Wedding Photos taken as a guest

djames

My wife and I were invited to an RSVP wedding of the flower girl from our youngest daughters wedding. I could not resist taking my camera along to capture a few shots myself. I did not get to observe the formal shooting, but I was not overly impressed with their official photographer during the wedding and reception. Enjoy and please be critical on how I can improve my shooting.



Father of the Bride prior to the wedding.



Brides entrance



Pastors thoughts and advice to the couple



Exchanging the rings



The grand exit ( it was starting to rain - HARD)



Heading for shelter



I want that bouquet



Grand departure



Caption not needed !!!!

heatherfeather

Not bad... 4 & 5 are not sharp, I think due to camera shake. 7 is pretty fun, just need to get the subject filling the frame, & not so much roof.
8 is the best of the bunch, although a bit cool/magenta-ish. On #6 did you notice the cool cloud reflection in the window? See if you can maximize that in post. Otherwise it is a pretty boring shot.

One question I have for you (since I do weddings) is what put you off about the wedding photographer? What made you "unimpressed"? & how can I avoid bugging the guests like you were bugged?

davidweaver

Heather nailed it IMHO. Before you beat up the paid photographer have you seen the post processed and corrected work that was shot? What was the 'pro' shooting with?

I'd suggest seeing if you can view some ofthat final work for a comparison.

Other than the soft shots which are corrected with higher ISO and shutter speeds, Heather basically mentions things that require post processing. Remember that shooting is only half the work. Actually only 1/5 the work for a pro. :-)


Cheers,
David

Scott_Quier

Heather nailed it pretty welll - though there are two things I see that REALLY bug me when I see it:

1. WB - Was her gown really blue? It appears that way in 2, 3, 6....

2. In every shot where we see it, her gown appears blown in a couple of spots. This can be excused in #4 - the dappled light is a killer and there's no way I know of to compensate for it.

But, as a guest who doesn't do weddings on a regular basis - really quite good. If you shot in RAW, the above problems can be easily corrected in post.

And, I have to second Heather's question, "What was it about the contracted photographer that did not impress?" I ask cause, granted, the pressing the button (shooting) is a small portion of the work to be done, but no amount of post work will compensate for pi$$ing people off. If he was doing something that I might do, I would rather learn from others' mistakes.

TonyL

Really nice shots.
I wouldn't have noticed the blue as previously posted but going back you do see it.
I like the colors of #7, but agree there is too much building in the shot.
Maybe crop in tighter?

djames

heatherfeather wrote:

Not bad... 4 & 5 are not sharp, I think due to camera shake. 7 is pretty fun, just need to get the subject filling the frame, & not so much roof.
8 is the best of the bunch, although a bit cool/magenta-ish. On #6 did you notice the cool cloud reflection in the window? See if you can maximize that in post. Otherwise it is a pretty boring shot.

One question I have for you (since I do weddings) is what put you off about the wedding photographer? What made you "unimpressed"? & how can I avoid bugging the guests like you were bugged?

Thank you for your observations. I will work on some post processsing and see if I can't improve some of them.

The photographer was a young female photographer with two Canon cameras. One with what looked a medium range telephoto and one in the longer telephoto. She appeared to me to be more interested in visiting than photographing. She attire bother me the most. 3/4 length jeans and flip flops that slapped her feet as she was walking were a distraction during the ceremony. At the reception she was sitting at a talbe removed from the wedding party and visiting with friends. several times I observed the wedding coordinator getting her to come take a shot. At one point her camera gear was left totally unattended for 15 minutes or so and I was thinking about how easy it would have been for her gear to have been stolen. Other than some nice gear and glass, my impression was that it was a friend taking snapshots. This is just my opinion and I have not seen any of her work.

Scott_Quier

djames wrote:

Thank you for your observations. I will work on some post processsing and see if I can't improve some of them.

