Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 27, 2004, 11:54 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Quote:
I cant help if she has back problems. She actually is leaning forward , she has a condition on her back.
Hey, you asked what I though! So I said it!

I could be a jerk and say "you're the 'professional' photographer, you're supposed to know how to pose her to get the best shot possible, with the limitations provided. Wedding photography costs a lot of money!" And that is part of what I mean about wedding photography being hard. I would expect a lot for the mount of money they usually charge. But I think you don't need me harping on that point any longer.

Quote:
Pay close attention to the picture, there are 2 images there, the car and the background(sky and green its all 1 picture) if it seems odd blame NATURE
So the sky and field is from the same picture, and the car (and its contents) from the other? It looked to be like that odd color was the blending seam (top was one picture, bottom field+car the other.) It looked odd to me, so I commented... <shrug>

If I'm paying for a picture, I don't expect something odd in the background.... so pick your locations better. Or alter it in photoshop. But I have high standards. If you were just taking this picture for fun, the standards are different. But if you are taking it for money, the standards are much higher.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2004, 12:42 PM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 30
Default

I tend to agree with Eric. A 'professional' photographer should really be able to take stunning pics without having to replace the background. Good wedding photographers are spendy, but they will ensure good results.
awikenheiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2004, 1:07 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

I mentioned this elsewhere and I guess I'll say it again.

If you take cash for shooting a wedding and come up with a blowen shoot you are open to some major expenses like re-renting cloths & locations for a reshoot and are even open to law suites.
If you do it for free for some friends or relatives and blow it, there is a good chance they will not be friends afterward(this may not be a bad thing ).

Pro wedding shooters take in backups for everything, multiple bodies, multiple strobes, etc., and use multiple backs to make sure if one roll film gets wiped in processing there will be another available, and film gets processed in multiple seperate batches. (of course this dosen't apply to digital) Well maybe use multiple storage cards.
Depending on which studio, they also rairly work alone usually there is an assiatant there to reload backs, fetch & setup equipment and take candid shots.

You also need the lighting & backgrounds for doing the formal portraits, The pre church shots at brides house, the ceremony itself, location shots afterwards, and candids at the reception if it is in the contract. Pricewise for a full wedding shoot with a large porrtrait, the assembeled birdes album & a couple of parents albums 2000$-2500$ is not out of the question. It also takes a lot of time in post productuction to assemble the final package.

Very hectic and high preasure, not for the faint of heart. I burned out and quit that particular segment of the market. But there are others that just love the work.

Having said all that, could it be done with a single Drebel, yes.
Would I risk it, NO.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2004, 2:49 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milleniumdesigns
... Pay close attention to the picture, there are 2 images there, the car and the background(sky and green its all 1 picture) if it seems odd blame NATURE ,
It is nature, but you chose that particular bit of nature to stick in behind her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milleniumdesigns
any more positive or negative? If negative please provide what you will do for a solution
Use something a great deal more subdued - you really don't want the background competing with the bride. You should also get the light patern in the background to match the foreground, i.e., soft and from the left.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2004, 4:56 PM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 62
Default

subdued ? what that means(im not totally bilingual)

got your point bill,

besides that whats else is wrong or ok with the picture
milleniumdesigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2004, 12:19 AM   #26
-jb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric s
I've heard many people (much better photographers than I, some who did wedding for a living in the past) who say that wedding photography is the second hardest type of photography to do (photojournalism/war correspondent is the hardest.)
I agree. Good, thoughtful post...

When you start shooting pictures professionally (for pay) things change. When you shoot events that can not be repeated, the pressure increases. When you shoot once in a lifetime events that can not be repeated, and that have tremendous importance to the parties involved, the pressure increases exponentially.

Years ago friends came to me and said that they couldn't afford a wedding photographer. If I couldn't take their wedding pictures they wouldn't have any. So I took them. Unfortunatelt they turned out great... They were very happy with the pictures and I had a great time taking them.

Through time, more people asked me to take their wedding pictures, so I did. Shooting bigger weddings added more pressure... weddings that were referred to me were even more pressure... sometimes I didn't know anyone in the entire wedding party, so I'd get lists of the important people and the important shots... and I'd have someone designated to point these people out to me...

I was fortunate that people were always pleased with the wedding pictures I took. I stopped while I was ahead. I have never regretted that decision...

-jb
-jb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2004, 5:02 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

the photo does not look like one from a pro but I like it, she could have smiled is all I wish i could have had someone take some decent photos at my wedding, all I have are snapshots from a small 110 film compact camera so popular back in the late 1970s.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2004, 6:25 AM   #28
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 62
Default

No where i said in a PRO

i tried to make her smile all nigth long, she just dont smile, shes like that, hard to make smile :shock:
milleniumdesigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2004, 9:22 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

milleniumdesigns

Just to be clear, I actually like the picture. But as others point out, if I'm paying $2,000+ for the pictures my standards suddenly become very high.

I certainly couldn't have blended in that background as well as you did (my PS skills are now what I'd like them to be.) And I've never taken portrates, so I wouldn't know how to get the exposure right of tricky clothing. So, although I'm being critical, it's only because of the way the picture is going to be used (as part of a wedding album, I presume) and not because its a "bad picture". I've seen those before (and taken some) and this isn't one of them.

Quote:
No where i said in a PRO
but you're putting up your picture for review like it was taken by one (I believe the implication here is "is this picture good enough for wedding photography?") I think it's good, but not good enough. The reasons are not with the camera, though. In this case the only camera limitation is if it will blow up big enough and retain detail. It/you got the exposure, focus & DOF right. But most cameras can do this shot, it's the ones that are split second candids or with complex flash lighting off white & black cloths that are harder for cameras (just a guess, it sounds like -jb could say much more on that subject.)

BillDrew

Great point on the background. Hadn't thought of it... probably because I like sunset.

PeterP
Quote:
If you do it for free for some friends or relatives and blow it, there is a good chance they will not be friends afterward(this may not be a bad thing ).
I haven't laughed that hard in a while. I needed that.

BTW, the wedding photographers who can afford an assistant use a few cards and swap them out so the assistant can download them and check them over. If something is missed then he can try to retake the shot (if possible!) It also improve the chance that they won't be lost due to a CF card crash.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2004, 9:44 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Interesting side note I was with a wedding shooter last night who was getting his display ready for the upcomming wedding trade shows.

He is now using the Canon EOS 1ds as his primary body and a d-rebel as a backup. So I guess the D-rebel IS being used in pro weddings
He is also awating the arrival of the new Epson 4000 to do most of his output this year.
He sais he has hung up his MF kit.

Apart from cameras, lenses, and portable lighting, he now brings a laptop and as Eric said the images are transfered and examined during breaks to see if anything needs to be reshot on the spot.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:44 AM.