Photo Forum / Photo Technique / People Photography / October 2004
taking wedding pic, help
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Marisa - 18 Aug 2004 19:41 GMT Hello,
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated... Thanks,
Marisa
PLB49 - 18 Aug 2004 19:52 GMT A quick search on Amazon books section turned up several books with a 5-star customer rating, such as
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817433252/qid=1092854930/sr =1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0304017-1177759?v=glance&s=books
On the other hand, I decline to shoot weddings!
Best wishes Paul B.
Randall Ainsworth - 19 Aug 2004 02:58 GMT > I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done > two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any > suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated... You're asking questions that you shouldn't be asking for this type of job.
Marisa - 19 Aug 2004 16:37 GMT > > I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done > > two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You're asking questions that you shouldn't be asking for this type of > job. It's not my day job or anything , just something i'm going to do as a favor.
Randall Ainsworth - 20 Aug 2004 02:49 GMT > It's not my day job or anything , just something i'm going to do as a favor. A sure way to turn a friend into an enemy.
Gregory Blank - 20 Aug 2004 03:21 GMT Bad answer, especially if your going to be their only photographer. Favor or not people are going to expect an incredible amount of skill on your part, if your the only photographer.
Aside from all the responses concerning lights, appropriate cameras.... whether you are able,... etc consider how your going to evenly light the whole bridal parties faces without shadows.
Consider what you would do as the bride comes down the aisle and your flash does not fire. Consider what you will do when none of the people are ready or are milling around waiting for you to set up to do what seems like endless amounts of group pictures. (Are you good at getting people to cooperate)? Read your reply below again. Think about how you will deal with those people if you have problems and your gear doesn't cooperate.
Consider what you will do when you run out of film or are close to the film roll end and realize you have too few frames left for the next sequential series of pictures that surpasses the frames you have... at the very least you need two cameras and two flashes,...if you are the primary photographer.
> It's not my day job or anything , just something i'm going to do as a favor.
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Marisa - 19 Aug 2004 17:38 GMT > > I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done > > two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You're asking questions that you shouldn't be asking for this type of > job. So anyone else have any suggestions that are helpful?
Whatevah - 19 Aug 2004 20:49 GMT >>>I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done >>>two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So anyone else have any suggestions that are helpful? Are you the primary photographer? If you are, make up a list of specific shots you want to get. There is a sample list at http://www.weddingtips.com/the-list-photo.html which may help you. Be sure to talk to the Bride and Groom to see what photos they would like.
The shots you need will determine which lens you use. Although, I'd use a 28-105mm as the primary, with your 100-300mm for a few specialty focus shots. For most shots, I'd suggest using Aperture Priority to keep the DOF small to reduce annoying background elements.
The lighting will determine what film and filters you use, and if you use the flash. I'd prefer not using the flash, as is can be a little distracting. You won't see the flash because of the mirror blackout, but everybody else does. If you do elect to use the flash, a diffuser is highly recommended.
Time will be your enemy during the wedding, especially when you need to reload the film or change lenses. Keep a few rolls with you, and the rest easily accessible in your bag (wherever you put it). If you have another camera body, that will be a big help.
Study up on group poses, and scout out locations around the wedding or reception sites when you arrive for a good location for the posed portraits. Talk to the B&G before the wedding to see when they want to do the group portraits, most prefer right after the ceremony before the reception.
For indoor weddings, work with the B&G and the staff of the building/church to see what lights will be used. Some locations may have stage lighting or spotlights. Used carefully, these can be helpful. If you use your flash, is it powerful enough to bounce off the ceiling or walls? If so, what color paint is used, as it will affect the color of the bounced light.
For outdoor weddings, will the wedding be under any shade? Direct sunlight will produce hard, un-appealing shadows. Fill-flash would be the easiest way to solve this, although shade would be preferable. A gazebo usually makes the nicest location for outdoor shade. If you're lucky, the outdoor weddings will be partly cloudy, giving plenty of soft light, without hard shadows. For the posed shots, you can use a reflector, but you won't be able to use a reflector for the majority of the shots.
There are a lot of tips on the internet for wedding photography, just search on your favorite search engine.
Finally, a word of warning: Wedding photography is tricky and emotional. If you mess it up, that's what will be remembered: that you messed up their wedding memories. However, if you can do a good job, they will be forever grateful. That's what Randall was trying to tell you.
