mbbrown

<p>I find that we get a lot of orders for 4x6 prints, some 5x7 prints, then there's not a lot between that and the big prints we sell...16x20 and larger.</p>

<p>We offer a lot of "full frame" sizes like 4x6, 6x9, 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, 16x24, 20x30, 24x36...trying to get people to think outside the box in terms of prints sizes.</p>

<p>But, it hasn't worked that well yet. Although we are starting to see a lot of 6x9 orders.</p>

<p>Books? We offer 10x10 and 9x9 books. I like the square format for a variety of reasons. A lay-flat two page spread of one shot is, in effect, a full frame print.</p>

<p>I usually screw with them. "Wow, that IS a nice camera! You should get into wedding photography!" :-D</p>

<p>Logic and reason is pointless with the mine-is-bigger-than-yours crowd.</p>

<p>You'll always meet someone at a wedding who tries to out-gun you.</p>

<p>I shot with a Mamiya RB-67 back in the 80's and some dude showed up with a Hasselblad to a wedding I was doing. I'm dead serious. I felt like mounting an 8x10 view camera to a stroboframe just to thwart any future incidents.</p>

<p>But, in all honesty? Don't waste your time justifying your equipment choices. If they're so great with their D3x, why didn't they get hired to shoot the wedding?</p>

<p>Oh, I agree 100%. I over-thought it.</p>

<p>Had a wedding today and I happily approached it with a new sense of appreciation for the moments. You'd be amazed at what you can see when you're not looking at your camera all the time.</p>

<p>It was very refreshing and I had a blast.</p>

<p>This has been a good thread for me. After 26 years in this biz, I'm still learning and evolving.</p>

<p>Ultimately, I used Photoshop Elements to sharpen. Yes, yes, I know; it's not Photoshop. But I really enjoy it as quick editor for things beyond the normal capacity of Lightroom. Lightroom sharpens, but PE has a bit more comprehensive capabilities that distinguish between motion blur and focus blur. </p>

<p>I'm not so much into plug-ins, though I realize they're useful for various things.</p>

<p>"Why, back in my day..." (in my best old person voice)</p>

<p>Haha! Sorry, Paul. My apologies; I think the D300 is a magnificent camera. But, in the hands of (and this actually happened at a wedding in April) Aunt Selma who "used to own a Moto Photo franchise" and "knows a thing or two about photography" (probably literally one thing, possibly two) a D300 is little more than a paperweight. There is no brand of camera or amount of money you've spent on it to take the place of knowledge, experience and, well...especially knowledge of your camera. (I later saw some of her shots and...wow. No worries.)</p>

<p>Anyway, I agree with you all about the pic. The more I see it, the more I love it. It was just the initial let-down of the focus issues that had me grumbling.</p>

<p>Hence, my trepidation...though I was able to salvage the image (thanks to the help of the forum peeps). We, as hired guns, are supposed to be able to do what Uncle Bill with his Digital Rebel and Cousin Steve with his Nikon D300 can't do.</p>

<p>I know this is going to make me sound like an old codger, but I shot my first wedding when I was 15 in 1982 (I'm 42 now) and, back then, we shot medium format; had an Mamiya RB-67 and two 645's. Clients hired wedding photographers because they had better equipment than your average wedding guest, they knew photography inside and out, and they had experience, and in my case, (later down the road, a degree in Photographic Science). In my opinion, the gap is closing (or, at least it's trying to) between wedding photographers and the general DSLR-carrying public.</p>

<p>So, yeah...I get a little anal about details like images being sharp. For what people are paying me to do...and the assumption is I'm hired because I can provide services and products that your average FWC (friend with camera) can't.</p>

<p>I also realize, in the instance of this image in particular, I saw more fault than virtue, and being a good wedding photographer isn't JUST about producing clear images; it's capturing a visual narrative, and I have to...what's the saying? "See the forest despite the trees..."</p>

<p>Anyway, just some introspection. :-) Again, thanks to all who replied. This is a great forum!</p>

<p>Thanks to all! I am going to keep it. I love everything about it; the lighting, the expression, the composition...</p>

<p>Here is the "fixed" version. Brought just enough detail back in to make it look sharper, but not overprocessed.</p><div></div>

<p>I agree completely. To quote from planetneil.com, "I'm an incorrigible chimper..." so I always know whether or not I need a re-do on the spot. (Hey, chimp enough and you can get it down to a science.) So I rarely miss moments due to technical issues, and, if I do, I realize it nearly immediately and reshoot/reset what I can.</p>

<p>To answer your question about making it look like the blur was intentional...I don't know. This image is uncropped, unsharpened, no clarity adjustments, etc...But I'm happy to hear any opinions on which direction to take it.</p>

<p>I'm not new to wedding photography, but new to this forum. So, please be gentle. :-P</p>

<p>I almost always remove blurry, out-of-focus, or otherwise technically unacceptable (and unfixable with Lightroom) images from weddings before presenting a final collection, as I'm sure most of us do. And I say "almost always" because, every blue moon, I'll have an image I'm on the fence with. Does the aesthic merits outweigh the technical glitches?</p>

<p>A quick backstory; last weekend's wedding, the Ringbearer was very camera shy. Not a new concept, I know. And while I did manage some decent pics of him at the church, I wanted to get some of him at the reception as he was more relaxed, playful and engaged. But he was avoiding me like the plague.</p>

<p>He, and a couple other kids, made the head table into their own fort as it it was covered to the floor, in the front, by a white tablecloth strung with lights. He spent some time going in and out. I anticipated this, saw him go in and quickly poked my head in for a quick shot. I fired off one picture and he very quickly exited. As luck would have it, it was out of focus.</p>

<p>My plan had been to somehow try and recreate this but he wasn't having any part of it. I did get some of him doing a funny dance, but my question is this:</p>

<p>Do you show once-in-a-lifetime shots even if they're not technically correct...specifically in regards to blur/focus issues?</p>

<p>I'm on the fence with this one. Any comments are appreciated.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm kind of a minimalist when it comes to gear. I'm primarily a one-camera shooter. I shoot with a Nikon D-700, but, interestingly enough, my back-up camera is a D-40X. I never mix the two as the images from the 40X look tremendously different...so it is truly a back-up (oh, poo...mt D-700 isn't working) camera.</p>

<p>But I also shoot primes, so I need access to wide or tele lenses at my beck and call. I have an assistant who serves wonderfully in this respect, but also find an accessory belt is a useful thing to have for particularly mish-mash weddings in which I can't accurately plan and execute my next shots. <br>

Part of being prepared is knowing as much as you can know about your event, and being able to anticipate shots and what you might need for them.</p>

<p>So, yeah...knowledge and an accessory bag/belt. :-)</p>