The photographer was a young female photographer with two Canon cameras. One with what looked a medium range telephoto and one in the longer telephoto. She appeared to me to be more interested in visiting than photographing. She attire bother me the most. 3/4 length jeans and flip flops that slapped her feet as she was walking were a distraction during the ceremony. At the reception she was sitting at a talbe removed from the wedding party and visiting with friends. several times I observed the wedding coordinator getting her to come take a shot. At one point her camera gear was left totally unattended for 15 minutes or so and I was thinking about how easy it would have been for her gear to have been stolen. Other than some nice gear and glass, my impression was that it was a friend taking snapshots. This is just my opinion and I have not seen any of her work.

The gear sounds about right. I shoot with two Canon 30D bodies, one with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS on and the other with, usually, a 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Those cameras NEVER leave my body during the event.

But, her attire - not very professional.

Not trying to hold myself up as some sort of standard, but ...

For indoor events, I wear black slacks, black shirt, black shoes that don't squeek on any floor surface. The intent is to be as unobtrusive as possible. Black is harder to see than any other color, especially when the ambient light is dialed back - like at the reception. I don't wear a jacket or a tie. I'm moving all the time. I'm on the floor, either laying down, sitting, or kneeling and I just can't move effectively if I'm encoumbered by a jacket and tie.

For outdoor events - I will wear whatever the guests are to be wearing, but up a step. Again, the idea is to blend in as much as possible.

As a working professional, I'm contracted and paid to work. Not to eat. Not to talk to the guests and/or friends. I'm there to get the photos! Does that mean that I don't take a break once in a while and talk to some of the folks? Of course I do. But, I rarely sit done. I never leave my gear somewhere. And, while talking, I'm also scanning the event looking for the next "photo op" as I don't want to miss anything. One of the best compliments I have ever received was at the end of the last wedding. The MoB approached me and said that she never saw me not moving, that I was working the entire time.

TonyL

Scott_Quier wrote:

The gear sounds about right. I shoot with two Canon 30D bodies, one with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS on and the other with, usually, a 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Those cameras NEVER leave my body during the event.

But, her attire - not very professional.

Not trying to hold myself up as some sort of standard, but ...

For indoor events, I wear black slacks, black shirt, black shoes that don't squeek on any floor surface. The intent is to be as unobtrusive as possible. Black is harder to see than any other color, especially when the ambient light is dialed back - like at the reception. I don't wear a jacket or a tie. I'm moving all the time. I'm on the floor, either laying down, sitting, or kneeling and I just can't move effectively if I'm encoumbered by a jacket and tie.

For outdoor events - I will wear whatever the guests are to be wearing, but up a step. Again, the idea is to blend in as much as possible.

As a working professional, I'm contracted and paid to work. Not to eat. Not to talk to the guests and/or friends. I'm there to get the photos! Does that mean that I don't take a break once in a while and talk to some of the folks? Of course I do. But, I rarely sit done. I never leave my gear somewhere. And, while talking, I'm also scanning the event looking for the next "photo op" as I don't want to miss anything. One of the best compliments I have ever received was at the end of the last wedding. The MoB approached me and said that she never saw me not moving, that I was working the entire time.

Scott,
My attire is exactly as you described when I do any formal event.
Problem I ran into (you saw the gallery) is there was no wedding organizer and the DJ just played music so everyone was looking to me, so I told them how to cut the cake, etc. Was it in my scope of work no. Was I glad I did it? Yes and no. Yes because it helped out their day, but no because it took away from what I was paid to do.

Scott_Quier

cadguru wrote:

Scott,
My attire is exactly as you described when I do any formal event.
Problem I ran into (you saw the gallery) is there was no wedding organizer and the DJ just played music so everyone was looking to me, so I told them how to cut the cake, etc. Was it in my scope of work no. Was I glad I did it? Yes and no. Yes because it helped out their day, but no because it took away from what I was paid to do.

I've been the "wedding coordinator" more than once. Usually, it revolves around questions like, "What order should we do things in and what kind of timing?" and "How do we cut the cake?" or "Where should we stand when we cut the cake?". If you think about it, as the wedding photog, I've been to more wedding receptions than most anybody there. Answering those kinds of questions only takes a moment or two and really doesn't impact on "getting the shot" as nothing is happening when those kinds of questions pop up.