 Signature Whatevah / Jerry Horn Jerry {at} Whatevah.com (working address) Freelance Photography and Web services. spambait: spam@uce.gov
Francis A. Miniter - 19 Aug 2004 21:30 GMT > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >So anyone else have any suggestions that are helpful? Hi Marisa,
The two previous responses a gently saying that weddings are so important to the participants that botched pictures are not an acceptable risk. Weddings really need someone who does not have to ask these questions, someone who has worked previously as an assistant to a professional wedding photographer.
If you are not familiar with lighting, then you probably should not be shooting the wedding. Lighting is one of the most important issues. A wedding deserves off-camera lighting attended by an assistant. Given the need to move around, wireless communication between the camera and lights would be preferable. Go to a photo supply store, rent some lighting, and go to the church a couple weeks in advance and take some pictures to learn what you need to do at the wedding.
Really good lighting allows you to use slower film, get greater depth of field (as you can stop down the aperture) and higher quality images. Never underestimate the importance of the lighting. Example: Photographer A shoots a scene with powerful off the camera lights. The background is lit, there is no red eye and the subjects are not overly-contrasty. Photographer B shoots the same scene with an on-camera light only. The background is black or just a grissly brown, there is red eye everywhere, and the faces of the subjects are glaringly lacking in color. Your Proflash will not do the job.
I have repeatedly declared in this newsgroup that I do not consider 35 mm the format of choice for weddings. Weddings photographers I know all prefer 6x6 medium format - and the Mamiya C30 in particular. You get 3x the surface area on the film, and that can make up for a lot of errors itself.
Whatever the format, you need at least two camera bodies, so that your assistant can be taking out exposed film and loading fresh film while you continue to shoot. All this while the assistant is adjusting the lighting., Note, your assistant should expect to work hard that day.
Whatever the camera, don't use a program to determine the aperture and shutter speed. Your brain has to decide if the depth of field is going to be narrow or wide, whether elimination of movement is more important than depth of field. If you leave it to the computer you will probably have fast shutter speeds and narrow depths of field.
Optics are critical. I doubt either of your lenses open up wide enough to accommodate a dark church. What do they open up to? f/3.5? Prime lenses are better than zoom lenses at accommodating weak lighting conditions. For instance, f/2.0 or f/1.4. The Nikon will have good optics, but the Quantaray? The Japanese were the first to use the term "bokeh" - it means the quality of the out of focus image. This determines the acceptability of an image. If the out of focus part goes into a doubte or blurred image, that is bad. If it gently softens that is good. You need to study the images you have made with the Quantaray to see if it is useable for this critical situation.
Then there is the choice of film. .......
Read a book of wedding photography.
Francis A. Miniter
Sympatico - 27 Sep 2004 06:23 GMT I do not agree that weddings are mainly done 6X6 today. 35mm and 6 megapx cameras are the norm. What is given up in "quality" is gained in candidness and variety.
Most clients could not tell a 6X6 from a 35mm. A good photographer can make 35 mm look very good.
Errol
> >>>I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done > >>>two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Francis A. Miniter zeitgeist - 27 Sep 2004 09:59 GMT > Most clients could not tell a 6X6 from a 35mm. A good photographer can make > 35 mm look very good. I'd say the average consumer don't care that much, but they can tell the difference. Even when not aware there is a difference, many folks would look at my prints and remark at how "clear" they were. Just like many folks can tell the difference between a chevy and a mercedes, they still sell more chevys.
Gregory Blank - 27 Sep 2004 22:35 GMT > I'd say the average consumer don't care that much, but they can tell the > difference. Even when not aware there is a difference, many folks would > look at my prints and remark at how "clear" they were. Just like many > folks can tell the difference between a chevy and a mercedes, they still > sell more chevys. Depends on how low your willing to sell the Mercedes and the type of clients you want to attract.
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Randall Ainsworth - 27 Sep 2004 14:07 GMT > I do not agree that weddings are mainly done 6X6 today. 35mm and 6 megapx > cameras are the norm. What is given up in "quality" is gained in candidness > and variety. > > Most clients could not tell a 6X6 from a 35mm. A good photographer can make > 35 mm look very good. But I can tell the difference...and if I can tell, then 35mm ain't good enough.
zeitgeist - 02 Oct 2004 08:46 GMT > > I do not agree that weddings are mainly done 6X6 today. 35mm and 6 megapx > > cameras are the norm. What is given up in "quality" is gained in candidness [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But I can tell the difference...and if I can tell, then 35mm ain't good > enough. so how many 8x10 plate holders do you carry to a wedding?
