the_mongrel_cat

<p>it's some kind of fancy eyelash extension. i honestly have no idea.</p>

<p>Bride nearly ready</p><div></div>

<p>rusla - that's an absolute stunner. </p>

<p>I do see the point. Determining your deliverables is a big part of being a photographer.</p>

<p>The point was raised in another thread - if I remember correctly it was first timer who decided to provide 12-20 shots per hour. As I read it, he was chastised for providing a low number of photographs - there was even the suggestion that this would leave him open to litigation, even though the OP had clearly stated that his agreement with the couple was less than this. cue some boastful four figure numbers being waved around...</p>

<p>back to the OP on this thread ;) - like you say, so much depends on circumstances but for me, I've never given over 300 pics for a wedding. I tend to weight things pretty evenly for each section - but provide more for certain aspects of each section (ie bride getting ready, walking down aisle, kiss) and less for some things (groom getting ready, speeches).</p>

<p>I think we do all agree though, that under promising and over delivering is super!</p>

<p>education. go on a day or two day course, run by somebody who does the style that you want to work in. learn how they do it and what they use. then your question will answer itself.</p>

<p>great post vail!</p>

<p>i hope this thread is still running when i get back to proper internet land, because it could become a valuable resource for everyone. </p>

<p>my new years resolution is to contribute to this thread :)</p>

<p>merry xmas</p>

<p>ps - i know this is a pointless post, but i just wanted to say it was a great thread!</p>

<p>Hi</p>

<p>Good luck (sincerely, not sarcastically)</p>

<p>If I were you I would KISS - keep it simple stupid. Sack off the light meter, even if you do learn to use it. I assume the T2i is another body? Get another by hook or by crook. IF you can both have a two cameras, then have one wide and one long each.</p>

<p>Designate one of you to be the main photographer. This avoids confusion from the wedding party re who to look at during formals etc. Keep this heirarchy throughout the day - ie number two holds off camera flash, places stands. Number one stick with bride and groom, number two gets details/guests/wide.</p>

<p>Visit the venue, speak to those involved. Know what is going to happen and when (the timings will go to hell, they always do, but the point is that you know what will come NEXT). </p>

<p>Anticipate the kiss.</p>

<p>Don't piss people off. this means switching off beeps on cameras & flashes, shooting as little as possible during ceremony, being sensitive to bride during photography session (the photographer for our own wedding did not recognise my wifes blatant 'I've had enough' signals, and she still moans to this day!)</p>

<p>breathe and drink water and eat - even on my worst day I can remember how to do this.</p>

<p>only shoot what is worth shooting (easier said than done, especially in the beginning). don't scattergun. take at least three of each formal picture (blinks, tongues etc).</p>

<p>night before, set everything out, charged, formatted, flashes in correct channel/groups, triggers ready so you can pick up and leave.</p>

<p>don't use off camera flash unless you are comfortable using it. you don't want to be in a high stress environment trying to figure something out. if you are comfortable, use it, because it rocks.</p>

<p>know where you want to take formals beforehand, have a backup. stand as far away as you can and shoot long (avoid distortion).</p>

<p>back up everything immediately you get home - at least twice.</p>

<p>For all that lightroom does well, it is no photoshop.</p>

<p>When cropping MAINTAIN ASPECT RATIO, or alter it properly.</p>

<p>All the best, let us know how you get on.</p>

 

<p>thanks so much for your responses folks. i think that i will try and get my hands on some to do testing. i know that i need them, but don't want to spend the money.</p>

<p>merry christmas</p>

<p>thanks guys</p>

<p>@mark - it seems that in an ideal world, the setup would be 1 x miniTT1 + AC3 + 4 x FlexTT5. that's a mighty expensive bundle, but it has everything seemingly - TTL, high speed sync etc</p>

<p>@Allan - the reason i want to know if it works, is purely financial. if i can get one flash to trigger out of sight, then i think that is all i need.</p>

<p>I'll maybe just settle for manual control because of the price involved. i know a lot of people are harsh on TTL flash, but personally I'm very happy with it, only rarely having to switch to manual.</p>

<p>I wonder if there is a manual trigger with the ability to adjust power from the master unit?</p>

<p>Hi folks</p>

<p>I am wondering if someone could help me choose between radio triggers. I have done a search through the archive and that has helped immensely, but I still have a couple of unanswered questions. I shoot Nikon D700 & D300 and currently use SB900 as a commander to control 3 x SB600 off camera (although it is rare indeed that I use all three at once) and 90% are one flash shots.</p>

