ianivey

September 13, 2012

I don't have a FAQ.

September 13, 2012

No, its not an attractive moment at all, hence the reason I like it!

</blockquote>

This is the first time I've seen a wedding photographer say "I want to show this image to my client because it depicts her in an unflattering way."

I think your outlook might make sense in other genres, including true photojournalism. Hence your conflation of the unflattering nature of this photo with "honesty," where most photographers would see this photo as a mistake. Wedding photography clients do not typically hire us for this particular kind of honesty. That's probably why you're seeing consensus here that the photo is not a keeper.

A wedding photo that depicts a bad expression can be a good photo if it provides context in which to interpret that expression -- particularly if the moment that produced the bad expression makes for a good story, later. But this image is unflattering with no overriding purpose.

August 8, 2012

The assumption that Gary Fong made all this up is assuming guilt which is not the basis of US Law. He would have to be charged with something and proven guilty. If the Bar Association did bring charges, ...

</blockquote>

"Charges" are part of criminal proceedings. The Bar does not bring charges, nor do individuals; the government does. Defamation is a civil matter, about which individual people or entities might bring a civil claim (not a charge). Fong does not identify the parties in this video, and the seemingly cropped images of the letter reveal nothing about the individuals purportedly involved. There is no action for defamation here, and no remedy any party could pursue against Fong, at least until the parties are properly identified, which seems increasingly unlikely.

August 3, 2012

John, you should expect to add sharpness in post to most images. You can do this in Photoshop by a number of means, such as the high-pass filter or unsharp mask, or you can just do it more simply in Lightroom (or Aperture or whatever photo catalog software you use).

You're getting somewhat sharper images at f/8 than at f/2.8-3.2, which is to be expected, but it's hard to tell what you're dissatisfied with -- are you concerned with eyelashes and that area?

Jose has another good point: higher contrast (and somewhat more directional) lighting might help.

There's always the possibility that you have a bad copy of the lens or that it's back- or front-focusing a bit, but I just can't tell from what you've posted so far.

July 19, 2012

Throughout the series, but especially in #4, his expression -- which is a factor you can control or heavily influence -- is reminiscent of a button-man in the Russian mob who is, at that moment, deciding whether to kill you for taking that picture. :) (Glad he calmed down by around 8 and 12.) This is primarily a result of being in bright sunlight.

The "Okay, 1-2-3 OPEN!" technique can get you a second or so of open eyes with a relaxed face when in those conditions, but it doesn't last long.

I'm guessing you used off-camera flash as a key light in 1-5, probably 8, and perhaps others, but it could have been a reflector. (Was this a reflector or a flash?) If it was a reflector, then it contributed to the squinting and grimacing.

Flash or reflector, I'd argue that you had it on the wrong side in 1-3 and 5. Particularly in the shots in which he's hiding behind her, it just creates an awkward contrast level leaving him in shadow. Additionally, with the sun as a kicker/rim-light, having the flash directly opposite the sun (as in #4) would make a better balance.

Looks like you found a little shade (or maybe a stray cloud) in a few of these, and you should take a lesson from the difference it makes in their expressions. Consider bringing a large scrim and having an assistant hold it between the sun and the couple if you're out in direct sunlight. You'll want to practice with that technique before using it on a paying client.

July 19, 2012

Question #1 My first question is what is your work flow when producing a wedding photo album? Is the following about right?

1. shoot photos 2. photo proofing - studio let the consumer pick the photos 3. edit picked photos 4. design the book 5. book proofing - studio let the consumer review the album 6. make the book

</blockquote>

Not for me. My approach is:

1) shoot

2) cull

3) edit (color correct, crop, batch adjustments, and a few more intensive edits such as head swaps or retouching if I'm sure I want to present a shot as an enlargement candidate)

4) deliver image gallery to client

5) design album

6) possibly have clients review, but usually not

7) make, review, and deliver album

I cull and edit before delivery. I never show unfinished images. I never show garbage images.

We're trying to get a sense of what services are most beneficial for a wedding photographer. For example, would it benefit photographers to host photos on our website to share with their clients before making a photo book so that clients can choose?

</blockquote>

Not for me. I deliver image galleries via my own site. A new photographer who doesn't have a hosting option might benefit, but there are so many easy-to-use, highly sophisticated hosting/display/delivery services (e.g., SmugMug), that I don't see the value of building a new one.

One important thing: I would NEVER, EVER let a vendor have direct contact with my client as a part of my product delivery process, particularly if there was ANY branding other than my own brand associated with that interaction. In other words, if your site showed ONLY my brand, and it felt to the client like a seamless interaction only with me, then I might consider using that service. On the other hand, if your brand appeared ANYWHERE other than possibly as an imprint inside the back cover of the album -- that is, if the client ever felt as though there were a hand-off to a subcontractor -- then using your service would be absolutely out of the question.