Randall Ainsworth - 02 Oct 2004 13:54 GMT > so how many 8x10 plate holders do you carry to a wedding? And another clueless amateur speaks out.
I can usually tell the difference between 35mm and MF in a 3x5 print.
No One - 02 Oct 2004 21:38 GMT 12
> so how many 8x10 plate holders do you carry to a wedding? Gregory Blank - 27 Sep 2004 22:32 GMT > I do not agree that weddings are mainly done 6X6 today. 35mm and 6 megapx > cameras are the norm. What is given up in "quality" is gained in candidness [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Errol True but an equally good photographer can make 6x6 look fabulous compared to either of those.
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Al Denelsbeck - 20 Aug 2004 02:04 GMT >> > I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only >> > done two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So anyone else have any suggestions that are helpful? Well, there's a couple of issues that come up with a post like yours. The primary one is, you haven't asked any specific questions, but in essence an essay question about wedding photography in general. This is a bit like saying "How do I raise kids?" Better off if you pick a specific topic and deal with that.
If you can't narrow it down to a specific topic, there's no really good place to start, and it leads one to assume that you'll need to be told *everything*. In such a case, you're not likely to learn enough from a newsgroup post to make you an effective wedding photographer for a shoot you've already booked. Wedding photography is a field teeming with pitfalls, so the chances become very high indeed that you'll get caught by at least one, if not quite a few. And when it comes to the emotional value that is typically placed on wedding photos, the blowback you're likely to receive could be significant - lawsuits happen more often than people like to believe.
And a second issue is, there's no "right" way to go about it. Different photographers have different approaches, many tailored to the individual locales that they work and the clientele they're likely to encounter. For instance, having shot numerous weddings on strictly 35mm film, I disagree entirely with Fracis Miniter - if the client buys it, 35mm works fine. And for approaches like photojournalism and candids it can't be beat.
Style is all your own, and that's part of the package you sell. This includes what you use for lighting and the films you prefer. So without even an indication of that, again, it's hard to point you in a good direction. A large family formal in a big church takes a whole different approach from a B&W bridal shot by a window on the stairs.
So narrow it down a bit more, and in the meantime, hit http://www.aljacobs.com/welcome.htm and scroll down to weddings. He doesn't cover everything, and neither will anybody else, but it's a good start.
Good luck!
- Al.
 Signature To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
zeitgeist - 20 Aug 2004 08:43 GMT > I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done > two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated... > Thanks, wedding photography isn't brain surgery.
there has been plenty posted on the what and how of wedding photography, read back on google.groups
one thing I recommend is that you shoot a engagement portrait. This is like a dress rehearsal. They get a preview of what they could expect from you, and more importantly, they get a clue about what they need to do on their part of the image making. This really gives you a lot of help on the wedding day.
I recommend a tripod for the formal shots, you can use a slow shutter speed and pick up detail in the background, this makes the images look so much better and the added exposure to the background makes it much easier for the lab to print. Bright white dresses against a really black background is very hard to for both the camera's and the lab's auto exposure routines.
film is film, what kind of paper does it get printed on, what paper does your lab run?
filters? are you shooting color neg? then forget filters
Randall Ainsworth - 20 Aug 2004 14:06 GMT > wedding photography isn't brain surgery. No, but it needs to be done by a competant individual.
Gregory Blank - 20 Aug 2004 14:17 GMT I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa can't be or become that person.
> > wedding photography isn't brain surgery. > > No, but it needs to be done by a competant individual.
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Randall Ainsworth - 21 Aug 2004 03:41 GMT > I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa > can't be or become that person. True, but that's not the way to start in the business.
Marc 182 - 21 Aug 2004 20:23 GMT > > I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa > > can't be or become that person. > > True, but that's not the way to start in the business. True, but she's not starting in the business.
Marc
Gregory Blank - 21 Aug 2004 21:32 GMT Not to bust your chops;
In a way she is, maybe not in her viewpoint but professional could be the viewpoint held by her "friend" and therefore "professional" one needs to at the very least "act".
Her friend could have very high expectations and Marissa needs to be at the very least a professional in dealing with people.