What I don't do is socalize with the guests. If they have photography type questions and nothing else is going on and the question is easy, I'll take a moment or two to answer. I did that at a wedding about a month ago, helping a lady with her flash (I introduced her to the Better Bounce Card) and she was sooooo appreciative. It really made her day for her and it cost me nothing except the rubber band I gave her so she could attach the 3x5 card.

TonyL

Scott_Quier wrote:

I've been the "wedding coordinator" more than once. Usually, it revolves around questions like, "What order should we do things in and what kind of timing?" and "How do we cut the cake?" or "Where should we stand when we cut the cake?". If you think about it, as the wedding photog, I've been to more wedding receptions than most anybody there. Answering those kinds of questions only takes a moment or two and really doesn't impact on "getting the shot" as nothing is happening when those kinds of questions pop up.

What I don't do is socalize with the guests. If they have photography type questions and nothing else is going on and the question is easy, I'll take a moment or two to answer. I did that at a wedding about a month ago, helping a lady with her flash (I introduced her to the Better Bounce Card) and she was sooooo appreciative. It really made her day for her and it cost me nothing except the rubber band I gave her so she could attach the 3x5 card.

Problem I run into at any event (not just the few weddings I have done) is when taking pictures and the client and I telling everyone that I shoot first then they can take their shots, but they cut in front anyway.

divamum

Scott_Quier wrote:

I did that at a wedding about a month ago, helping a lady with her flash (I introduced her to the Better Bounce Card) and she was sooooo appreciative. It really made her day for her and it cost me nothing except the rubber band I gave her so she could attach the 3x5 card.

And I'll bet that kind of goodwill comes back in the form of word-of-mouth recommendations, too. "Oh, that guy at my husband's niece's best friend's wedding was so sweet - so busy and yet he was really generous helping me out and so nice to chat to, and the pictures he took were GORGEOUS".

The musical world is also all abouta similar kind of networking, and it's chance moments like that which often generate the most unexpected results...

I'm a newbie here, but having read avidly over the last few weeks I get the impression, Scott, you're kind of the resident "harda**" who's honest enough to be blunt sometimes (I say that as a compliment, not an insult!), but your example above demonstrates to me the generosity of absolute professionalism and passion for what you do. Bravo, sir!

And, fwiw, if I was at a wedding where a professional photographer turned up in scruffy jeans, I'd be put off too. Of course when you're "working a gig" you don't dress to the nines, but it's entirely possible to be classy as well as comfortable, as many of you gents are amply demonstrating. It's not that hard to do both.

heatherfeather

Thanks djames for helping us learn from somebody elses mistakes... (not that I needed to worry about any of those things, but it is good to know that I am not screwing up in some mysterious way that I didn't know about)

I do find that being the photographer has many different roles. You would never know just how many of those flowers I pinned on the guys. One time I actually decorated just so the bride would stop and go get dressed. (that was a crazy one!) The bride and groom usually invite me to take a break and get something to eat- so I scarf (now there is proper English for you)and then get back to work- usually standing the whole time, with camera in hand, poised and ready to get the shot if I need it....

djames- I would love to see some edits of the photos you posted- there is some good stuf lurking in there.

Oh, and Scott he only pretends to be a hard @$$- he just likes to share his honest opinion, but behind lurks a pretty nice fellow.

Scott_Quier

cadguru wrote:

Problem I run into at any event (not just the few weddings I have done) is when taking pictures and the client and I telling everyone that I shoot first then they can take their shots, but they cut in front anyway.

Step on their feet (accidentally of course) and make them apologize. I've done it. It works. Or bump them. Or pop your strobes as they shoot. All kinds of ways to get it to happen.

Because I've already gotten an agreement with the bride (the primary client) with respect to their priorities (getting to the reception as soon as possible), I've also taken a few steps forward, turned to address all the "Uncle Bobs" and tell them that I'll be continuing when all the cameras have been moved out of view of all the people in the shot.

