ground of "wedding photographer". As they say, variety is the spice of life!</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>Thanks so much! I'm at the top of both of your lists! But of course... it does help that I was one of the early posters ;-)</p>

<p>There are so many brilliant photos... I love Kevin Kerr's too for the sheer creativity of it. I'm not sure I could cobble together a top 10 because there's probably way more than 10 that I find some merit with... but I really think a number of these images look like they belong in any one of the bazillion books on wedding photography I have. If I'm gonna pick a favorite, I'd probably go with Jurijus Azanovas.</p>

<p>I wish I had studied the 3+ years photos a bit more... but I had to obessively follow my own category so I can size up the competition!! (you may not see this, but I'm currently flexing my muscles and looking intimidating)</p>

<p>But seriously folks... good look to y'all!!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the good info BC Photo. Am I correct in assuming I need Adobe Flash (editor) for SlideshowPro? I would prefer a stand-alone application such as Jalbum as I sadly do not have any flash design skills. I hope I am wrong as I have very briefly looked at SlideshowPro and it really does look very good...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi David, SlideShowPro has a Flash-based version, as well as a plugin for Lightroom. If you want ultimate customization, the Flash version is a must, but for basics, the Lightroom plugin is really good. Not expensive either which is nice.</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've done 4 full weddings in the last 2 years, this was from #4 in September.<br>

Nikon D80 - 50mm f/1.4 - f/2.5 @ 1/60th - ISO 100 - Aperture Priority - SB800 bounced to ceiling<br>

Shot in JPG, colour tweaked in Photoshop</p>

<div></div>

<p>Ok I just checked... the new version has similar rendering options to my previous version. It'll do HD files, but there's no canned option for creating HD (this program isn't exactly geared towards video people, but it's easy and works well so what the heck...). You just have to tweak the Quicktime output options to suit your format of choice.</p>

<p>Although again, having not used any of the other software offerings, maybe this one sucks. If someone tries this out and hates it... please post so I can try other software too.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>I have LQ Graphics' Photo to Movie software... it doesn't get a whole lot easier than this program. Basically I can drag in the photos, rearrange and tweak timing/KB effect, add music, render to Quicktime. I've never tried it but as far as I know the program will happily churn out HD files too.</p>

<p>I'm just downloading an updated version (mine's about a year old) so I'll post in a minute about the HD output.</p>

<p>Oh, it's also pretty cheap too, but I've never used any of the other software (I don't do much in the way of slideshows) so I might be wrong when compared to others!</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>I've seen both the Strobist and OneLight discs (thank heavens for friends with $$$!), and I quite like them both. The Strobist DVD is brilliant, it's insanely thorough and covers (in my opinion) some good real-world examples. I also dig the fact that he uses a D70s for most (or maybe all, I can't remember at the moment) of the scenarios... it was my first DSLR and for some bizarre reason I still have a small soft spot for it. Go electronic shutter go!!</p>

<p>The OneLight DVD is good, but I found (again, in my opinion) that I enjoyed it more for inspiration. The instructional bits are the same on all the single light/strobist/budget lighting websites and DVD's because the theory doesn't change... but I like to see what each individual's approach to teaching/demonstrating is. </p>

<p>David Hobby is a little on the geeky side (not a bad thing!) and the theory part of his presentation can get a bit dry, especially if you have already scoured strobist.com. Zach tries to keep things more "hip and cool", and doesn't go into as much depth. His shooting examples are interesting though, and I certainly found them useful.</p>

<p>In terms of value, I'd completely agree with Thomas in that the Strobist DVD is way more bang for buck.</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>I'm shooting hockey on weekends for a sports/event photography company here... I'm using a 70-200 at 2.8 at about 1/400th at ISO1600. I'm using a D300 so the noise hit isn't as bad as a D80, which can get nasty at 1600 (I use D80's for my day job). Manual is definitely the ONLY way to consistently shoot hockey... so I very highly recommend it... even if you're not comfy shooting Manual, you can just set it and leave it.</p>

<p>For white balance, I do a custom white balance and use a patch of ice as the reference. As long as the overhead lights aren't going south (they give off really pink or blue tinted light), then the patch of ice should be a good reference. That being said, we shoot in JPG for a quick turnaround on the photos, but if I had the time I'd shoot in RAW and fix the WB after the fact... or use an Expodisc or cheap DIY version.</p>

<p>Enjoy... hockey is extremely difficult to do well, but when you get the good shots... it's all worth it!</p>