Especially if she is taking business away from someone that could do the job better and faster. Whats to say what her friend expects,...suddenly Marrisa ain't talking.
> > > I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa > > > can't be or become that person. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Marc
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Randall Ainsworth - 21 Aug 2004 22:51 GMT > > > I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa > > > can't be or become that person. > > > > True, but that's not the way to start in the business. > > True, but she's not starting in the business. Photographing a wedding and not knowing what you're doing is a sure recipe for disaster.
PLB49 - 22 Aug 2004 00:56 GMT >Photographing a wedding and not knowing what you're doing is a sure >recipe for disaster. Amen! I think I was the first to respond to the OP--I started "serious" photography more than 40 years ago; was asked to do a wedding last summer, and declined.
There is no more emotionally charged day than a wedding day; no time for someone with less than professional credentials to be behind the shutter!
Case in point: a friend from HS, who I started in photography, a year behind me in school, bought the prestige studio in our home town. At my ex's (same age as him) 20th HS reunion, we went to see him at his studio. He dashed out, said hello, apologized that he had a mother of the bride who was totally out of control to deal with, and left us, to deal with her.
This was someone whom both of us had been close to in HS, who had bought his first SLR from me, who had dated in the same circle of friends, and who would not have offended either of us for anything under his control!
Point: he had been a pro for 15 or so years, and the mother of the bride dictated his actions and time on that day. Not a time & place for those unprepared!
Paul B.
Randall Ainsworth - 22 Aug 2004 01:19 GMT > Amen! I think I was the first to respond to the OP--I started "serious" > photography more than 40 years ago; was asked to do a wedding last summer, and > declined. I've photographed somewhere in the area of 700 weddings and I could tell countless stories of amateurs photographing weddings where the photographs ended up being a disaster.
Tom (2) - 22 Aug 2004 06:13 GMT >> > > I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa >> > > can't be or become that person. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Photographing a wedding and not knowing what you're doing is a sure >recipe for disaster. I agree with most of the cautionary comments. However, there are some who simply can't afford a professional photographer. We don't know what the situation here is but let's assume a young couple has to choose between no pictures or pictures from the OP. In this case, with reasonable expectations all out on the table, this may be the best option.
Tom
Mark - 22 Aug 2004 21:58 GMT A couple in this situation would be better off getting everyone a single use camera. They are free or very low cost if you get the ones that advertise a product. This way several people are shooting and someone is bound to get a few good shots. This has got to be better than an amateur that doesn't even know what film to take. Remember, this is a WEDDING. There are no do-overs if a shot is blown it is gone forever. Marisa just needs to learn a lot more before responsibly taking on a project like this. One way to get practice is to take the camera to the wedding as a guest. Get some friends to play wedding so she can learn in a controlled setting, read books and participate in forums like this one. And, of course taking a formal course from NYIP or other recognized, experienced institution. Of course if she could work as an assistant that would be great. I'll get off my soap box now.
> >> > > I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa > >> > > can't be or become that person. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Tom Gregory Blank - 23 Aug 2004 04:27 GMT All the other suggests are Ok Mark, except I have numerous customers tell me those wedding disposable cameras are very poor and sometimes unreliable. Several have told me they got one or two blurred images from 10-15 tables of friends,...Thank god I didn't supply the cameras.
The film choice is not a real issue, if 35mm 100/200 asa is a good choice,....even Kodacolor Gold "Right Randall" ? ;-) Knowing how to expose it/light the subject and how to pose people are the biggies,...and not something I would hurry to learn again.
> A couple in this situation would be better off getting everyone a single use > camera. They are free or very low cost if you get the ones that advertise a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > other recognized, experienced institution. Of course if she could work as an > assistant that would be great. I'll get off my soap box now.
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Randall Ainsworth - 23 Aug 2004 05:35 GMT > The film choice is not a real issue, if 35mm 100/200 asa is a > good choice,....even Kodacolor Gold "Right Randall" ? ;-) > Knowing how to expose it/light the subject and how to pose people > are the biggies,...and not something I would hurry to learn again. I've never been a fan of 35mm (he says with 10D in hand) and always used Kodak professional films. Used 2 lights for the formals...did all the formals before the ceremony.
dadiOH - 23 Aug 2004 17:45 GMT >> The film choice is not a real issue, if 35mm 100/200 asa is a >> good choice,....even Kodacolor Gold "Right Randall" ? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > used Kodak professional films. Used 2 lights for the formals...did > all the formals before the ceremony. Bought into Monty Zucker's thesis, eh? :)
Know why he started doing that? Because he did a lot of Jewish weddings and the ceremony and reception were often in the same hall. Right after the ceremony the wedding setup would be broken down and replaced with the reception setup. Poor Monty...what to do, what to do? Do the formals first was all he could do.
