|
Ah, makes sense. That video just confused the hell out of me, I thought it was weird they would do that. I think that should be a good purchase then. Thanks for the advice goons.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 10:34 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 19:44 |
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Ah, makes sense. That video just confused the hell out of me, I thought it was weird they would do that. I think that should be a good purchase then. Thanks for the advice goons. Partially it's because of ambiguous language. A 35mm is a wide angle lens. A 24mm is a very wide angle lens. A 14mm is an ultra-wide angle lens. None of those words really mean anything, though, but if someone says they have a "true wide angle" lens, that really could mean the field of view equivalent to 35mm.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 13:26 |
|
|
I just got a call yesterday: "Hey Ben are you ready for our wedding in October?" - "Yep, all set what's up?" "Well we're actually going to do a rehearsal a week before and wanted to see if you could show up there and take some shots and you'd also be able to see where we're getting married an everything" - "Okay I could probably do that" "Great! Well we're taking a limo from my place and you could ride with us but it will be $25 a person" - "... excuse me?" "Well you could drive yourself but parking costs money too" - "uh huh" If anyone wants to do a low paying wedding in Chicago it's all yours. I accepted this thing like two and a half years ago before I had ever done one on my own as a somewhat favor for a friend. God was I dumb.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 15:33 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:Partially it's because of ambiguous language. Yeah, most of it is the language they use. Think of it this way. Focal length of a lens is the focal length of a lens. It's an exact number, it can't be anything other than what they list it as. It's only "affected" by the crop on the body. It's still a 17-50mm lens no matter what body it's on, it just appears more zoomed in on a crop body in the photo. If you put it on a full frame then it will be exactly what the focal length says it is. The only difference between lens models is some are designed to work with both full frame and crop bodies and some are made to work with just crop bodies. Because with a crop body you don't have to worry about vignetting on the outsides of an image, the engineering and precision of the glass making isn't hard to do and thus usually costs less. To make it what they tend to refer as "true" it just means that there won't be crazy amount of vignetting or focus blur around the outsides of the image. There is no difference whatsoever in the focal length. Also, doing the whole math about what the focal length is, is completely pointless unless you've been shooting film or full frame cameras for years and that's how you know it. For anyone who hasn't shot a film camera for years, and has shot nothing but crop bodies, there is no reason to do the calculations on what focal length is, it's arbitrary.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 16:01 |
|
|
benisntfunny posted:I just got a call yesterday: Wowwwwww. That dude's got some cahones. Are they going to feed you at either event, I wonder?
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 17:29 |
|
|
Would this be an ok place to see if anyone in the Wausau, WI area was interested in second shooting a wedding on September 25th? There will be pay! I wasn't sure it deserved it's own thread.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 17:42 |
|
|
benisntfunny posted:
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 17:58 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:That's definitely how I'd have handled the parking matter, because it gives them two options and both result in you not paying for parking. It also comes off as more professional sounding. As for the rehearsal thing. I've gone to two rehearsals for weddings I've shot before but I didn't take photos at either, I just went to scout the location. If they want photos, they'd have to pay. It was agreed upon that you'd shoot the rehearsal so you shouldn't do it for free.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 18:19 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:Well yeah, obviously. I didn't really think I had to spell it out for them like that though. By the way I did not agree to pay for anything when I said "uh huh" it then followed a conversation about how I get paid to shoot not vice versa. Typically when people ask me to shoot something it's implied they'll be paying me. I'm not sure what's up with this girl's brain.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 18:31 |
|
|
benisntfunny posted:Typically when people ask me to shoot something it's implied they'll be paying me. I'm not sure what's up with this girl's brain.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 18:58 |
|
|
benisntfunny posted:Well yeah, obviously. I didn't really think I had to spell it out for them like that though. Well, you are paid at a set rate to shoot the wedding. Period. So, if you agree to come to the rehearsal, that's part of your pay. Since they didn't agree upfront to transport you, that comes out of your end. Only upon reflection will she see that this is no different from asking the guys catering her wedding to simply throw in, at their own expense, food for the rehearsal.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 19:07 |
|
|
Tomorrow I'm shooting the wedding of the niece of one of Sydney's most famous and successful old school wedding photographers. Better not gently caress this one up.
