OK so I went to an art school and graduated with the BFA thing and realized in a studio I can control everything just fine, when I do my own fine art work I am fine. it is during a wedding I still find that I can get the seamless image but sometimes a few are not turning out seamless. I know a light meter would help but is there any advice to being able to create a seamless image all the time on the fly while doing weddings. I want seamless 100% of the time in all locations not 80% of the time in some locations. Any help would be great. Remember I was taught to slow down and really think about placement in school not to really think on my toes it's getting there. thank you.
I normally shoot in a higher resolution with a 20D (someday I can afford an upgrade) a 17-85 mm f/2.8 image stabilization and a few other lenses but that is my favorite. Also I have a white balance I use frequently do defer yellow or red hues, and a canon 430EX Speedlite flash. Anything I am missing for equipment?
i think it would help to be more specific about what you mean by a 'seamless' image since the term is used a few different ways in photography (and life )
are you referring to getting perfect exposures? compression? are you stitching?
Crystal clear imagery. Sometimes I find about 1 out of every 10 is a bit fuzzy and I really want to perfect my focus lighting and clarity is there a system to doing this on the fly and quickly as to not miss a beat. So I guess exposure and lighting
It boils down to knowing your camera so well that moving the wheels is second nature so that you can put your energy into focusing correctly, even as things are happening quickly. Eventually, your ratio will get better... but you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who gets 100% of their clicks spot on. It's just not the nature of the wedding world. Things happen and you do the best you can.
Hiverson wrote:
..but is there any advice to being able to create a seamless image all the time on the fly while doing weddings.
No Hiverson wrote:
I normally shoot in a higher resolution with a 20D (someday I can afford an upgrade) a 17-85 mm f/2.8 image stabilization and a few other lenses but that is my favorite. Also I have a white balance I use frequently do defer yellow or red hues, and a canon 430EX Speedlite flash. Anything I am missing for equipment?
Doug, you were no help at all. You only provided discouraging waste.
OP, weddings and any kind of event photography is NEVER 100% when you shoot. Unfortunately this is especially true with digital. You should read many of the threads discussing the low number of keepers some of these "photographers" get out of an 8 hour day. If you are getting even close to the 80% of keepers you claim you already surpassed most on here who claim this to be what they want to do for a living or even as extra income. You should be proud because at least you have high expectations of yourself Many of our members here are getting less than 33% keepers but proud of
Concentrating on each shot as you do WILL make you better in the long haul. Just keep doing what you're doing to become better.
As for equipment, you seriously need to do a search on here if you only have what you listed above. In other words, you should double the number of cameras, use various length lenses, possibly more than one flash, and more. Far too much to list considering it's listed every other day.
cordellwillis wrote:
Doug, you were no help at all. You only provided discouraging waste.
Cordell
;-)
I put as much effort in my answers as the OP put in researching the questions before starting yet another post.
That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry you missed it. I hope the OP didn't.
Dmacmillan, I resent your discouraging words and attitude this is a way for others to learn sorry I am not a seasoned veteran please be more courteous and understanding of others need and want to learn and continue growing as photographers, and as for my question I thought I wrote it out in a way that made sense to me. Sorry for not being a wedding technical guru in your eyes and wasting your time. then don't bother answering if it bugs you. only a very self obsessed person would belittle a newbie for wanting to learn correct techniques I am sorry but what a jerk! How dare you. Don't read posts if you don't like them and get off your high horse you were new once too. At least I went to school and am not hobbyist trying to say I am a pro at least I admit I need more equipment at least I am HUMBLE enough to admit I am always learning more JERK This forum is meant for people to learn from one another how dare you discourage others from wanting to learn shame on you. you should want to be more helpful with your knowledge and not discouraging.