Personally, I never liked doing formals before the ceremony. Oh, I would if the people really wanted them done then but I always gave them my reasons for preferring post-ceremony and let them decide. My reasons...
1. Someone/something always seems to be late. Could be the flowers, could be Uncle Bill, could be whatever. If something *is* late it *will* eat into the time allocated for photography.
2. Before the ceremony, everybody is rushed and worried...all uptight...their minds are on the upcoming ceremony. After the ceremony everyone sort of takes a collective sigh of relief and relaxes. It shows in the photos.
Main reason that people wanted the photography before the ceremony is that they didn't want their guests to have to hang around at the reception waiting for the wedding party. Didn't work that way where I was (Honolulu)...the guests had to drive to the reception room (generally large beach hotel), find parking, walk from parking to reception room.
I only needed 45 minutes (often used less) and did the large groups first. Those people (other than B&G) could then go hop in the limo, be dropped off in front of the hotel and would almost always beat the arrival of any guest. B&G arrived maybe 20 minutes max later and they too beat the majority of the guests. Even if nobody beat the guests it is no big deal...guests mill and chat, don't even know that B&G aren't there. Reception starts when it starts, nobody really cares.
-- dadiOH _____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.0... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico ____________________________
Randall Ainsworth - 24 Aug 2004 02:55 GMT > Bought into Monty Zucker's thesis, eh? :) Pretty tough to beat the old coot.
> Know why he started doing that? Because he did a lot of Jewish weddings and > the ceremony and reception were often in the same hall. Right after the > ceremony the wedding setup would be broken down and replaced with the > reception setup. Poor Monty...what to do, what to do? Do the formals first > was all he could do. I did it because people look tired and haggard if you do them afterwards. People are in a big hurry to get drunk and don't want to waste time taking pictures. By doing them ahead of time they could spend all the time they wanted with friends and relatives at the reception (except for a few minutes doing the cake pictures).
> Personally, I never liked doing formals before the ceremony. Oh, I would if > the people really wanted them done then but I always gave them my reasons > for preferring post-ceremony and let them decide. My reasons... Well, you're an idiot.
> 1. Someone/something always seems to be late. Could be the flowers, > could be Uncle Bill, could be whatever. If something *is* late it *will* > eat into the time allocated for photography. I told 'em to *BE READY* two hours ahead of time. Guests start showing up a half hour before the ceremony and I don't want that audience.
> 2. Before the ceremony, everybody is rushed and worried...all > uptight...their minds are on the upcoming ceremony. After the ceremony > everyone sort of takes a collective sigh of relief and relaxes. It shows in > the photos. No way. They look tired and haggard after the ceremony. Flowers get messed up, dresses get wrinkled, etc..
> Main reason that people wanted the photography before the ceremony is that > they didn't want their guests to have to hang around at the reception > waiting for the wedding party. Didn't work that way where I was > (Honolulu)...the guests had to drive to the reception room (generally large > beach hotel), find parking, walk from parking to reception room. It's a day the bride & groom should spend with friends and relatives, not a professional photographer.
> I only needed 45 minutes (often used less) and did the large groups first. > Those people (other than B&G) could then go hop in the limo, be dropped off [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > chat, don't even know that B&G aren't there. Reception starts when it > starts, nobody really cares. Takes longer than 45 minutes to do it right.
dadiOH - 24 Aug 2004 03:20 GMT >> Bought into Monty Zucker's thesis, eh? :) > > Pretty tough to beat the old coot. Rather easy to ignore though. _______________________
>> Know why he started doing that? Because he did a lot of Jewish >> weddings and the ceremony and reception were often in the same [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Well, you're an idiot. But a thinking one. ________________________
>> 1. Someone/something always seems to be late. Could be the >> flowers, could be Uncle Bill, could be whatever. If something >> *is* late it *will* eat into the time allocated for photography. > > I told 'em to *BE READY* two hours ahead of time. And they always were. How wonderful. You live in Oz do you?