One of the most effective ways is to actually put your camera down, get the bride's attention, look at the offending guest and say something to the effect, "Please, let me know when you are finished so I can continue. I know you getting your shot is more important than getting everyone to the reception on time." You don't win any friends with that one, but it does work.

Scott_Quier

heatherfeather wrote:

Oh, and Scott he only pretends to be a hard @$$- he just likes to share his honest opinion, but behind lurks a pretty nice fellow.

Well, my DW seems to think I'm a nice fellow - at least she's still hanging around.ivar

But, yes, I know how to be a hard @$$ and get away with it with out offending the people on whose good side I must remain. Get between me and me doing my best work and watch out - it's not a pretty sight!

divamum

Scott_Quier wrote:

One of the most effective ways is to actually put your camera down, get the bride's attention, look at the offending guest and say something to the effect, "Please, let me know when you are finished so I can continue. I know you getting your shot is more important than getting everyone to the reception on time." You don't win any friends with that one, but it does work.

HA! You didn't ever have a career as a choral conductor, or middle school teacher did you?!??!? rofl

BPerron

I got married here and have shot a couple of weddings here...It is the Aerie at Eagle's landing huh?

That is just so crazy!

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

HA! You didn't ever have a career as a choral conductor, or middle school teacher did you?!??!? rofl

I'm not quite sure what your intent here is. Are you saying that a conductor or teacher will successfully employ these methods and that you've encountered them before?

But, to answer your question - No, I never been a choral conductor. I have been a teacher, a motorcycle safety instructor for the state of New Mexico and I've had a lot of child psychology training. If people are going to act like children, one of the best ways to get them to stop is to treat them as children.

djames

BPerron wrote:

I got married here and have shot a couple of weddings here...It is the Aerie at Eagle's landing huh?

That is just so crazy!

Yes you nailed the location. I am from Forest Grove and this was my first time to visit this location.

djames

heatherfeather wrote:

Thanks djames for helping us learn from somebody elses mistakes... (not that I needed to worry about any of those things, but it is good to know that I am not screwing up in some mysterious way that I didn't know about)

I do find that being the photographer has many different roles. You would never know just how many of those flowers I pinned on the guys. One time I actually decorated just so the bride would stop and go get dressed. (that was a crazy one!) The bride and groom usually invite me to take a break and get something to eat- so I scarf (now there is proper English for you)and then get back to work- usually standing the whole time, with camera in hand, poised and ready to get the shot if I need it....

djames- I would love to see some edits of the photos you posted- there is some good stuf lurking in there.

Oh, and Scott he only pretends to be a hard @$$- he just likes to share his honest opinion, but behind lurks a pretty nice fellow.

Thank you Heather for the kind comments and guidance. I will post again some of the shots after I spend a little time correcting oversights (like white balance) I did shoot raw and the only processing so far has been a little bit in lightroom.

p.s. I did some work in Wasilla a few years ago that turned out to be a monumental mistake. And no it had nothing to do with photography.

divamum

Scott_Quier wrote:

I'm not quite sure what your intent here is. Are you saying that a conductor or teacher will successfully employ these methods and that you've encountered them before?

Oh dear, I guess the humour and playfulness I was intending fell flat - no offense was intended and I certainly hope none was taken.....

(But yes, to answer your question, that is EXACTLY the kind of thing I've heard both from teachers and conductors when one member of a group is just NOT getting the message to be quiet/get out of the way/pay attention/whatever. It may not, as you say, win you friends, but it works

djames

Thanks to all for the suggestions given. Here are five of the shots that I have done a little more post processing. I appreciate the suggestions and critiques given.



warmed up the white balance.



warmed up the white balance. Reduced the highlights. Sharpened the image.



Adjusted the white balance and reduced the highlights.



Cropped the image and sharpened.



Cropped the image. Adjusted the white balbnce. Reduced the highlights.

Did I improve the images, or did I miss the boat.
Thanks for your input.

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

Oh dear, I guess the humour and playfulness I was intending fell flat - no offense was intended and I certainly hope none was taken.....