Edited by Hiverson on Jun 12, 2008 at 07:35 AM GMT
Edited by Hiverson on Jun 12, 2008 at 07:41 AM GMT
Cordellwillis, Thank you for your encouraging words. As a student of photography at school it was instilled in me to always have perfection through the abundance of critiques throughout the years. I guess I feel like I need to have more then enough to always make my client happy. It is good to hear that others have images that are not as great as they hope. Thank you for the reassurance I will keep hammering away at my talent
Hiverson wrote:
Cordellwillis, Thank you for your encouraging words. As a student of photography at school it was instilled in me to always have perfection through the abundance of critiques throughout the years. I guess I feel like I need to have more then enough to always make my client happy. It is good to hear that others have images that are not as great as they hope. Thank you for the reassurance I will keep hammering away at my talent
They don't have a great number of images that are good because they do things in the machine gun approach. Unfortunately art is watered down because of an influx of those who have gear in their hands thinking only of pressing the shutter button and disregarding the art It's sad really.
Your approach is top notch. Although I was not a photography major I was a graphic arts student. I took pride in my work. Many wanna-bees thoughtlessly shoot and their number of keepers are far less than my personal taste.
Sorry I guess when I say seamless I was thinking more on clarity light and exposure. I know that was the wrong word to use but it was all I could think of. So images that have that pop that make you go wow that is an amazing shot the light is good the cropping the clarity and the color. I hope that makes more sense.
Hiverson wrote:
Dmacmillan, I resent your discouraging words and attitude this is a way for others to learn... Sorry for not being a wedding technical guru in your eyes and wasting your time...only a very self obsessed person would belittle a newbie for wanting to learn correct techniques I am sorry but what a jerk! How dare you. At least I went to school... JERK ..how dare you discourage others from wanting to learn shame on you.
Wow! Gee, I didn't know I could say so much with so few words. Let's see, first post was 3 words and second post was four sentences.
For the life of me I can't find where I tried to discourage you, nor did I belittle you. I just asked for a little more research on your part. There's a ton of similar posts and this forum has a pretty good search function.
You mention you have a degree in photography. Your equipment question indicates your B.F.A. is perhaps more useful in visualizing than it is in the nuts and bolts of a wedding photography business. I'm concerned for you and your wedding customers that you're planning to show up with little or no backup equipment. You need to relegate your 20D to backup and get at least one more up to date body. You also need fast prime L's, 35, 50, 85, 135. You need a bigger flash and a flash bracket. If you're going the flash route, you need to consider multiple flash lighting. Also, as part of your equipment you need a fast computer with PS CS3 and a product like Lightroom to help with management.
Your "I normally shoot in a higher resolution" concerns me. I think you should be shooting RAW. If not that, at least the highest resolution JPEG.
"I want seamless 100% of the time in all locations not 80% of the time in some locations." I think we all do. For you to think this is obtainable shows a lack of knowledge of the dynamics of modern wedding photography. Back in the days I was photographing weddings with film, I planned on a 6 to 1 ratio. If I were to take weddings digitally, I would plan something on the order of 20 to 1. When I was in photo school, I did a project where I took ~4,000 images to come up with 75 in the final product. I think what you're after is a higher keeper rate with fewer photos spoiled by some technical problem (OOF, exposure, etc.). Gaining technical knowledge and taking thousands and thousands of images is the way. There's no magic formula.
Holly, I appreciate your willingness to learn and improve, I just think your timing's off. You're asking questions that should have been answered before you actively solicited wedding business. I suggest you hold off booking any more weddings until you get your equipment/technical knowledge issues sorted out. Maybe you can hook up with someone and assist.
You're right, at one time I was new too. I started assisting for two different photographers when I was 16. I took my first solo wedding after working with them for two years.
Regards,
Doug
B.F.A with Honors in Photography, Art Center College of Design, Pasadena, CA
Chris Beaumont wrote:
I'm wondering where I can buy this 17-85 2.8 IS!!!!! Me wants.........
Me too!
Sadly, I think our only chance right now is to successfully mate a 17-55 2.8 IS with a 17-85 f4-5.6 IS. I don't know what parts to align...
..or perhaps it's a special edition available only to art school students...(see my above sig)
You gotta be kidding Why does the OP have to get a camera that is "up to date"? Did the 20D stop working after all others come out?
Why does the OP "need" primes to shoot Although I shoot with the lenses you listed I would do just the same with zooms.
Why does the OP "need" a bigger flash AND a flash bracket? If shooting with fast primes a flash is not always needed. Not to mention that a "bigger" one is necessary. On top of that, there are plenty of shooters who don't use flash brackets. I know I hate them.