And regarding photo editing, do you like to edit everything yourself? Or would you like to see a service that does photo enhancement also?

</blockquote>

I edit my own stuff, but I'm not averse to outsourcing it if the vendor could get the editing style right. The problem, here, is that it requires a personal relationship and probably a single editor to get that style right. If I outsourced to a service that employs a dozen editors, I have a hard time believing all of them would understand my editing style and give me consistent results across collections.

Question #2 My second question is do you prefer to use a website's software for making a photo book or third party software? If you prefer to use third party software, which program (photoshop, lightroom, indesign)?

</blockquote>

I use LumaPix FotoFusion for album design. If an album site's software locks me in to that service (e.g., it won't export to a PDF that I could save and use), then I'm not likely to use that software.

July 12, 2012

Surgery.

June 6, 2012

Great to see these, Crystal.

What's your post processing workflow? Are you using Lightroom or Aperture, or something simpler? Photoshop?

Regarding that last one you're disappointed with, when you have extreme contrast resulting from direct sunlight, a couple of points. First, see whether you can shoot with the sun over the subjects' shoulders (not in the frame, mind you, but functioning as a backlight), and then expose for the face. This will blow out the background but reduce the severity of the problem you have, here, with direct sun on parts of their faces and bodies.

Second, using on-camera (or near-on-axis) flash for fill can really help even out the light. Here, if you had put the flash on the camera, you could have bumped up the shadows a couple of stops, which would have helped reduce the contrast.

Combine those for good results: sun behind the couple and out of frame (left or right or up, or even occluded by the subjects), plus on- or (preferrably) off-camera flash, and you'll be happier with the results.

I'm curious about the shot of the bride whispering in dad's ear. You've super-saturated that shot, and dialing back the saturation might help render the bride's dress (and dad's shirt) white, rather than neon blue. Depending on the software you're using, you might be able to do this selectively -- I'm guessing you liked the idea of a nice blue sky?

May 31, 2012

Nadine, here's a pretty compelling and unbiased comparison of the two bodies. It has an emphasis on video, but it explores some of the still-image and body-construction differences as well. <a href="http://vimeo.com/39778420">http://vimeo.com/39778420</a> I don't know about you, but I found it helpful. :)

May 31, 2012

I'm encouraged by the 5D MkIII but am still holding out a small bit of wiggle room to consider a Nikon move. I'm not an early adopter, so I have plenty of time to consider.

That Nikon sensor sure looks nice too. I admit I don't know what I'd do with 36 megapixel files,

</blockquote>

Come over to the dark side, Nadine. Let your anger with Canon rule your decisions. Feel your hatred of their failures with the MkII. Muu-WAA HA HA HA HA HA HAAaaa.

Sorry. I get carried away.

Here's what you'd do with 36 MP: crop to your little heart's content. Zoom with your resolution. Count nose hairs.

May 30, 2012

Vail, have you tried using <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-035-Super-Clamp-without/dp/B001CWT416/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=31MS9PZOECQKV&coliid=I269Z4LRCCXLPD">Superclamps</a>? If you're just mounting speedlights, you can clamp these things to poles and other objects and they really hold. So much easier than stands, if you can find something for them to grip, and lower liability risk.

May 30, 2012

You mention that you "usually have to take [your] omnibounce off the flash head" when you're shooting outside. Why are you using it outside at all?

May 30, 2012

I have a different perspective on the 70-200 than some of the other folks, here. I'd say you should decide whether to rent it based on your preferred shooting style. If you're a sniper, so to speak, then I suspect you'll really enjoy having it along.

I rented the 70-200 for the first wedding I ever shot, and found that I used it at least as much as any other lens in my kit. I, too, was shooting along with another (somewhat more experienced) photographer. I loved having it that day, and until I switch to primes, it is really my most important lens. I'm not normal, though. :) Most people would tell you that your wide-to-medium-telephoto lens (24-70 on a full frame, or 17-55 on the crop frame sensor) is the single most useful lens, and you could certainly shoot an entire wedding competently with just that lens.

So, while I don't argue that the 70-200 is necessary, its value to you mainly depends on how you like to shoot.

I do think you would be happy to have a fast, fixed-aperture lens roughly in the 17-55 range (e.g., the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, or the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8). The 50 f/1.4 is not really a general-purpose lens on that D3100, though you might enjoy using it parts of the day.

May 23, 2012

Simon, that thread talks a lot about Active-D Lighting, which does not affect or relate to exposure when shooting in RAW. (Active-D is basically a mode of conversion to jpg in which the camera does a bit of HDR work.) Since you're shooting in RAW, that's probably not the issue. In any case, I never shoot with this feature on, since you get a lot more dynamic range headroom from shooting in RAW.