(But yes, to answer your question, that is EXACTLY the kind of thing I've heard both from teachers and conductors when one member of a group is just NOT getting the message to be quiet/get out of the way/pay attention/whatever. It may not, as you say, win you friends, but it works

I thought it might have been something like that so I was not offended, not even the slightest amount. And, yep, the humor didn't make it this far.

Scott_Quier

djames wrote:

Did I improve the images, or did I miss the boat.
Thanks for your input.

These are a huge improvement on the original postings. Continue along this path and you will have a winning set.

A couple of corrections I would make. The reflections in the windows need to be improved upon. Here's one example... Your WB was still quite a bit cool, so I warmed it up a bit to get her gown the right color. This, then, threw the WB of the reflection off a bit. A little masking work and there you go....

Swartzy

Hi. The second image with the pastor (take no offense) is a throw away...clearly blurry. The last shot with the bubbles has Soooooooo much potential! Great shot. I can think of some cool pp work that would make that baby rock! The one Scott worked on did help. May I suggest focused lighting on this in Photoshop? It's really about them, the dress (the backside) and the windows don't have any part in it.....so.....by simply using selective modes/masking/painting, you could change the entire flavor of this shot.

Just a few suggestions. Not bad overall...keep going!

djames

Thanks for all the suggestions and compliments. A little over a year ago I tried posting a photo on another site that shall remain un-named and the only comment I received was to forget about shooting people and stick to landscape. I decided that I needed to work on my people shots and think I am finally starting to show some promise. I still like landscapes.

idiom

Scott_Quier wrote:

The gear sounds about right. I shoot with two Canon 30D bodies, one with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS on and the other with, usually, a 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Those cameras NEVER leave my body during the event.

So, F/2.8 w/ a flash is adequate for weddings in general? Would there be situations where you might use a 50mm 1.4 or something? Or you are pretty much good with these two lenses? (Mostly I mean for the darker areas, church, and indoor reception)

Thanks.

Swartzy

idiom wrote:

So, F/2.8 w/ a flash is adequate for weddings in general? Would there be situations where you might use a 50mm 1.4 or something? Or you are pretty much good with these two lenses? (Mostly I mean for the darker areas, church, and indoor reception)

Thanks.

Here's the thing to remember about the more expensive (yes, faster) lenses. If the lens is an f/1.4 versus say an f/2.8, it will focus quicker as it uses the widest aperture for focusing regardless of what f/stop setting you use when clicking the shutter. That is a huge plus in low light conditions. Generally the f/1.4's are very fast to focus, silent and on target. Most have at least one f/1.8 in the bag and it will hunt (speaking of the 50mm fantastic plastic) in low light at times. Very sharp lens but not lightening quick. Typically an f/2.8 is sufficient but there are those raining, icky dark days that not much light streams in through the windows...and lighting in a sanctuary can be brutal.

I'm not the real brave type to shoot something at f/1.4 but those pj masters do it all day long with cool results. Again, it's a matter of distance to subject, f/stop, DOF. A wide angle shot...heck yea, f/1.4 works.

Just off the top of my head.....a common setting in many a churches (my experience only...others have different takes).....ISO 800, 1/60-1/80th sec. f/2.8-3.5 if this gives you any idea.....so, at f/1.4 you could get 200th sec. shutter speed with same ISO.

idiom

Swartzy wrote:

Most have at least one f/1.8 in the bag and it will hunt (speaking of the 50mm fantastic plastic) in low light at times. Very sharp lens but not lightening quick. Typically an f/2.8 is sufficient but there are those raining, icky dark days that not much light streams in through the windows...and lighting in a sanctuary can be brutal.

Yeah, I have heard, that the canon 50mm F1.8 is not that great of a lens. I heard that it's slow to focus for some reason. For this reason, I had planned on adding the canon 50mm F1.4 instead for the extra cash.

Swartzy wrote:

I'm not the real brave type to shoot something at f/1.4 but those pj masters do it all day long with cool results. Again, it's a matter of distance to subject, f/stop, DOF. A wide angle shot...heck yea, f/1.4 works.

