chris_whitcomb1

<p>Umm...wow John...<a href="http://www.thebecker.com/">Becker</a> a hack? I get the 8 bit vs. 16 bit thing but what are you really doing with these images that would warrent those extra bits? I shot mainly slide film back in the "old-timers from the film days" day and the latitude of digital is about the same, so if I know how to expose my "film", then I know how to expose my "sensor". Today I shoot raw+jpg and when I look at the images, there are just not enough images that need those extra bits for correction sake, so why even have the raw besides the ooops image. The one thing I don't like about the digital revolution is too many people learn just to use the crutches before they get the necessary skills.</p>

<p>https://www.kissweddingbooks.com/index.html</p>

<p>Nuff said!</p>

<p>If you can't get the shot you desire during the ceremony, you might try to restage it afterwards. Honestly, if you had not said that this image was captured during the ceremony, I would've never known, this could've been taken at anytime after the ceremony. I understand what your trying to do, but I do believe the shot you, and the couple, really want is the expression of the bride and groom, M/FOB and M/FOG, family, while the rings are exchanged, not the rings themselves. Detail shots can be taken later, those expressions of joy are priceless and what matter most at that moment.</p>

<p>Erin - I agree with Rebecca in that this is a photo for the B/G, not other photographers. Heath is correct in saying that, on it's own this image does not really tell a story but when grouped with the other shots of the ceremony this is a marvelous addition and I'm sure the B/G and family will love it. Technically, I would bump up the contrast and exposure just a bit or add some fill light.</p>

<p>Download the free Adobe DNG Converter, convert all NEFs to DNG and all is good.</p>

<p>I keep hearing about the red eye issue but since I use a Demb Flip-It, I don't get red eye, ever. I do however, get that ucky side shadow whenever I turn the camera vertical so I'm investigating the Demb flash braket. I could only imagine the surprise all of the old Speed Graphic b/w shooters got when they made the switch to color and they saw all of their people shots with glowing red eyes.</p>

<p>The old Speed Graphics used a parabolic dish to direct the flash which created a larger light source. This kept the "side shadow" down to a minimum unlike most of today's tiny (in comparison) flashes that, when shot in the portrait position, creates a very harsh shadow that is undesirable and fixable by using a flash bracket. As for the flat lighting, the only way to get the dramatic lighting a lot of brides are requesting is to get the flash "way" off camera either on a stand, in your hand, in your assistants hand, on a table, etc</p>

<p>YES!!! I saw this at the PDN Virtual Trade Show and think this will finally be a way to get rid of my annoying straps.</p>

<p>So, to play devil's advocate and to find out exactly why Patrick F thinks the way he does, I ask the following questions: What makes RAW/DNG more archival than JPG? If the images are not going to be "reworked/reprocessed" is it not correct to say that all we really need to rebuild a burned album or replace a box of images is the master set of edited JPGs?</p>

<p>Now, before anyone goes crazy on my curiosity, I do save all of my keepers and the LR catalogue plus exported DNGs. Why? Because that's what I've been told has to be done. Dogma? Outdated thinking? The film days "negative" equivalent (which I don't buy)? What about JPG only shooters like Becker?</p>

<p>MaryBall, if this needs to be a new, seperate post, I'm sorry but I could not find a "new post/thread" button anywhere.</p>

<p>Since your boss is the one in charge, I would follow his rules. If you think you can publicaly convince him, via this thread, he is wrong, go for it but remember, it's his business and his rules. Now if this was your business, I would tell you to listen to those above but only save the edited RAW files with the Lightroom catalogue or save exported DNG's. However, I know a few studios who only keep RAW/DNG files of the keepers whereas other wedding photographers I know only keep the edited JPGs, so is there really a right or wrong answer here or just differing business practices.</p>

<p>Then agian Jerry Ghionis uses billboard advertising in a ton of his work splattered all over his website. Maybe we're being too IP concerned or Autrailia has a much looser copyright law.</p>

<p>Betty - Sorry, but the whole copyright thing is a big deal, especially in big cities where they have a vested interest in their landmarks and such. The kicker usually is when a photographer is either using one of those big pro lens' or busting out the tripod. As for the Wyland wall image posted by the op, as soon as Jeff posted this image on the internet it became a marketing piece for his photography, now whether it constituted a copyright violation, I don't really know but giving credit where credit is due generaly keeps most artists somewhat pacified. CYA rules the day!</p>

<p>I would first see if this is even a problem, if not then there is nothing to worry about. If this is an issue, get creative and come up with a solution to fit you specific problem.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pocketwizard.com/products/transmitter_receiver/flextt5%20canon/">Pocket Wizard Flex TT5</a> does what your asking.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh, about the sharpening: I currently use Kubota's Magic Sharp as that's what J. Claire and J* both swear by for anything that leaves their studio...I didn't even know TRA had one until just now. That being said, I just found out that a scaled back version of Dave Hill's sharpening technique is being used by a ton of photographers, including some of my "close" photographer buddies...yeah, so close I had to pry out of them why their images looked so tack sharp on their blogs while mine do not. Nobody will give me the recipie but I will find it, maybe post it up for everyone.</p>