> Guests start > showing up a half hour before the ceremony and I don't want that > audience. Well, of *course* not. Besides, B&G, attendants and families needed that time to recover from their nerve wracking, marathon, pre-ceremony photo session. ________________________
>> 2. Before the ceremony, everybody is rushed and worried...all >> uptight...their minds are on the upcoming ceremony. After the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No way. They look tired and haggard after the ceremony. Flowers > get messed up, dresses get wrinkled, etc.. You need to sharpen your powers of observation. ________________________
>> Main reason that people wanted the photography before the ceremony >> is that they didn't want their guests to have to hang around at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's a day the bride & groom should spend with friends and > relatives, not a professional photographer. Right. So why bully them into being ready - ready for YOU and YOUR convenience - two hours before the ceremony. __________________________
>> I only needed 45 minutes (often used less) and did the large >> groups first. Those people (other than B&G) could then go hop in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Takes longer than 45 minutes to do it right. Not if you know what you're doing and "the way how to do it".
-- dadiOH _____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.0... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico ____________________________
Randall Ainsworth - 24 Aug 2004 03:37 GMT > And they always were. How wonderful. You live in Oz do you? It was tactfully explained well in advance of the date why it was being done this way. Wasn't very often somebody would be late.
> Well, of *course* not. Besides, B&G, attendants and families needed that > time to recover from their nerve wracking, marathon, pre-ceremony photo > session. Funny...
> > No way. They look tired and haggard after the ceremony. Flowers > > get messed up, dresses get wrinkled, etc.. > > You need to sharpen your powers of observation. Well, I've only done in the area of 700 weddings through the years.
> Right. So why bully them into being ready - ready for YOU and YOUR > convenience - two hours before the ceremony. Nobody bullied anybody. It was all explained when they came in to make the arrangements. And it was not for my convenience, it was so that the couple could have some quality photographs they'd cherish for the rest of their lives.
> > Takes longer than 45 minutes to do it right. > > Not if you know what you're doing and "the way how to do it". Yeah, I guess you *can* work pretty fast with one light on a 35mm.
Gregory Blank - 24 Aug 2004 03:59 GMT See Marissa here's the kind people you can look forward to becoming if you take the first step and photograph that wedding... you really don't want to do it.
> > And they always were. How wonderful. You live in Oz do you? > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Yeah, I guess you *can* work pretty fast with one light on a 35mm.
 Signature LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Mark - 25 Aug 2004 01:38 GMT Good point Gregory, reads like a photographers Jerry Springer show. I am waiting for them to write "you a ho" , "no, you da ho" "you a ho" , "you a ho" , "you a ho". You know like the dialog on Springer.
> See Marissa here's the kind people you can look forward to becoming > if you take the first step and photograph that wedding... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > > > Yeah, I guess you *can* work pretty fast with one light on a 35mm. dadiOH - 24 Aug 2004 19:07 GMT >> And they always were. How wonderful. You live in Oz do you? > > It was tactfully explained well in advance of the date why it was > being done this way. Wasn't very often somebody would be late. Gee...the word "tact" is actually in your vocabulary :) ____________________
>> Well, of *course* not. Besides, B&G, attendants and families >> needed that time to recover from their nerve wracking, marathon, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well, I've only done in the area of 700 weddings through the years. Can't give my stats, never counted. But over 40 years in business - some years doing 100+ - I'm reasonably sure I at least equaled that number. Which means absolutely nothing - as does your 700 - since it is entirely possible to photograph that many and more and still be a poor observer and/or a rotten photographer. __________________
>> Right. So why bully them into being ready - ready for YOU and YOUR >> convenience - two hours before the ceremony. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so that the couple could have some quality photographs they'd > cherish for the rest of their lives. Ah, yes...the revered word "quality". Generally used by photographers to refer to their own work, "poor quality" referring to the work of others.
In the context in which you are using it, am I correct in believing "quality" refers to "Photos ala Monty"? Soft boxes/umbrellas...perhaps even the painted background du jour...the standard poses such as the bride admiring her ring with her hand being held by the groom who is slightly in the background and smiling meaningfully at his intended (supposed to be meaningful, usually more of a grimace after waiting while photographer fiddled with lights/settings), all being dramatically lighted but totally lacking in both personality and emotion.