<p>1 - I am trying to figure out what the difference between PocketWizard's FlexTT5, Mini, Plus & PlusII, but everything seems vague. I think I have narrowed it down to the Flex and the Mini. Am I better of just getting Flex's or should I mix and match with Mini's?</p>

<p>2 - Is it possible to fire 3 flashes using a combination of Nikon's CLS infrared system for two (key and fill) and radio for the third flash (rim)?</p>

<p>Thanks so much for your time</p>

<p>i guess it depends on what market you are in.</p>

<p>for myself, i live and work in a small rural part of scotland. i don't work in a high end section of them market either. this does not mean that my clients are any less deserving or demanding, far from it. but there are not thousands of other photographers here and there is not the clamour of fiercely offering more and more etc. also, most of the weddings i shoot are small affairs with limited numbers. but that is just context anyway.</p>

<p>in terms of the formal portraits section - i work quickly and efficiently at this part and recommend to my clients that they consider who they want for these portraits. it normally comes down to the standard parents & bridal party plus a couple of babies, grandparents. so there aren't really that many shots at the end anyway (i don't double up, I pick the best one and move on).</p>

<p>as for pictures of the guests - i don't really take that many to be honest. i explain beforehand that i am employed to photograph the bride and groom - everybody has a digital camera nowadays so there will be hundreds of pics of guests. i make sure to get immediate family, bridal party, kids and spend my time photographing the couple and anyone they interact with.</p>

<p>like everything else, the wedding photography market changes. and i'm sure it will here too, presently it suits my way of working but if i have to change in order to work, then change i will. my present workflow would struggle to accomodate a threefold increase in output, so that is something that i need to improve on (and i am working on that). </p>

<p>going back to 'managing expectations' is where i think the key is. i have a questionnaire that i go through that allows me to find out about the couple and allows them to find out about me. i explain what i do, why i do it and why i think it is the right way (i'm not as pushy or arrogant as that sounds by the way).</p>

<p>bringing it back to your point about the 'wow', guest shots just don't wow me. and if it doesn't wow me then...</p>

<p>nadine makes a good point about clients understanding this debate. it's all well and good for us as photographers to talk about how many pictures should make a wedding, but it's not our opinions that matter - the market will decide, as it always does.</p>

<p>1 - yes<br>

2 - yes. i have never shown more than 200 photos to any client (normally in around 120). The mere mention of 800 gives me the fear. i don't believe (and i'm open to others contradicting me on this) that anybody needs 800 wedding pictures. personally, my eyes would bleed if my wedding photographer gave me that amount. 200 images is a lot, spread them out in front of you (or your client) on the floor and it soon becomes apparent how vast this number really is. i always explain that i am trying to tell the story of the day and that i don't want to dilute the product. so far (touch wood) i've had 100% meeting/booking success. it's about managing expectations. the phrase "quality not quantity" is something that everyone understands and accepts.<br>

3 - i think websites are to get clients around the table with you. i wouldn't dream of hinting at potential differences in understanding on my website. i like the sound of an FAQ page, great idea, but only put things in it that will SELL you.</p>

<p>fwiw - i really liked the gallery you linked to. lovely pics.</p>

<p>@ David Schilling</p>

<p>That's the greatest wedding photo I've ever seen</p>

<p>I am trying to upload a jpg that shows my process, but I don't know if it will work.</p><div></div>

<p>i've never used the 7d, but i've heard good things. it will probably produce excellent pics up to 3200ISO anyway. Hopefully somebody can verify this.<br /> your 501.4 will drink light in too.<br /> best thing to do, go to the forest at before the date, same time of day, take a couple of pals and practice a few different things. bribe them with a photo or some beer.<br /> good luck</p>

<p>ps, fwiw, i would use manual and keep an eye on the meter and the shutter speed</p>

<p>i don't think he overexposes. he either under exposes or nails it (probably under exposes though) and uses layers of curves in order to create the washed out brightness. i'm not sure how he gets the beautiful golden honey colour though, it's not through WB anyway, i suspect it is again in the curves layers - perhaps one or two layers with the individual colour channels curved.</p>

<p>i know it's not everyones cup of tea, but i'll bet this guy fills his books every year and makes a pretty penny too. There'll be plenty of brides out there who just love his work. And aside from his processing choices, he has undeniably a strong compositional sense and a great narrative eye.</p>