<p>Kay - the original looks much sharper but under exposed. "Adding" the flare is not something I would put into your bag of tricks, either you get it, then enhance it, or just live without it. Getting flare with a 70-200 is really next to impossible, maybe try the 50 1.2/1.4 or the 28 1.8. I get the fact you like to emulate J. Claire's work but I think even in this instance she would be like "girl, don't go there"...or would that be J*? I'm not hating, as I really luv flare shots, just practice on getting the real thing.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flarecompetition.blogspot.com/">The FLARE National Photography Contest</a> ...check it out.</p>

<p>There are some color issues, but that can be fixed in post. As far as the new mystery lens goes, looks like it's doing the job asked of it. I can't say I'm blown away by the sharpnes, contrast or color, nor do I think it did a very good job of giving you the flare I'm sure you were looking for. The big question here is do YOU like the lens?</p>

<p>Ego boost? Sorta, I do like being the center of attention, but I digress. The 4 we booked were our $3200 show "special" collection, which at that time was really cool since we had prior to that been booking $500 weddings. Now, the show has doubled their prices for boths, tables, allow no extra furniture, have other restrictions that are new, and charge those who want to attend. I would much rather spend the money for the show on other things, than to participate in the "new" show. Plus there's only one show in our area and they're it. It was fun and we had a blast, booked some great weddings at the show and a few more because of the show. Will I do a show again, maybe if our show comes back down to earth but for right now, it's just not something we want to do or spend our money on.</p>

<p>Neil, I am sure that your not saying your batting 100% with your ability to change officiant minds. We too have had limited success in that regard as well but I think you've also proved my point. How many photographers who came after you received relaxed restrictions based on your conduct? I know for certain of 2 venues who have changed their rules because we were able to convince them to give us a chance, which benefited one photographer, a friend, who shot at one the following week. He told us specifically that we were the reason for their change and he had better not screw it up, which he didn't. The ONE photographer thing works both ways but at the end of the day, we're all lumped together as wedding photographers.</p>

<p>Oh, our giveaway, to answer the op, was 2 hours at a local day spa. They needed some interior shots and we wanted a giveaway prize. So you should also look around your community to see if there is something you could give that would be a little outside of the norm for a photographer.</p>

<p>The two that we've done has accounted for a tremendous amount of bookings and got us a feature in a local wedding magazine. The first one we did we just had the slideshow and booked 15 weddings from it, not all at the show but most were call backs. The second show we decided to go all out, we had a very small space but setup a 26" monitor with a slideshow running on a table with a couple of albums and an appointment book. Behind the table we had two antique wing back chairs, a small antique table, gallery wraps hanging on the wire mesh, and refreshments. We scheduled appointments for the first 30 mins then when the brides came back we interviewed them in our little "living room" type setting for about 15 mins each. Plus, each bride knew we were only going to book 4 weddings that day as we only had 4 dates open before we reached our max number of weddings we wanted. I didn't think all of this would work but was pleasently surprised that it worked like a charm by creating an atmosphere of mystique and exclusivity. We considered it a success but I don't think we will be doing those kinds of shows anymore as it's really become too expensive.</p>

<p><em><strong>You're not representing thousands of other photographers. That's a very strange notion. The only person you're ever representing is yourself.</strong> </em></p>

<p>Neil, I'm sorry but your wrong. I lost count of how many venues have changed their rules regarding photographers and photography during the ceremony because of just ONE photographer. All it takes is just ONE photographers to close down the ceremony for every single photographer who comes after the ONE photographer who decided to either act and/or dress like a buffoon.</p>

<p>I completely disagree with Aimee on the issue of slideshows at booths. The average age of today's boutique bride is mid to late 20's...they know all about digital and expect it as a part of just about everything. What you want is for all of these potentials to hang out at your booth for as long as possible seeing as much of your work as possible. Yes, show them a high end album of a wedding and a best of album, show them gallery wraps but after about 5 mins or so, they will be ready to move on UNLESS you have a slideshow running with 300(random number) of your very best shots. This will only reinforce your consistency not just from wedding to wedding but throughout the wedding day and keep their eyeballs on your work, not someone else's.</p>

<p>Something else to remember at vendor shows is every vendor is your competition. After the venues, dress, and rings, what's left of the budget must be divided between the cake, flourist, dj, AND the photographer...so keep them at your booth looking at your valuable product as long as possible so that, hopefully, your chunk of what's left over is as big as possible.</p>

<p>My wife and I usually wear black pants and a black or darker colored top with black shoes. She has a solid black Shootsac and I have a solid black Tamron slim messenger bag that we carry the entire wedding. We are working professionals and wearing black is usually the best way to not be noticed. Our shoes are black tennis shoes so you don't hear us either as we've "heard" other photographers at weddings where we were guests. Stealth is our game, we do not want anyone to know where we are or if we are even there.</p>

<p>Will - Both systems have been used for almost a decade now to photograph weddings very successfully. I shoot with a D300 and love the camera but I hate that Nikon refuses to produce the type of primes that Canon does. However, I hate that Canon bodies use more "press button and turn dials" to change settings than levers, like the D300 but the Canon, in my opinion has better skin tones. After a wedding, I do not see enough out of focus shots to warrant my wife giving up her 30D, if anything, my D300 produces the softer images. I think when you start asking the types of questions you are, it's a matter of splitting hairs. The sad part is since you've analyzed this thing to death, no matter which route you take, you'll always think you made the wrong decision....I know, because I do the same thing.</p>

<p>"make your decision, then make it work" - Mike Colon</p>