Wow! That was Work! (10 imgs)

shatch

My wife doesn't like me to shoot weddings, so when her good friend recently asked me to shoot her sister's...I told her she would have to ask my wife. Hey! What are friends for? She said yes.

We started shooting outside at 12 noon. Not a cloud in the sky and it was hot.

I haven't shot a wedding for over a year. I forgot how much energy it takes. Hats off to all of you wedding photogs!!:clap Question. Do you all need a shower after a wedding? I was dripping.

Anyway, here are a couple of the photos.

1)


2)


3)



4)




5)




6)




7)




8)




9)




10)
The Aunt made the cake. I loved her intensity as she placed the flowers.



Thanks for looking!

redleash

I think it all came back to you--some terrific shots! That one of the aunt with the cake is a prize-winner, IMO.

Thanks for sharing,
Lauren

ShepsMom

I'm sure couple will be very happy!! You have variety of diferent prespectives here, did you happen to use on camera flash? Just wondering.

RBrogen

Some wonderful shots....did you use an ultra wide for the up-shots of the couple with the church and sky background?

shatch

ShepsMom wrote:

I'm sure couple will be very happy!! You have variety of diferent prespectives here, did you happen to use on camera flash? Just wondering.

I had an 580EX on a pole with the Bride's nephew following us around. Used it a lot. I think David Hobbie calls him a "voice activated light source". I was glad he worked with us.

shatch

RBrogen wrote:

Some wonderful shots....did you use an ultra wide for the up-shots of the couple with the church and sky background?

10-22mm. Fun lens.
Thanks for the comments.

shatch

redleash wrote:

I think it all came back to you--some terrific shots! That one of the aunt with the cake is a prize-winner, IMO.

Thanks for sharing,
Lauren

Thanks Lauren. That one of the aunt is one of my favorites as well.

staypuffinpc

which temple?
Is that Bountiful? Great pics, btw. Like the angles.

mmroden

Great shots! I have quite a bit to aspire to here

jeffreaux2

Yes....at least I do. (sweat during weddings!)

You have some very nice photos here that are exceptionally well lit. Now....where are the shots from the actual wedding?:D

Nice job....they have no choice BUT to be pleased!

shatch

staypuffinpc wrote:

Is that Bountiful? Great pics, btw. Like the angles.

Rexburg Idaho Temple

Thanks for the comments.

1pocket

Very nice framing in these. I like the assymetry in 2 and 5, yet the couple still feels like the "center" of the photo.

Based on 3 & 10, I'm sure you got some more great close-up shots, but the majority here are a little distant -- although there were really only a couple I wanted to crop a little, those being 7 & 9.

Congratulations on some nice work; I believe this might be the first time I've commented on wedding pics, but I do think you've got something special going here

shatch

mmroden wrote:

Great shots! I have quite a bit to aspire to here

You are too kind. My shots are still amateur. Looking at other photogs here, I too have a lot to aspire to as well.

shatch

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Yes....at least I do. (sweat during weddings!)

You have some very nice photos here that are exceptionally well lit. Now....where are the shots from the actual wedding?:D

Nice job....they have no choice BUT to be pleased!

Thanks jeffreaux2! I appreciate your comments. I have learned a lot from your photos and really like your style.

As for the actual wedding. The LDS temple is considered a sacred place. A place where when they enter, they are literally stepping into the House of the Lord. Because of their belief, they ask that all cameras and cell phones be checked at the front desk so the wedding won't have any distracting elements and the couple and those in attendance can focus 100% on the marriage covenants and commitment they are entering into. So...no photos of the actual ceremony.

shatch

1pocket wrote:

Very nice framing in these. I like the assymetry in 2 and 5, yet the couple still feels like the "center" of the photo.

Based on 3 & 10, I'm sure you got some more great close-up shots, but the majority here are a little distant -- although there were really only a couple I wanted to crop a little, those being 7 & 9.

Congratulations on some nice work; I believe this might be the first time I've commented on wedding pics, but I do think you've got something special going here

Wow...thanks 1pocket for the detailed thoughts on these shots. You are very kind to share. I do have a lot more close up shots, but I just liked some of these for the surrounding highlights/environment they were in. After leaving the temple grounds, we went to the BYU Idaho gardens. They had some fun pockets of photographic landscapes. Thanks again.

urbanaries

Absolutely gorgeous shots, shatch!!! I love the veil shot....such life there, and usually that shot is executed with a very contrived feeling. I love the composition in #5 and 8 is just spectacular, a lot going on here compositionally but its at once layered and simple. Might clone out OOF flower in left hand foreground (I've been staring at this one, yah!)

Just an FYI, watch the blue banding from saturating/vignetting sky in #2...I've been burned on that before, it shows up a lot more in printing.