I moved from shooting with a D300 to a D3 (same sensor and metering system) a year ago, and also shot one wedding with a rented D700, and did not experience any appreciable difference in exposure results. I shoot in Manual most of the time, occasionally using aperture priority. Did you try doing a factory-reset and then downloading the firmware updates, to be sure you're starting from scratch? (I'm assuming you bought a D700 used.)

May 23, 2012

I don't see the D300 and D70 combination as viable. Too many low-ISO and age-related reliability problems. So count me as another voice in the upgrade-the-body camp.

I'm sure your budget is a significant constraint, but it's worth looking at a used D700 or even a used D3, both of which are down in price now. You'll be surprised by the difference in image quality (both from the shift to full frame and from the improved sensitivity) moving to that from the D300, not to mention from the D70.

I, too, caution against using a 24-70 with a crop-frame sensor body. I used a 24-70 with my D300 for quite a while before I picked up a D3. I was shocked by how natural the 24-70 suits the FF sensor, and by how obviously inadequate it is, by comparison, on a crop-frame (DX) sensor. Switching to a friend's Tamron 17-50 with my D300 for a day, it was clear how useful that range is, and how ungainly the 24-70 is on that sensor.

If you stick with DX sensors, consider a used D90 or used D7000, and look at getting a couple of f/1.8 primes, specifically the 85mm f/1.8 and the 35mm f/1.8. Those lenses will help offset the lesser low-light performance you get from the D300/D90/D70, and are also a lot lighter. Later, look at adding a 135mm f/2.

May 23, 2012

See if you can convince some of the groomsmen to take the bride by surprise and throw her overboard? Be sure you have a second shooter below decks to shoot as she falls past. I'm sure she'll laugh about it later, if she lives.

May 23, 2012

It still didn't end up to be a fun wedding by a long stretch

</blockquote>

I certainly prefer a fun wedding to one that isn't fun, but we get paid to get results, not to enjoy ourselves. A small or low-budget wedding can be a challenge, but in this case, you appear to have received more than your rack rate, so I can't sympathize with you about your dissatisfaction with the venue or the medical condition of the clients. That just baffles me.

Glad the bride seems to be happier with you than you initially thought. Hope it stays that way.

May 17, 2012

I'm guessing you've done the shoot already, but if not, and if you aren't able to get additional lighting, you may want to try focus-stacking this. Tell them to hold their poses for three shots. Shoot with the first third of the group in focus at, say, f/5.6 or so, refocus on the middle and shoot, and then refocus on the back third and shoot. In post, you'd have to layer this together.

This is a horrible substitute for proper lighting, mind you, but it might get you some additional in-focus subjects if you're just not able to come up with the lighting equipment you really need.

Let us know how it turns out -- post the final image if you're able.

EDIT: didn't realize this was from March, so, yeah, I'm sure you've done this by now. How'd it go?

May 17, 2012

My smart-alec comment aside, this is a very good question, and is one most wedding photographers need to ask themselves a lot more. The question-behind-the-question is: how do you distinguish yourself from others in the field?

I've attended a number of photography workshops and seminars, but by far the most valuable of them to me was Todd and Jamie Reichman's <a href="http://www.amantofish.com/workshops/">Sexy Business</a> workshop. We spent three days beating the snot out of my vision for my business (which is now snot-free). It was fascinating and revealing to watch and help a few other studios do the same thing.

The main value to me was the relentless pursuit of what makes my photography different from the ocean of "passionate" wedding photographers who all say the same things about their service, as though that meaningfully distinguishes them from their peers.

I'm a lawyer. I practiced trademark and copyright law for 10 years before setting it aside; I never enjoyed the practice. But that experience does two things for me.

First, high-end professional clients -- especially the more mature clients getting married later -- start with a presumption that I can relate to them and conduct myself appropriately with their family and guests. That's not to say an artsy, 20-something photographer couldn't relate, but part of my appeal is that they don't have to worry about it when they hire me.

Second, both my law background and my personality are such that I tend to investigate people. My law background provides context that helps clients understand what this means: I ask questions and get to the bottom of things. I talk with my clients a lot, and I like to shoot images that reflect what I learn about them and the relationships that matter most to them.

Lots of photographers talk about getting to know their clients. But most of them sound the same when they say that. I describe my approach much differently now than I did a year ago, and it seems to resonate with a specific type of client.

That doesn't mean all my clients are stuffy lawyer- and doctor-types. I'm happy to allow people to like my photography for any reason of their choosing. But I have a business focus today that is very different from my generic self-description of last year.

You can develop that, too. Stop talking about generic customer service questions (those things should go without saying), generic pro-photographer vs. amateur skills, and generic I'll-be-your-best-friend effusive nonsense. Instead, look at your three or four favorite images from the last year, and define what sets them apart. Define why you took them, and what they mean to you.

Define your photography in words other people aren't using.

