nikongirl wrote:
I think they look great!!! I am glad to hear that you are happy with your D3 - that's my dream camera - right now I have to stick with my D300 and D200.
Did you use flash at all that day? I carry both of my cameras -and only really find them cumbersome when I have a flash on one or both.
Again - they look great - great perspectives and colors!
about flash
For this wedding i used flash only for a few pictures (about 20)
I'm prefer natural light or (kind of video light)
Every wedding photographer have a flash but just a few knows how to use it properly
sometime look here http://strobist.blogspot.com
for your crop factor cameras, i will suggest Sigma lens (any of this 20,24 or 28mm) and Nikon 35 f2,50 f1.4 , 85 f1.8 (1.4)
andrew - you post stuff on a forum you are open to comments. I think 6500 is ridiculous, thats well and truly at the stage where you are just shooting nonstop in the hope of getting something good.
sejanus wrote:
I think 6500 is ridiculous, thats well and truly at the stage where you are just shooting nonstop in the hope of getting something good.
Take a look at Eminvan's previous posts here, or his website, or his Pbase site .. he is truly a wonderful and talented photographer with a great eye. So 60 or 6,000, he makes great photos.
Me I take maybe 700 at a 10 hour wedding.
Everyone is different in their way of shooting, what matters is how the photos look when delivered to the bride.
I used to be a 1,000 shot a day guy. Then - I saw the light. Keep the camera on high-speed and get a few shots around the shot. The modern editing tools are brilliant so - it makes lighter work of more.
And, since the world went digital and the photographer is now the shooter; the lab; the design house; the retoucher; the water fetcher: even better. I have been considering performing the ceremony myself as the shoddy job of officiants leaves a huge marketing gap there as well.
look, I'm not a 300 a day guy. I routinely shoot 1500, and sometimes 2000-2100. and thats on a 1ds mk3, so the file storage implications are certainly there. but triple that? come off it.
6500 images for the whole day (me only) (8 hours)
after 12 days i leave only 1457 images
------
70% from 1457 - images from Nikon D3 with 85mm
other 30% from 5D and 1Ds3
------------
I hate files from 1Ds3
its really kill my time and my computer (core duo E8400,4Gb Ram 4-4-4-12,139GB Raptor)
-------------
I spend 12 days to choosing and retouching
-------------
Edited by eminavn on May 31, 2008 at 05:31 PM GMT
Holy smoke, 6500 images.... and it was all in 8 hrs. How did you do it? I never expected such a number form you eminavn.
Yeah, the huge file size from the 1DS3 really put me off, I'm planning to get a D3 instead.
So which camera do you like best?
LTPC wrote:
Holy smoke, 6500 images.... and it was all in 8 hrs. How did you do it? I never expected such a number form you eminavn.
Yeah, the huge file size from the 1DS3 really put me off, I'm planning to get a D3 instead.
So which camera do you like best?
Pretty sure its the D3. He mentioned it a few times is subsequent posts
JLim wrote:
these images are good... but to be honest, i've seen better from you
maybe too much equipment...
Same here. I always read your posts, because you are one of my favorite photographers in here, but this time it is just average. Maybe too many pictures, maybe to much gear. I better liked the pictures, where I could see, that you really have thought it out.
1. At the end of the day, no one really cares how many cameras, or even what camera you used so long as you get the shots. In my eyes, nothing can beat a fast prime lens on a full frame camera as far as the "look" goes. Most anything else is run of the mill.
2. 6500 shots is kind of bordering on silly and free wheeling. You would be better served by carefully creating (or waiting for) moments than mindlessly spraying frames. Sure you are more likely to nail the moment by capturing a larger number of frames, but the "spraying" technique in general reduces the need in many photographers' minds to be *careful* as they shoot. This brings all of the work down a notch, regardless of how many frames are shot.
3. You have some good stuff there and you have some not so good stuff there. Some pictures are framed awkwardly and are just in general not that great. On the other hand, a few of the posed portraits with the 85 prime are excellent.
I will confess that I once fell into the gearhead trap of oogling over my gear more than I did my pictures. But ultimately, at the end of the day, if you havent gotten pictures that make you and your client very happy, then something has failed you. Spending a lot of time, energy, and money focusing on things like number bodies, number of frames, megabytes, megapixels, and in general gearhead tomfoolery wont improve your bottom line as a photographer.
The purpose of great gear is to let you expand your creative freedom without getting in your way. In other words, your gear should be transparent to you as you shoot.
6500 may sound like a lot of shots, but there were two separate ceremonies.
Anyway, good work. Some shots don't really hit. i.e. Pic of only sitting guests staring off to right, obviously at couple on dance floor...Chandelier shot creative, but I'd PS the exit sign. Just some tid bits.
sejanus wrote:
6500 shots in 8 hrs is 812 shots per hour. this is 13 shots per minute, or 1 shot every 4.6 seconds.
Basically the dude took alone a slow video camera, and picked the best frames
I'm glad you retracted your post before it could be responded to. You at least have something of a leg to stand on criticizing the number of shots (although I personally disagree with your view), but you can't possibly argue with the results (not this wedding in particular, but the full gallery on his site).
to be honest i have not looked at his site at all. i started to write back saying my definition of outstanding must be different then i realised that neridah wasn't referring to the 1 shoot
well I've looked at his site now. sure they are decent, but the way you guys were talking him up I was expecting to see something akin to jessica claire or yervant.
I still think 6500 shots is lunacy!
a wedding i shot recently will be splashed all over the aussie bridal mags shortly, and I "only" took 1850 shots. It was also over 11hrs, not 8. If you go to my site, it's in the featured weddings area under E&J
sejanus wrote:
this is ridiculous. 6500 images, you must be kidding
Why don't you just bring a video camera and take the best frames from it later on.
The focus on a few of these shots is off or very soft as well - is this the best from 6500?
Not ridiculous at all. In a fairly recent survey on DWF pro, many of the shooters who make their living in this manner shoot upwards of 5,000 exposures.
And don't be so quick to criticize. Emin has been recognized for his work on more than one occasion on David Beckstead's "Admired by Beckstead" blog. For David to take notice and publicly mention it is a huge honor.
? I never expected such a number form you eminavn.