<p>Back (way back) to Bob's original post... I completely agree that someone showing up with a low-end DSLR and a kit lens and claiming to be a wedding photographer is a disaster waiting to happen (unless they're insanely skilled with that setup!)... but through some research and observations that I've done/made since considering being a wedding photog myself... I've realized that too often the client thinks this is completely acceptable. This unfortunately perpetuates the problem and lowers the standards bar.</p>

<p>I'm all for (and a product of) the concept of people learning through experience, but I think the budding wedding photographer needs to think about what a "professional standard" is (even if you're not a pro), and when you're just being unfair to the client... who is the most important part of the equation.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>I've used Noise Ninja, Noiseware Pro, and DXO... and from personal experience, if I'm doing the bulk of my post work in Bridge/Photoshop, I'll use Noiseware, but if I'm using DXO (note: the latest version, 5.3, rocks for noise reduction) for whatever reason in my workflow, I'll just stick to the NR there. If I was forced into using one solution, I'd probably stick with DXO... now if they could just speed up the rendering process...</p>

<p>I've been using CS4 for production for a few weeks now at my "day job". My only "negative" is that they've

changed a couple of things that I needed to get used to (changed some key commands, moved some things around

etc...) but some of them make more sense than they did in the past. The one thing I love is the new speed of

some things. Filters like Smart Sharpen generally don't need to process after you've accepted, they just get

applied to the image and we move on with life. The speed bump applied both on my 20" Intel iMac and my

half-assed HP laptop with a dual-core AMD running 32bit Vista (ick). Both have 2gb of memory.</p>

 

<p>In terms of being a worthy upgrade to CS3... I think for photographers it's the speed advancements, better

access to adjustment layer tweaks and the Bridge upgrade that are the most worth it. I'm sure there's more, but

I'm still figuring it all out! I'm certainly not unhappy with upgrading. Oh, and I've found it chews through

batches a little more efficiently as well, although I don't generally batch RAW files, usually just PSD's after

they've been converted from RAW and edited.</p>

<p>I try to get an online gallery up within a week. I do tell them though that it's not the finished product... I just want them to see the shots that I've selected from day's shooting. That being said, they are all still RAW processed, including quick touch-ups that can be done in ACR (like removing zits etc...), and a quick colour correction. Then after that I select the "best of the best" and do the more extensive editing, and deliver the whole thing in about 3-4 weeks. Although that time frame worked this year, because I only shot 3 weddings (just starting out)... I think once I start trying to add more weddings it may have to be increased by a week or 2 for each gig.</p>

<p>Like Steve C. said though, I'm working full time on top of it, so if I was doing the wedding thing full-time, I could probably knock each wedding down to 2-3 weeks for final delivery.</p>

<p>I think if they can improve on the stabilization... they might have something. I watched the video on the

link that was posted and the one thing that struck me was the DOF and focus tricks you can do with a still camera

lens. On most wedding videographer-used cameras, either the lens is fixed or if you have interchangable options,

it's usually just a wide-angle version... and NONE of them are fast enough or long enough to generate a nice

shallow DOF. Here where I work we use two of the high-end prosumer Sony video cameras and the lenses are pretty

lame. For shoots that I want to get all artsy with, I rent an attachment that allows me to use 35mm camera

lenses... but it's still a pain, because it's essentially a McGuyver job and there's still limitations.</p>

 

<p>Do I think the two shall ever become one (wedding photography and wedding videography)? No, and to be honest,

I would probably only ever use a video function on my SLR as some kind of novelty... But to me, the breakthrough

here is the imaging flexibility of still lenses married (no pun intended) to an HD video capture device, without

having to go through hoops or use 3rd party adapters. If they wind up putting that into an actual camcorder,

I'll happily drop my Sony gear, line up and buy a couple of those for my day job!</p>

<p>Blair</p>

<p>Thanks Godfrey... the buttons on the side of the monitor actually didn't work... but I unplugged the ACD and replugged it and it works fine. I'm doing custom calibrations now (just getting the hang of how it works) and so far I've gotten them both pretty close. I'll have this beaten shortly I would imagine.</p>

 

<p>Thanks everyone!</p>

Hi Brad... I used Photoshop CS3 on both machines to view the images, just to make sure they're color managed.