May 16, 2012

My looks. And how nice I smell.

May 8, 2012

That's it? No sample?

</blockquote>

LOL, Peter, what, she's supposed to post sample images to a public forum before she even delivers a sneak peek to her clients? Crystal, we're all interested to see some of the results, but maybe we'll all be able to hold our horses and wait until you can link to a few you've already shared with the bride and groom. :)

May 8, 2012

I don't know about that PS, Tom. If she's like most people shooting her first full wedding, she's probably figuring out how in the world one best deals with two thousand images. :)

May 4, 2012

Best wishes, Crystal, and please return and let us know how it turns out for you, would you?

May 2, 2012

"I would never put all the shots on one card...that's a no no. You would be looking at a complete loss."

</blockquote>

No, you are not “looking at a complete loss”.

</blockquote>

Have to agree with William on this one. There's always a risk of total loss, whether you use one or multiple cards, from events such as: theft of the entire set of cards, catastrophic physical event like a car crash or flood that destroys the equipment, or coincidental total data error. The question here is what's the bigger risk: total-card error on one high-quality high-capacity card, or mistake by the photographer resulting from having to pay attention to yet another variable?

Using one Sandisk 32gb SD card per camera seems safer for a new wedding shooter than trying systematically to isolate parts of the day onto different cards. It also reduces the risk of theft or physically losing the cards that are out of the camera bodies.

And Dave, I believe William's point in countering your "looking at a total loss" comment is mainly that a data error on a card usually doesn't mean loss of all the images on that card, but rather just some portion of them.

April 29, 2012

Crystal, welcome to photo.net -- :)

There's an encyclopedia of information in these forum threads, and you'll benefit a lot from reading through them.

If you do read through the wedding forum, you'll notice a pattern of responses like what you've received here, posted in other threads like this one. Experienced wedding photographers have a -- perhaps unfortunate -- tendency to react grumpily to exuberant newcomers to the trade because the stakes are high for the couple. Yet, the incentives are often perverse: it can be hard to find opportunities to second shoot, it is flattering to be asked to shoot a wedding, and it is exciting to imagine delivering such important images to a couple and enjoying a client's heartfelt appreciation.

It is also true that wedding photography is among the most demanding genres of photography. Battlefield photography is more dangerous. Sports photography isn't far off. Only a few subjects require the same command of photography skill, subject-matter knowledge, and physical and mental endurance.

Weddings move from small, cluttered, dimly lit rooms, to fast-walking subjects outdoors, to dark formal environments with tight restrictions, to rooms full of dancing, often intoxicated people. Lighting conditions range from near darkness in rooms with dark walls to thunderstorms to direct overhead sunlight, and in each circumstance, having the right lighting gear and knowledge is critical. Knowing what comes next on the schedule and being able to plan your route to the best spots for coverage without missing key elements is vital.

Being hampered or distracted by gear limitations is a common problem among folks new to wedding photography. Approaching a wedding with entry-level DSLR bodies and kit lenses imposes a serious burden that would be hard enough for an experienced wedding shooter to overcome. Inexperienced shooters often produce blurry, incorrectly exposed, and poorly composed images as a result of a complex collection of interacting factors. Slow gear isn't the only factor, but it is often a major contributor.

Please forgive any harshness you perceive in these responses. In some cases it might be intended, but in others -- probably most -- it is merely a helpful and generous offering of frank advice intended to help you avoid trouble.

Having said all of that, some successful wedding photographers just jumped in with both feet. Some of those had immediate success, by luck or talent, while others did their early experimentation at the expense of their first clients.

I second-shot a few weddings before ever shooting solo. And I read a lot about what to expect and do, both here in this forum, and in books about wedding photography. Twice I just asked friends who were getting married if I could shoot alongside their hired pro, and then carefully avoided disturbing the pro, and sought opportunities to be helpful unobtrusively. Still, I probably shot my first wedding solo before I should have, but I learn best under pressure. If you do, too, then I assure you that you're about to learn a lot. :)

Regarding your gear: Get or rent faster lenses, if you possibly can. The bodies are less important than f/2.8 zooms or primes of f/1.8 or f/1.4. For example, see if you can get your hands on a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with VC for one body, and maybe a 70-200 f/2.8 for the other. Renting lenses is a great option when you're starting out because it lets you try some combinations without major cash outlays.

I, for one, have no compunction about flatly saying that shooting a wedding with slow kit lenses is a mistake.

Regarding your other items: I like that you've thought out some of the things you might want to have, like clips, stickers, and blankets. That's promising. These things are icing on the cake, and you really want to focus first on getting the cake right, but the fact that you're mapping out how the day would look -- with you in it -- means you're probably on a better track than many folks who post threads like this.

So, what are you worried about, specifically? Ability to anticipate the flow of the day? Technical skill?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by ianivey