So, from what I understand, at F1.4, if the subject is closer than a few meters, the DOF will be quite tight. I haven't really played with anything faster than 2.8. I own a Sigma 24-60 F/2.8 which I purchased recently. I am getting some great pictures with this lens, but I do find that here and there the focus seems to be a bit off. (Manually and AF, haha) So I assume that faster glass yet, like F1.4, is going to be even more finicky at the same distance to subject as the 2.8?

Swartzy wrote:

Just off the top of my head.....a common setting in many a churches (my experience only...others have different takes).....ISO 800, 1/60-1/80th sec. f/2.8-3.5 if this gives you any idea.....so, at f/1.4 you could get 200th sec. shutter speed with same ISO.

The last wedding I was at, (not shooting, just a guest, in fact this was before I even started thinking about wedding photography.) I did not have a flash yet, and only had my kit 18-55 F3.5/5.6, and 70-300 F4/5.6. It drove me batty that i couldn't get any good shots at the ceremony since zoomed, I was constantly at F5.6, with no flash. The next day I bought a 430EX II flash. haha. I have noticed a considerable difference moving to the F2.8 already.

Thanks very much for the input.

Scott_Quier

idiom wrote:

So, F/2.8 w/ a flash is adequate for weddings in general? Would there be situations where you might use a 50mm 1.4 or something? Or you are pretty much good with these two lenses? (Mostly I mean for the darker areas, church, and indoor reception)

Thanks.

I couldn't agree more with what Swartzy has posted. I've not yet run into a situation where ISO 800, f/2.8, 1/30 didn't do the job, but I have the 50mm f/1.4 in the bag just in case. I've actually used it once, but not because of lighting, but because I wanted to - it' nice to change off once in a while.

When I first started, I did all my jobs with a couple of cameras, a couple of f/2.8 zooms, and a couple of 580EX flashes (each setup mounted on a flash bracket to keep the flash in the right places ) - though never during a ceremony. Now, however, I do most of my lighting with off-camera flash - strobes of some kind to light the portraits (usually in the church) and the reception. Off-camera light give better and more dynamic light.

On the other hand, jeffreaux2 has a technique (check out this thread) of using a 580EX that really sounds interesting for the small, intimate receptions; one that I think I'm going to gear up for and experiment with one day....

idiom wrote:

So, from what I understand, at F1.4, if the subject is closer than a few meters, the DOF will be quite tight. I haven't really played with anything faster than 2.8. I own a Sigma 24-60 F/2.8 which I purchased recently. I am getting some great pictures with this lens, but I do find that here and there the focus seems to be a bit off. (Manually and AF, haha) So I assume that faster glass yet, like F1.4, is going to be even more finicky at the same distance to subject as the 2.8?

Check out the DOFMaster - that website does a great job of describing the impact of camera-subject distance, aperture, and focal length on the perceived DOF.

As for the Siggy being a bit off - it could well be that the lens is not up to spec. Do some focus testing (a good google search will offer up lots of different ways of doing this) to determine if you are having technique issues or hardware (lens/camera) issues. But, in general, the wider the aperture, the more precise the focus needs to be to ensure your subject point of interest in, indeed, in focus.

Swartzy

So, from what I understand, at F1.4, if the subject is closer than a few meters, the DOF will be quite tight. I haven't really played with anything faster than 2.8. I own a Sigma 24-60 F/2.8 which I purchased recently. I am getting some great pictures with this lens, but I do find that here and there the focus seems to be a bit off. (Manually and AF, haha) So I assume that faster glass yet, like F1.4, is going to be even more finicky at the same distance to subject as the 2.8?

Yes, f/1.4 will give you fits if you are pretty close. Of course, I'm one of those individuals who hates one eye in focus and one out....drives me nuts....but some love that stuff. Wish there was a way to have the DOF master implanted in the brain. After a while you come to the point that it's like, "geez, I'm 10 feet away and zoomed in tight....better stop it down a bit" ....cause at f/1.4.....eeeek. I don't know how those PJ wedding dudes do it