|
| # ? Sep 11, 2010 12:50 |
|
|
pbpancho posted:Would this be an ok place to see if anyone in the Wausau, WI area was interested in second shooting a wedding on September 25th? There will be pay! I wasn't sure it deserved it's own thread. Heh, I'm actually shooting a wedding in Madison the same day. I'll be in Wausau the 26th though! I know that doesn't help you at all. Sorry.
|
| # ? Sep 11, 2010 15:37 |
|
|
Everything went well, the famous photographer uncle wasn't even there. Yeeha! Additionally, I had time to set up an umbrella in a little courtyard outside the reception and had the MC annouce that I'd set up a photobooth for guests to come and take photos. It's been done before (and a lot better) by other photographers, but I think it's something I definitely want to refine and improve over my next few weddings, it's a much better alternative to the usual table shots. Man, do I ever hate table shots. Anyone else done this?
|
| # ? Sep 13, 2010 09:50 |
|
|
Has anyone got experience with fill flash indoors? The venue for the reception/dinner is likely going to have very high ceilings so bounce flash is out of the question and I don't own a strobe. My flash unit is a Nikon SB-600. My main concern is being able to use flash without getting shadows behind the subject.
|
| # ? Sep 14, 2010 13:36 |
|
|
teamgod posted:Has anyone got experience with fill flash indoors? The venue for the reception/dinner is likely going to have very high ceilings so bounce flash is out of the question and I don't own a strobe. My flash unit is a Nikon SB-600. My main concern is being able to use flash without getting shadows behind the subject. An omni-bounce or some other diffuser over the flash has always filled in for me when I'm without my other lighting equipment. The shadows aren't totally gone, but it makes the images look much less like a nuke is going off in the vicinity.
|
| # ? Sep 14, 2010 14:11 |
|
|
You want a lambency diffuser - you can get them on ebay pretty cheap. Here's a set I took at a club night a while back with it. Lower your shutter speed enough to let some of the ambient background light in, the flash will freeze subjects in the foreground.
|
| # ? Sep 14, 2010 14:15 |
|
|
You might want to consider a whale tail-type of flash diffuser like a Lumiquest Ultrasoft or Demb Flip-It. I find that diffusers like the Omnibounce and Lightsphere can give harsh skin highlights at close range plus they can also be very annoying for the people standing behind the photographer since the light spills out in all directions as opposed to just forward.
|
| # ? Sep 14, 2010 14:39 |
|
|
I tried using the Whale Tail but really preferred the Lightspehere for weddings. That thing is amazing, even if Gary Fong is about a step away from that guy who used to do the "Get Rich in Real Estate and BE SURROUNDED BY BEAUTIFUL WOMEN!" ... wait, I think that may have been Gary Fong... Also, if you get a lot of people bitching about your lightsphere blinding them when they are behind you, you can slip some foil or other reflective material inside and tack it down with some adhesive putty. It gives you an extra stop of light and cuts down on the AAAAAHHHH MY RETINAS! I'd really like to get a small piece of the California Sunbounce material to cover the back 180 degrees of my sphere. That would make the thing near perfect.
|
| # ? Sep 14, 2010 19:14 |
|
|
Here's a bunch from the last one I shot:    
|
| # ? Sep 15, 2010 11:48 |
|
|
Very nice! What equipment are you rocking for weddings? If you use Nikon's 24-70mm f/2.8, I am incredibly jealous already.
|
| # ? Sep 15, 2010 20:35 |
|
|
I'm liking these shots, especially the rings. If you're not pricing yourself at least in league with more established photographers, you've earned the right to do so.