Gorgeous, gorgeous images and hat's off to you for surviving!

shatch

urbanaries wrote:

Absolutely gorgeous shots, shatch!!! I love the veil shot....such life there, and usually that shot is executed with a very contrived feeling. I love the composition in #5 and 8 is just spectacular, a lot going on here compositionally but its at once layered and simple. Might clone out OOF flower in left hand foreground (I've been staring at this one, yah!)

Just an FYI, watch the blue banding from saturating/vignetting sky in #2...I've been burned on that before, it shows up a lot more in printing.

Gorgeous, gorgeous images and hat's off to you for surviving!

Thank you urbanaries! The info on blue banding is very much appreciative. I added that in Lightroom. Will it still band bad?

The veil shot was sooo easy as the bride and groom did what I asked, but acted as if they were in their own world. It was good.

I totally missed that out of focus flower. How can that be? Thanks!

Thanks again for the very kind complements and helpful improvements.

jeffreaux2

shatch wrote:

Thanks jeffreaux2! I appreciate your comments. I have learned a lot from your photos and really like your style.

As for the actual wedding. The LDS temple is considered a sacred place. A place where when they enter, they are literally stepping into the House of the Lord. Because of their belief, they ask that all cameras and cell phones be checked at the front desk so the wedding won't have any distracting elements and the couple and those in attendance can focus 100% on the marriage covenants and commitment they are entering into. So...no photos of the actual ceremony.

Hmmmff!

Any chance I will get off that easy tommorrow?:D

Just kidding....I know you worked hard for what you got...and have the results to show for it. Most church lighting though was installed by electricians....not photographers. No ceremony photos would be fine by me!!!

urbanaries

shatch wrote:

Thank you urbanaries! The info on blue banding is very much appreciative. I added that in Lightroom. Will it still band bad?

It might be worth a test print, but my bad experience was in lightroom, too, I think I had taken the blue saturation, hue and luminance a bit too far, and with the added vignette it didn't render well in an 8x10. YMMV

And again, lovely set and lighting. One ?, you said you had "voice activated lighting"....seriously, how were you triggering the 580s from that distance? (esp in #9)

shatch

urbanaries wrote:

It might be worth a test print, but my bad experience was in lightroom, too, I think I had taken the blue saturation, hue and luminance a bit too far, and with the added vignette it didn't render well in an 8x10. YMMV

And again, lovely set and lighting. One ?, you said you had "voice activated lighting"....seriously, how were you triggering the 580s from that distance? (esp in #9)

Are you printing from your Smugmug site?

On the lighting...triggered with a set of Pocket Wizards. I would set the flash (intensity and zoom settings), then position the light on the pole and have the nephew "hold it right there". I believe the range of the PWs is around 1600' depending on the battery level and signal blockers. The new Radio poppers may be an option if you want to keep the ttl technology. I don't have any but they sound very interesting.

jeffreaux2

shatch wrote:

Are you printing from your Smugmug site?

On the lighting...triggered with a set of Pocket Wizards. I would set the flash (intensity and zoom settings), then position the light on the pole and have the nephew "hold it right there". I believe the range of the PWs is around 1600' depending on the battery level and signal blockers. The new Radio poppers may be an option if you want to keep the ttl technology. I don't have any but they sound very interesting.

Yes...the radio poppers do sound interesting....I have been keeping an eye on the development of them.

In other news....

I sometimes see banding like that in Smugmug web sized photos ....but not in full size. A test print is an excellent idea....even if only 4x6.

LensCap

Radio Poppers are to die for, they work as advertised. I don't leave home without them

shatch

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Hmmmff!

Any chance I will get off that easy tommorrow?:D

Just kidding....I know you worked hard for what you got...and have the results to show for it. Most church lighting though was installed by electricians....not photographers. No ceremony photos would be fine by me!!!

You are right about the electricians vs photographers. I did shoot a couple ceremonies in buildings that had terrible lighting. Good luck tomorrow. But I believe you will do amazing well as usual. Look forward to seeing the highlights.

shatch

LensCap wrote:

Radio Poppers are to die for, they work as advertised. I don't leave home without them

Quite affordable too as I remember.

LensCap

shatch wrote:

Quite affordable too as I remember.

$180 each

evoryware

I don't understand why she doesn't want you shooting weddings after seeing this.

How do PW's trigger a 580EX?

shatch

evoryware wrote:

I don't understand why she doesn't want you shooting weddings after seeing this.

How do PW's trigger a 580EX?

She would rather me be home with the family (which I too think is a good idea) instead of out shooting a wedding for cheap to free.

The PW's activate the flash in manual mode. It acts as a trip only. It doesn't convey any information from the camera other than, "set off the flash NOW!" signal. I have to manually adjust the flash for output so it is a little more hands on.