<p>Ok after running the i1 on both machines, here's the luminance values:</p>

 

<p>Mac:<br>

Target: Not Defined<br>

Current: 191.5 cd/m2<br>

Minimum: 0.4 cd/m2</p>

 

<p>PC:<br>

Target: Not Defined<br>

Current: 128.9 cd/m2<br>

Minimum: 0.2 cd/m2</p>

 

<p>Ok so the luminance values are different, and I can probably assume that's the culprit. I just need to figure

out how to tweak that on a monitor I have little to no control over. Grr!</p>

 

<p>If anyone has any experience/suggestions for this... I'm all ears/eyes!</p>

 

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

<p>Blair</p>

Hi Godfrey... I'm using the Eye-One Match software in "Easy" mode because I don't have any control over monitor-specific values on either machine. Unfortunately that's what we get for using an Apple display on a PC... and I haven't found any more surgical settings for the iMac display. All that to say, I just kind of let the software determine the luminance. I'm just running a calibration on both machines now and I'll record the luminance values because I think they display them after the software does it's thing...

It's defaulted to 2.2 for each system.

<p>Hullo there folks... I've got a bit of a problem so I'm going to post it here to get some feedback:</p>

 

<p>I edit my photos here on an Intel iMac calibrated with a GretagMacbeth i1 Pro. I edit in Photoshop CS3, save as

PSD, and output to JPG to send to clients as proofs. When I'm running proofs, I use the Image Processor through

Bridge to batch the operation. I have PS convert them all to sRGB in the process (even if I shot in sRGB, which

I've started doing).</p>

 

<p>Here's the problem... our corporate email/network system will only run on PC, so I have a PC sitting next to my

iMac (using an Apple Cinema Display). That machine is also calibrated using the i1 Pro, to the same gamma

settings as the iMac. But yet, when I bring the files over from the iMac, they seem to be generally darker. I

haven't measured to see exactly how much, but all the files are uniformly different.</p>

 

<p>Now, I'm no colour management wizard, so maybe there's something I'm missing, but I was under the impression that

if both machines are calibrated to the same gamma, the image should look the same. I've opened both the images

in Photoshop on each machine and the histograms are the same, but still the PC version looks darker. Boo!</p>

 

<p>Any thoughts, suggestions? Any advice/wisdom is greatly appreciated!</p>

 

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

<p>Blair</p>

Hey there Jack, I have a D80 that's been doing the exact same thing, also right around 5000-6000 images. Have you found out what the issue is? I'd also like to know if you've had any success with the suggestions made.

 

Thanks!

 

Blair

I've got a long history with Photoshop so I just default to using that, but unless I missed it, nobody has mentioned using Bridge CS3 in their workflow. You can't do any RAW editing in the program itself, but in terms of pre-editing work like organizing, batch-renaming and metadata tagging, I love it. That, in tandem with ACR and the ability to automate batch actions through Photoshop (and the other Adobe apps), I find it works really well for me. I think a lot of people were put off by Bridge CS2, mostly because it was a really badly engineered piece of software... but the CS3 version fixed just about all the issues.

 

That being said, I've only scratched the surface of LR2, and quite like what I see so far, so I may wind up porting my workflow over to that. To each their own! Long live options!

Boo... I posted some long-winded response earlier and it didn't take, so I'll condense it and try again...

 

I'm just in the beginning stages of wedding photography... I work as a photographer/videographer for the

government here and have gotten lots of invaluable training (I started with little knowledge, other than

compositional skills from being a graphic designer... I was offered to learn the video/photo thing and I jumped

at it). So I feel I'm slowly but surely getting my skill to the point where I can start doing more weddings. I

think eventually I'd like to do it as a career, but I've got a ways to go before I consider myself skilled enough

to get there.

 

I think a lot of people starting out think weddings are an easy way to make some cash, because maybe they enjoy

doing it. I can say even from my limited experience, that it's a REALLY tough job, that involves a ton of work.

Sure, it's an absolute joy, but it's joy mixed with a lot of effort. I also think that some people vastly

underestimate the responsibility that a wedding photographer has. In my opinion, the job of the wedding

photographer (the ideal, anyways) is to document an event, and capture images that can be looked at 20-50+ years

later, and still invoke the same emotions as when they were shot. Add to that the fact that you've got one

chance to catch most of those emotions... and that makes for a massive responsibility to the client. I think for

me, that's the draw... partly because of the challenge of creating that beautiful image and properly documenting

the moment... and partly because of being given the honour of witnessing these people at (hopefully) their most

emotionally happy, and most glamourous. That's why I want to do this for a living, and why I'm passionate about it.

 

I hope that makes sense!