|
| # ? Sep 15, 2010 20:50 |
|
|
Wow, thanks  - there's some really amazing wedding photographers out there and I know I'm not even approaching their level.I shoot with: Canon 7D Canon 350D Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L Canon 85mm f1.8 Sigma 10-20mm I usually rent the 70-200 and/or the occasional extra prime. For the wedding above my rental guy's 70-200 was out for repair so he gave me the 20mm f/2.8 and the 35mm f/1.4 L to play with. If I can book a few more weddings I'll be able to convince the wife to approve the purchase of a 5D Mk II.
|
| # ? Sep 15, 2010 22:23 |
|
|
Well I shot and survived my first solo wedding. It was really scary, but also really fun and reading through this thread really helped prepare me. Now I just need to figure out how to get myself out there and get more gigs.       
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2010 00:35 |
|
|
Calee21 posted:Well I shot and survived my first solo wedding. It was really scary, but also really fun and reading through this thread really helped prepare me. Now I just need to figure out how to get myself out there and get more gigs. You did great, I'm sure they're thrilled.
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2010 00:41 |
|
|
I'm currently post processing the train wreck wedding of my cousin that I got cornered into shooting. It's amazing to me how much wedding pictures make a family event that will live in infamy look somewhat dignified. Lots of family drama involved, but it will be fun trying to get out my side of the story through the wedding album.  I hope to never do a paid wedding that went that badly.
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2010 01:08 |
|
|
Just finished packing my gear up for the wedding I'm shooting up in Connecticut this weekend. I'm glad I went and bought a scale or I'd have definitely gone over the weight in my golf case. It's that drat vagabond, that thing weighs a ton. I'm excited for some of the locations I found when I scouted things out my last time up there. There is an awesome rock wall behind where the reception is that is going to be really cool for portraits.
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2010 03:46 |
|
|
psylent, you did an amazing job. I'd be thrilled with any of those pictures. I'm back from my incredibly-last minute second-shooting deal. It was definitely a learning experience: no surprise there. Completely exhausting as well, but parts were a blast. I was incredibly envious of the main shooter's D700.  DX sensor. Ah well.               I ended up having to do all of the ladies' formals by myself, and just kind of faked my way through it. Those shots aren't my favorite, but I think the clients will like them regardless. I still have 350-400 shots to push through Lightroom in the next week or two.
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2010 04:12 |
|
|
Thanks guys. I'm not a master of exposure just yet and I do have trouble in difficult lighting conditions, but I'm learning more each time I do one. It's hard work, but I really enjoy it - it's really nice just seeing people at their best, speaking from the heart and just having a great time. I've got another one this weekend, it's only a 4 hour shoot but there's 100 guests and apparently about 1/4 of them are kids under the age of 12. They've got a clown, a face painter, a fairy and a magician. It's going to be awesome and I'm hoping for a shitload of print sales from the parents too 
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2010 04:23 |
|
|
Ishkibibble_Fish - Pull the exposure down half a stop on the 2nd to last and 3rd to last, and bump up the contrast a little. They're just a little bit too bright IMO, you're losing a little detail there.
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2010 05:43 |
|
|
Calee21 posted:Well I shot and survived my first solo wedding. It was really scary, but also really fun and reading through this thread really helped prepare me. Now I just need to figure out how to get myself out there and get more gigs. These are great! I'm sure your clients will be very happy. If there's one thing I've learned about shooting weddings, it's that small details are usually the easiest to shoot and they add a ton of story to the big day. Don't underestimate the simple shot of a pair of shoes!