If so, I fail to understand how such can be considered "quality". There is precious little to personalize such a set of photos for that particular couple. Can't be because every couple is photographed in the same way using whatever standard poses and light setups that the photographer has committed to rote memory.
I'm not really knocking all that as I am sure that the couples *do* like and value them. What I'm saying is that there are other ways to make a series of wedding photos...photos that *are* unique to that particular couple and which are at least equally valued.
To me, photographing a wedding is creating an interesting, story telling set of photographs using and combining those elements which make up a wedding; said elements being the people; the emotional relationships among and between the people; The "things" that make up a wedding - gowns, flowers, rings, invitation, cake, etc.; and the physical environments in which the day's activities take place.
True, my way didn't produce many photographs that would hang at the next PPA convention. But it *did* produce photographs which got me a lot of business and compensated me very well. _________________________
>>> Takes longer than 45 minutes to do it right. >> >> Not if you know what you're doing and "the way how to do it". > > Yeah, I guess you *can* work pretty fast with one light on a 35mm. Well, you got me there. Sorta. Even though I liked 35mm for the lens versatility I disliked the limitations of using flash with it and the format (L:W ratio) itself. Moreover, my staff *really* disliked having to sort/shuffle all those little negs so I only used it rarely...rest of the time Bronica ETR. With normal lens only.
But you're dead on about the one light. Little one at that...Vivitar 192, 283, 285...like that. Not on camera though - hanging from a strap on my shoulder so I could grab it and point it where I chose if I decided to use it. And you know something Randall? I can do more with that one light (plus ambient) than most photographers can do with a whole studio full of lights.
-- dadiOH _____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.0... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico ____________________________
Randall Ainsworth - 25 Aug 2004 02:37 GMT > In the context in which you are using it, am I correct in believing > "quality" refers to "Photos ala Monty"? Soft boxes/umbrellas...perhaps even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fiddled with lights/settings), all being dramatically lighted but totally > lacking in both personality and emotion. Yeah, I did some "Monte" type stuff. But no painted backgrounds or soffboxes. I used whatever was available in the church, usually starting with some window-light "intimate" portraits of the bride & groom. Just light from a window and a gold reflector.
> If so, I fail to understand how such can be considered "quality". There is > precious little to personalize such a set of photos for that particular > couple. Can't be because every couple is photographed in the same way using > whatever standard poses and light setups that the photographer has committed > to rote memory. You've gotta do the standard stuff, if for no other reason, than for posterity. Wedding party, both sets of parents, etc. - usually on the altar...two lights. This is what people want and it's what they'll buy. Very few candids.
> To me, photographing a wedding is creating an interesting, story telling set > of photographs using and combining those elements which make up a wedding; > said elements being the people; the emotional relationships among and > between the people; The "things" that make up a wedding - gowns, flowers, > rings, invitation, cake, etc.; and the physical environments in which the > day's activities take place. Yup, did that too.
> True, my way didn't produce many photographs that would hang at the next PPA > convention. But it *did* produce photographs which got me a lot of business > and compensated me very well. You can have it both ways.
> Well, you got me there. Sorta. Even though I liked 35mm for the lens > versatility I disliked the limitations of using flash with it and the format > (L:W ratio) itself. Moreover, my staff *really* disliked having to > sort/shuffle all those little negs so I only used it rarely...rest of the > time Bronica ETR. With normal lens only. Hasselblad here.
> But you're dead on about the one light. Little one at that...Vivitar 192, > 283, 285...like that. Not on camera though - hanging from a strap on my > shoulder so I could grab it and point it where I chose if I decided to use > it. And you know something Randall? I can do more with that one light > (plus ambient) than most photographers can do with a whole studio full of > lights. I used a 283 *only* for cake/toasting pictures. No assistant.
Petros - 26 Aug 2004 09:39 GMT Mark posted:
> A couple in this situation would be better off getting everyone a single use > camera. They are free or very low cost if you get the ones that advertise a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > other recognized, experienced institution. Of course if she could work as an > assistant that would be great. I'll get off my soap box now. Well, I'll put my two cents in as well, since the help I got here was invaluable :) I'm not a pro photographer, and when my friend asked me to do her wedding, I had tons of reservations, and would most gladly have turned her down. She was pretty insistant, however, and I agreed. I'd like to give a bit of background info on wedding photography here in Lublin before I go on. A pro is going to charge from $60-$100 US for 20 or 30 negatives from the church, no formals, just photojournalism. Studio formals cost anywhere from $15-$20 each, printed large format. Weddings are planned one after the other, so there's no time for
Cost is the driving issue, and when I think of what my sister told me about wedding prices in Boston ($700-$8,000) my head reels. The key, I believe, is to be honest with the couple. If this is not something you've done before, and you don't have experience that you can carry over (lighting, etc.) then you need to explain this clearly to the couple, and let them make a decision. If at that point they decide to keep you on then it's on them if things don't work out. If you're really friends this won't destroy the relationship and there won't be any hurt feelings.