YOU think the OP should be shooting in RAW Most shooters did not start shooting in RAW until the past couple of years. Prior to that many were complaining that RAW took too much time to process and believed there was no good RAW converters. Many are blind like you to the fact that PS/ACR are not the only converters available. C1, Bibble and many others have been around for YEARS! By the way, LR is not a good program for photo file management if you want to give advice about this. It has far too many limitations compared to others that are available. However, many photographers use it for that purpose.
I do agree that what was asked could have been better searched before asking.
You gotta be kidding Why does the OP have to get a camera that is "up to date"? Did the 20D stop working after all others come out?
Nope, not kidding. Notice I felt she needs backups. I suggested the 20D for that purpose. If you're in the market for another camera, why not buy one that's up to date? Call me old fashioned, but I NEVER went to a wedding with fewer than four MF bodies. It's a good thing. One wedding I killed three cameras by the end of the reception!
cordellwillis wrote:
Why does the OP "need" primes to shoot Although I shoot with the lenses you listed I would do just the same with zooms.
She asked for input, I gave her my thoughts. It's possible to photograph a wedding successfully with a kit lens. It would be very hard, though. Again, it's the old fashioned me. I didn't own a zoom lens for an slr until a year ago. When I was a pro, I only shot with primes. Tell me how you "would do just the same with zooms" if you needed/wanted to shoot wide open @1600 with an 85mm f1.2. How would you replicate the DOF?
cordellwillis wrote:
Why does the OP "need" a bigger flash AND a flash bracket? If shooting with fast primes a flash is not always needed. Not to mention that a "bigger" one is necessary. On top of that, there are plenty of shooters who don't use flash brackets. I know I hate them.
OK, I guess we need to talk about style. Holly hasn't indicated whether she falls in the flash photography group or the available light group. Even with available light, having a little bounce flash can be helpful sometimes. Do your friends without brackets only shoot horizontals? I hate brackets too, but if you're shooting non square formats and go to vertical, the quality of the image (assuming you're using direct flash) is so much better with the flash head above the lens. Personally, I shot 645 or 6x6 (6x7 for formals) with the camera flash up on a bracket as fill and with an assistant holding another flash on a monopod as main. It gave a nice look.
cordellwillis wrote:
YOU think the OP should be shooting in RAW Most shooters did not start shooting in RAW until the past couple of years. Prior to that many were complaining that RAW took too much time to process and believed there was no good RAW converters.
Well, that was in the past. With high capacity/high speed cards and improved cameras, many if not all the arguments against shooting RAW are no longer valid. Yes, I think the OP should be shooting RAW. You may hold a different opinion. That's fine.
cordellwillis wrote:
Many are blind like you to the fact that PS/ACR are not the only converters available. C1, Bibble and many others have been around for YEARS! By the way, LR is not a good program for photo file management if you want to give advice about this. It has far too many limitations compared to others that are available. However, many photographers use it for that purpose.
Notice I said "a product like Lightroom". I guess I should have stated a digital workflow management software package instead of using LR generically, like Kleenex. Feel free to recommend photo file management packages which work better for you. I use PS/LR and personally like them. I don't shoot professionally anymore and LR may not meet my needs if I did, although there seems to be very talented photographers out there who have no problems using it.
cordellwillis wrote:
I do agree that what was asked could have been better searched before asking.
I only ask to be met a little way, not even halfway. A little research may have helped Holly phrase her questions in way we can be more help. How many posts have you seen that essentially say: "I want to get into wedding photography, what equipment do I need?"
All I can say My bad I listed the wrong lens I was at work and was rushed to type the question. I think I had the L series I borrowed in my head. that had an f2.8. that was my honest mistake SORRY
Hiverson wrote:
All I can say My bad I listed the wrong lens I was at work and was rushed to type the question. I think I had the L series I borrowed in my head. that had an f2.8. that was my honest mistake SORRY
No prob. We were just having a little fun with ya.
Is the lens you were thinking about the 17-55 or the 17-85?
I have the 17-85 and like it, although I find it a little slow for available light work even with the very helpful IS. Sometimes I sure would like 2 extra stops.
it's getting there. thank you.
Many of our members here are getting less than 33% keepers but proud of 
It's sad really.