|
| # ? Sep 16, 2010 14:19 |
|
|
Erwin posted:Where on the forums is the best place to look for prospective wedding photographers? Is it this thread? I know this post was a few months ago but I see you really didn't get a response for what you were looking for, so I wonder if you had found someone yet? I'll throw out a recommendation for my friend who I frequently second-shoot for, Sandy Yetter - http://www.redlotusphotography.com/. She's based in Pittsburgh, and was awarded The Knot's Best of Weddings 2010 Pick. She is fabulous and also very reasonably priced especially considering the quality of work you are getting. Check her out and if you (or any of you goons) wind up contacting her, tell her Kelly sent you.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 11:18 |
|
|
Last Sunday was my first time covering an Asian wedding (well the Groom is Turkish so there was a mix of cultural traditions). The hotel where the ceremony took place had really poor lighting and the wedding officiator asked me not to use flash during the proceedings. "Sure no problem" *dials ISO to 4000* The hotel for the reception however was much more suitable to photograph in. The main rooms had low ceilings with lots of warm ambient light. The best way to deal with this was hand hold the flash with a TTL cord, use a 1/2 CTO gel to balance the flash and bounce the light off the ceiling. Worked amazingly well.       (There's still lots of tweaking to do but these were my favourites) A lil' tip for anyone about to cover an Asian wedding. If they're serving curry for lunch and you're sensitive to spicy food, don't eat any or you'll be doing a great Lee Evans impression f-t'rest of't day.
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2010 14:59 |
|
|
Great shots! I'd love to do a proper Asian wedding like that. Which lenses do you have in your kit?
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2010 04:10 |
|
|
Isn't that more of an Arab wedding? Sikh weddings make you sit on the floor plus the clothes are different.
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2010 07:11 |
|
|
There definitely wasn't a Sikh element, possibly Arab but I'm embarrassingly ignorant of the Asian communities in my city. I was just told it was a half-Turkish/half-Asian wedding (although Turkey is kind of an Asian country but it's a moot point I guess). 99% of all the photos taken were with a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8. It's a good lens but there are a few downsides: unreasonably heavy (715g) and loud auto-focusing. There were a couple times during the day when my right wrist literally could not hold the camera one handed any longer (1.7kg is a lot after a couple hours with flash in't other hand). I was also using a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (owns). Although these two didn't get much use due to the size of the venues and the priority towards the end was on family/group shots.
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2010 14:05 |
|
|
Ishkibibble_Fish posted:psylent, you did an amazing job. I'd be thrilled with any of those pictures. Most of the these look pretty drat good but as a minor nitpick these two in particular have some pretty serious wide-angle distortion going on in them. I don't know if the clients will notice but it's pretty evident you were shooting very wide up close. You can actually correct for that distortion in Lightroom 3 pretty easily though. Tincans-Great shots I would have absolutely loved to shoot that wedding. I personally think I may give up on the wedding photography thing. I've only seriously shot one wedding and while I had a blast doing it I can't see myself doing a lot of them. I find most weddings to be tacky and I imagine I will get burnt out pretty quickly on the standard wedding fair. Now a wedding like Tincans shot or another outdoor wedding in front of a barn like I shot before would actually be a lot of fun to shoot again. Edit: In regard to what tradition that wedding is following the body paint on the hands and the dress itself is a style that's common among Bedouin weddings. It's also common on the Indian subcontinent among pretty much most of the religious groups there. In many cases there are wedding traditions that crossover between Hindi, Muslims and Sikhs in India. ZoCrowes fucked around with this message at Sep 23, 2010 around 14:24 |
| # ? Sep 23, 2010 14:15 |
|
|
Shot a wedding last weekend where about 20% of the guests were kids under the age of 10. The bride and groom hired a clown and a face painter, I hung out with the kids for a bit and got a few shots. Gonna make a fortune in print sales from this    
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2010 14:56 |
|
|
psylent posted:Shot a wedding last weekend where about 20% of the guests were kids under the age of 10. The bride and groom hired a clown and a face painter, I hung out with the kids for a bit and got a few shots. Gonna make a fortune in print sales from this These are awesome, I love them.
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2010 16:24 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 19:44 |
|
|
HPL posted:Isn't that more of an Arab wedding? Sikh weddings make you sit on the floor plus the clothes are different. My guess would have been Bangladesh or Pakistan on the bride's side. I've done one of those weddings. The bride was done head to toe in the most intricate henna work I'd ever seen, her dress had beadwork that I would have sworn was made by magical elves and the food was freaking fantastic. I was the only light skinned non-Muslim guy there though. Made for a lot of interesting conversation.
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2010 16:39 |
|