Marisa, here's one thing to be prepared for (as one non pro to another;) ) Things will happen fast in slow motion, like a car accident. Be ready with two cameras, have extra batteries ready even to replace brand new ones, have someone to hold your stuff and hand you cameras/lenses/whatever, and if you miss the greatest shot of your life, don't think about it, just keep shooting.
 Signature Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos
Petros - 26 Aug 2004 09:46 GMT Messed that up, I did. The completed first paragraph is as follows:
> Well, I'll put my two cents in as well, since the help I got here was > invaluable :) I'm not a pro photographer, and when my friend asked me [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Studio formals cost anywhere from $15-$20 each, printed large format. > Weddings are planned one after the other, so there's no time for any portrait work in the church, and very little time outside, since the next parties are already arriving.
 Signature Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos
Tom (2) - 21 Aug 2004 07:40 GMT >Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Marisa Just a few thoughts...
Get a book and learn what the "required shots" are, then sit down with the bride and make a list of all the shots she wants (or have her make the list, then sit down and go over it). This will help you to know what her expectations are. It reduces last minute surprises and failing to meet expectations.
Find out if the minister has rules for the wedding photographer. Some are very strict about when you need to have your equipment out of the ceremony area. Some restrict shooting during the wedding, etc.
Get the timetable. When are you shooting the group shots? When will they be there? When are you going to get the bride and groom shots, before or after the ceremony? Hmm!
Use a tripod. Be prepared for others (during the group shots) to want to click away with their digital cameras. Be prepared to instruct people as to where to stand and where to put their hands, etc. (especially the bride).
You need to know what your flash will do. This is a bad time to test your equipment!
Take more film than you think you will need. Take extra batteries.
You would have been much better off with a couple of monolights on stands with umbrellas rather than an on camera flash. Much better.
In the group shots, take 2 shots each, or you get a lot of pictures with eyes closed, or someone not paying attention.
I like to use Fuji Reala (for everything that is flash assisted) and NPZ 800 (for everything that is existing light). (But I use 2 cameras) This film choice is more forgiving of mixed light which, thanks to stained glass windows and/or florescent lights, can be beyond your control.
Think about a secure place for your camera gear while you are roaming about.
Don't experiment with any new technique or equipment.
Use manual focus and focus on the eyes. When people are standing in rows make sure you are using an aperture that will capture all rows of people in focus.
Are you planning to give them the film to be processed? Or are you processing it yourself and they pay you? Who owns the negs? Are they intending to blow any up to 8x10? If so you'll have to frame the otherwise 8x12 format so it can be cut down to 8x10.
Plan as much as you can. What ever you forget will likely cause you a problem. The bride is probably the boss but asking her what to do the day of the wedding should be minimized. She will be on overload.
Maintain control. There may likely be someone there looking for a chance to direct you. Show no fear!
Wear comfortable shoes.
Have a stiff drink waiting for you when you get home.
Tom
Mark - 22 Aug 2004 02:45 GMT Marisa, These responses are helpful. Your original post shows that you are not skilled enough to properly photograph a wedding. Neither am I. I however know this and would not put myself in the position of promising something that I cannot deliver. I suggest you learn wedding photography before your reputation is ruined before you have a chance to build it. Please do not take this as a put-down, I am only trying to help someone who like myself is learning.
> Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Marisa Bowser - 31 Aug 2004 14:36 GMT Run like hell. Unless you're willing to buy a backup camera that you'll likely never use, spend money expirementing with film and processors, and risk losing friends, it's best to back out. If you simply cannot back out, take the N80, the 28-80, the flash, and a ton of Portra 160NC. Get the film processed by a pro lab, not a mini-lab. And hope for the best. I hope the flash is plenty powerful for large group shots!
> Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Marisa
|
|
|