My photog dogs! Second shot with my buddy The Shreib's AKA Technocraft over the past weekend. Tony was gracious enough to fly me down to Florida, (favor returned as he shot for me here in Cali a few months back). Had loads of fun eatin, talkin shop, cruzin his part of the world, (sucker has a Lexus 350 IS)
Thanks for the hospitality Tone. You are the original rockstar.
The wedding was quite the affair. The family and it's attendance sure felt like high society people. Wedding was on some island. Tony can clarify. It was an awesome venue to say the least.
Reason why I love shooting with Tony is his HUGE arsenal on "L" glass. HE LACKS NOTHING. Felt like a kid in a candy store. Anyway on with the show.
Used:
5D, (this wedding only saw 10% use of the 5dizzle)
40D (Most everything you see is with the 40D)
50mm 1.4
70~200 2.8 IS
60mm Macro
35L
24L (oh how I'd love one of these)
******BONUS******
A montage of my dog, the Tonester in his natural habitat, (his office, jammin on Rock Band, (I sucked) and shooting the day of the wedding. The shirt was very cool Tone
2 1http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/3057669515_e6086ced40_o.jpg
don't worry, everybody-if you lived in cali or florida, you could produce images EXACTLY like this
sam, seriously sweet set, man-specifics:
1b-amazing composition-so sharp-that CAN'T be wide open...right?
5-yeah, awesome
8-nice-color palette is awesome
13-a lot of banding-did you shoot this iso3200 and have to raise it in post? or is this intentional? i like a little noise but maybe get rid of the banding patterns across the bride and her bridesmaids...
15-again, you find the color
tony, love the shot of you makin' "the universal sign for rock" with the guitar to your side-that's a rock pose, my friend
radioblurs wrote:
tony, love the shot of you makin' "the universal sign for rock" with the guitar to your side-that's a rock pose, my friend
daniel
Thanks Dan. I'd be more excited had I finished that song. That's me failing about 80% through "Green Grass and High Tides" on expert. I'll never beat that one.
Sam, as always your work is intimidating and inspirational. Just curious why you used the 40D over the 5D and what goes into your decision to use one over the other. You rock!
So yeah, 13 sucked. I don't wanna talk about it. The ceremony is 15 minutes of the day I chose to forget. Tony's laughing. I blew it altogether. We didn't have any available light, (sun was gonzo) and no other lights to meter from. The WP even came to us asking for a flash light of some sort so that the minister could read his notes. Crazy dark. We had to go direct flash. About 3 minutes before show time, I set up the off camera to help assist with our lighting plight. 13 is literally the best shot I got off during the ceremony. Tony did much better than I.
Danial, agree with you on all your critique. (Your my critique hero BTW). 1B was indeed, not wide open. I've tone it down in that department. i'm shooting a lot more f4. I like it quite a bit actually. Thanks bud.
Johnasac,
40D comes out during the reception and during night shots. In this case it was just about the entire wedding. It just felt good for the day. 40D throse in a lot more color than the 5D. Again, everyone was blond, colors were alive and it seemed to be the choice for the day. Thanks man.
Uhh sam, isn't #5 a bit, uhh, pervy? I would just feel.. wrong.. taking such a photo... or is it like a massive crop?
Great work, very inspirational. I'm surprised you think the 40D has better color. I honestly feel like I can't make my 40D work worth a darn in comparison to the 5D, especially when you nail the exposure. My 40D often has the burned-out look.. perhaps because I'm not using HTP-- do you have that turned on in your 40D?
Andrew Welsh wrote:
Uhh sam, isn't #5 a bit, uhh, pervy? I would just feel.. wrong.. taking such a photo... or is it like a massive crop?
I think it's a beautiful shot that looks like it's a big crop because it does seem more grainy. Maybe because I'm European that I don't see anything wrong with showing how beautiful human body is even though I don't consider this shot to be particularity sexual
Also as long as the subject is not identifiable from the photo I found that most appreciate showing them in such a positive even if somewhat sensual light. Some may not like being "taken apart" into human body parts but that is rare and you have to respect that. Also this photo is not at all over sexual that it crosses the boundary (for me) unless you have a foot fetish but then so would be any shot showing a part of human body that's not covered with cloth ... trying to avoid sensuality in the photos would lead to photos of women only in burkas
As my experience with unplanned shoots of female form let me bring this example up. We often spend time with friends at the beach and I sometimes bring a camera. Last few times I took some photos of the female friends with closeups of the breasts in bathing suits, legs etc with their permission of course. Many wouldn't want it posted online with their name and face but they are proud to show them to their husbands/boyfriends and our group of friends to show off how good they look and their only disappointment was after I told them that the photos were "enhanced" and "tucked" in in Photoshop (Liquify filter) I think as a photographer it's important to stay somewhat detached from the subject and as long as they feel that and that it's an exercise in art and not a perv trying to snap pictures for his own use most women (and men) appreciate us showing them in the best way possible
Perfect example of this difference in attitudes between photogs and non-photogs is what happened to Sam at this very wedding. As a photographer he was trying to get the best shot at the dance floor, a non-photographer guest thought he was trying to get the "underwear" shot...
And to Sam.
As you might have or have not noticed I've registered back in July this year. Mainly because I saw your great sets and I thought I have to be a member of such a great forum as your posts add quite the credibility here, not to detract from other great talents here as there are many. I feel like it's a great privilege to see your work and be able to learn something from you as you discuss your techniques and perhaps some day we'll get to talk in person as I also live in San Jose.
Love #8
#9. Just a matter of personal preference. It might have worked better if either less or more of their faces were showing with either parts of the noses covered or the entire smile visible, right now it's in between and it looks like they should be smelling the flowers but are not and the look is neither mysterious/flirtatious nor completely care-free happy... not really a critique as maybe this is what was intended.
And yea the #13 ... is there a way to reduce the noise? It almost looks like there are some lines in the photo in the dark areas like the groom's suit for example or the post/tree on the left between the two bridesmaids in the background and the bride's arm, but those may or may not be part of the textures not artifacts from the camera.
Dude Sam, take at easy all ready. Set was killer love the legs of course and you nailed the reception shots again! I wish i could come second shoot for you, hell i would even carry your gear just to be in the presence of the great Hassas!
Doug
I'm TELLING!!! 