<p>personally, i like his processing, but i don't know how it will stand the test of time.</p>

 

<p>hi</p>

<p>thanks for the input. it was just a shot about the groom and best man waiting (it's part of a little 'waiting' set). i just wanted to get a shot of them chatting but also include some space. the rest of the pics in the set are all with the frame full.</p>

<p>the angle of the shot is definitely off thanks to the clutter on the right. and i think you used the correct word - akward.</p>

<p>hi</p>

<p>thanks for the comments. definitely agree about the clutter. and i've got no idea how you did that mockup - bravo. also agree about shifting the angle slightly to get a bit of symmetry (although symmetry is not something i'm entirely comfortable with in photography).</p>

<p>i don't think i'd do the turn around shot though, i suspect it would be a tad cheesy.</p>

<p>as for the 24 1.4 - yes please! i suspect that i could do much better work with that and the 50 2.4 than my current 24/70 and 70/200 combo, but i'm too chicken to try!</p>

<p>also, i notice you warmed the tone slightly your version. when i see b&w beside a slightly warmed version of the same pic i always like the warmer one, but i always have the nagging feeling that i'm just being silly and that the warmed version won't age so well. any thoughts?</p>

<p>you also raise a good point about cutting off shoulders. i've been trying recently to "get close, get closer" and have been trying to be unafraid of cutting things in order to get a more intimate feel. i don't know yet whether this is or can be a good thing. i suspect that i need more practice, and that the fault is in my technique rather than the principle.</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I definitely agree with the comments about your photographic education. That's where you want to spend your time and at least some money.<br>

Look at as many photographers websites that you can - a great place to start is the magnum website. Go to exhibitions, get books. Try to figure out what makes a picture speak to you, deconstruct them and then use that knowledge in your own work. I may get shot for saying this, but steal from everywhere that you can, favourite photographers, films etc and you'll eventually come up with your own way. Try ripping off other peoples styles and you will change, adapt and discard as you go.</p>

<p>When it comes to hardware, I find that it is best to upgrade when I have a specific goal e.g. I am shooting a low light wedding in a couple of months, I'll go get myself a fast lens, or a body that can handle low light comfortably.</p>

<p>IMHO, if you are wanting to go splash the cash, I'd get glass. A great new lens and then try to pick up a used D700 rather than the D7000. For the money that a D7000 costs, you are not that far off a used 24-70 f2.8 as a quality versatile lens that will last the rest of your life if you look after it.<br>

Best of luck</p>

<p>Groom & Best Man Waiting</p><div></div>

<p>the nikon d700 manual has never let me down.</p>

<p>I can't speak for the books, but I will repeat what a few have said</p>

<p>R T F M ! ! ! !</p>

<p>(read the feckin manual)</p>

<p>congrats on a great purchase, you'll have such a great buzz from it.</p>

<p>Just some background about my entry</p>

<p>Nikon D700 - 24-70 f2.8 @ 52mm - 1/80 sec - ISO 280</p>

<p>The scene - on a very dark, windy and wet day during bridal preparations. Large window to camera left and tungsten ambient room light for the rest. I was kneeling by the bed just to get a shot of the bride doing her makeup (from the same angle) when the bridesmaid stepped into the window light and gave a twirl (which also made a lovely shot). Then she took a fit of shyness/thoughtfulness, which allowed me to capture her beautiful expression.</p>

<p>Post Work - I had underexposed in my rush to get the shot, but that actually worked in my favour, keeping detail in her dress, although it left the rest of the scene quite muddy. A couple of curves layers (using the individual colour channels) followed by a hue/saturation layer in order to get the colour right. A dodge layer for skin on the shadow side. A levels layer altering the shadow output. Then a final curves layer (RGB channel this time) underneath the previous layers in order to bring the shadows up whilst maintaing highlight integrity. It sounds like a lot when I write it down but it isn't really (most of it's done by an action).</p>

<p>Rob - do you mean the couple in the glass, looking at a smaller couple within another smaller glass, with yet another smaller couple inside.........<br>

because i think your album would need to be huge</p>

<p>Congratulations Don, a worthy winner!</p>

<p>I'm very flattered to have an honourable mention in the midst of such strong competition - thanks Marcus. I must admit that my money was on Marek's entry, it was fabulous. </p>

<p>Thanks photo.net and Marcus Bell for running this comp.</p>