Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 14, 2006, 2:38 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
DorkUnderwater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 158
Default

ok, this is my first time doing a wedding, and i was all by myself with pointers here and there.

the couple was highly pleased with my work, they didnt ask for a masterpiece of equipment and assistants. this also was reflected in the pay which was half a grand.

it took a while to find a good site, i tried flickr.com which is horrible at uploading, and went to zoto.com, my link http://aergyle.zoto.com

the equipment i used was:

KM 5D, and a KM 5 when i ran out of battery at the end of the reception (so i only had to use one roll thankfully, these photos arent in the gallery)

tokina 28-70 at-x f2.8 . i used this for most of the shoot and it supported my needs fine, however i feel that if it was just a little less wide i would've been screwed. but for $150 this was great

tokina 80-400 at-x f4.5-5.6, i used this for close-ups from far away, primarily the ones you see of the couple on the bench with the mill in the background.

the place was by an old grist mill, and a 300 yr old house with an adjacent lake, it was basically like a historical park, but these people owned it.

the flash i used was a sunpak 333, this was the hardest part of the wedding because it was manual, thankfully the LCD saved my ass, and the daylight (overcast) helped aleviate my need of a flash. also i realize its really hard to screw up bounce flash. however, in the reception tent which was humongous the ceiling reached about 50 feet into the air so that made a problem for bounce. i fixed a few over/underexposed photos with photoshop.

also where the bride and groom exchanged vows which was under a small arch, and the arch made horrible angles in my opinion for photos :evil:but they liked it.

so tell me what you think, and i expect a whole list of fixes that i need to do to improve. i am thinking of getting a METZ flash since it works in auto mode unlike the sunpak 333, but maybe i can get it with a lot of practice, and a lot of double AA batteries.
DorkUnderwater is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 14, 2006, 5:03 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

The site is down right now.



BTW, I just heard that B&H is selling Minolta NP-400 batteries for $19.99; might be a good time to get a couple of spares.
cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2006, 7:28 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

I think the range of shots and the choice of shots is overall pretty good. You captured the moments that really needed capturing and a substantial amount of the proofs are good enough to print as I see them. Sure some could benefit from PS or crops, but that's easy to do. I'd say overall it's a good first set.

My criticism (which is worth what it costs) would be that many of the portrait type shots put the subject near the middle of frame, which is not very pleasing to the eye. Some cropping to move the subject to the 1/3 or 2/3 vertical or horizontalwould improve them, provided you don't lose necessary background. Obviously the lights in the tent could have been better. Straight on flash is a better choice than underexposure, because it's easier to PS away red eye and shine than it is tocorrect a underexposed shot. Some of the unposed shots are unflattering to the bride (she doesn't look happy in them or is partially obscured), I'd never send one of those on to a customer. Weddings are all about the bride and every shot that includes her should reinforce that. ( I just delete those files)

For the record, I also dislike the angle of the arch. They only look good at near 90 degree views, IMO.
Mercury694 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2006, 7:55 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
DorkUnderwater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 158
Default

yeah that arch really got me aggravated..... it was something i totally didn't expect, but the bride did like the photo of the hands being held as seen through the arch.


DorkUnderwater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 10:03 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

DorkUnderwater wrote:
Quote:
ok, this is my first time doing a wedding, and i was all by myself with pointers here and there.

the couple was highly pleased with my work, they didnt ask for a masterpiece of equipment and assistants. this also was reflected in the pay which was half a grand.

it took a while to find a good site, i tried flickr.com which is horrible at uploading, and went to zoto.com, my link http://aergyle.zoto.com

the equipment i used was:

KM 5D, and a KM 5 when i ran out of battery at the end of the reception (so i only had to use one roll thankfully, these photos arent in the gallery)

tokina 28-70 at-x f2.8 . i used this for most of the shoot and it supported my needs fine, however i feel that if it was just a little less wide i would've been screwed. but for $150 this was great

tokina 80-400 at-x f4.5-5.6, i used this for close-ups from far away, primarily the ones you see of the couple on the bench with the mill in the background.

the place was by an old grist mill, and a 300 yr old house with an adjacent lake, it was basically like a historical park, but these people owned it.

the flash i used was a sunpak 333, this was the hardest part of the wedding because it was manual, thankfully the LCD saved my bottom, and the daylight (overcast) helped aleviate my need of a flash. also i realize its really hard to screw up bounce flash. however, in the reception tent which was humongous the ceiling reached about 50 feet into the air so that made a problem for bounce. i fixed a few over/underexposed photos with photoshop.

also where the bride and groom exchanged vows which was under a small arch, and the arch made horrible angles in my opinion for photos :evil:but they liked it.

so tell me what you think, and i expect a whole list of fixes that i need to do to improve. i am thinking of getting a METZ flash since it works in auto mode unlike the sunpak 333, but maybe i can get it with a lot of practice, and a lot of double AA batteries.
Unless it's just my monitor some of the darker shots seem to be underexposed. You might be able to post process a bit.


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 2:59 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

What a terrible photo site. Stumped me, very difficult to figure out and navigate... then it stopped responding.
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 11:03 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
DorkUnderwater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 158
Default

this is the only photo site so far that allowed me to upload 1.8 gigabytes overnight, whereas flickr didnt work at all. if i get them all into a gallery it has a much nicer persentation, though i have heard from others too about problems opening the site.

i think thats just internet cookie settings though or firewall
DorkUnderwater 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 1:22 PM.