Madi and Mark ~ E-Session

JulieLawsonPhotography

These two are such a neat couple. They had never had their pics taken professionally before.

This was my first official engagement session and I'm shooting their wedding in June. Their wedding is going to be at The White Chapel on the Rose Hulman campus at 11:30 a.m. The church is ALL windows....if it's not an overcast day, how am I going to shoot this wedding if it's full sun out? I thought about shooting if RAW and taking the exposure down. Any tips out there for me?

Back to the session, being how they've never done a session before and this was my first e-session, i feel as if I could have done better. I know that the time I chose was wrong as there wasn't many places to go that had shade. It was 1 pm. I couldnt seem to shake my nerves and loosen up which I think shows in the pics.

Any suggestions on how to help couples relax if they aren't comfortable with sessions? I have another e-session in May at Indianapolis and would really love to feel better about that session.

*the couple has seen their photos and think they are wonderful for which I am very thankful for*

1.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Darren Troy C

Great job, Julie! 3, 7, & 9 are my faves of the bunch!

JulieLawsonPhotography

Idlewild wrote:

Great job, Julie! 3, 7, & 9 are my faves of the bunch!

Thanks Idlewild, I appreciate that.

heatherfeather

I bet you we see more of these in your future! This is a really great job!

I love #8... But they are all pretty nice! Way to go Julie!

pathfinder

Julie,

Very nice color balance, sharp images, and nicely posed.

These were shot in Bridgeton, weren't they?

I don't care for 7 and 10 as well myself, too much trees for my taste

JulieLawsonPhotography

heatherfeather wrote:

I bet you we see more of these in your future! This is a really great job!

I love #8... But they are all pretty nice! Way to go Julie!

Thanks Heather, I've booked 4 weddings this year and that is really pushing me to grow. I'm a little freaked out.

JulieLawsonPhotography

pathfinder wrote:

Julie,

Very nice color balance, sharp images, and nicely posed.

These were shot in Bridgeton, weren't they?

I don't care for 7 and 10 as well myself, too much trees for my taste

Thanks. I love the feedback.
It was in Bridgeton....those two aren't my fav's either. The shots I was looking for really couldn't happen because of the sun.
I do appreciate your honesty.

pathfinder

For shooting at 1 pm in the sunlight, I think you did great, Julie!

You recognized the issue, and avoided it by shooting in the shade or using fill flash or both.

I wasn't completely sure about the bridge, but the red building looked like Bridgeton to me. I have shot there many times.

sweet caroline

JulieLawsonPhotography wrote:

Thanks. I love the feedback.
It was in Bridgeton....those two aren't my fav's either. The shots I was looking for really couldn't happen because of the sun.
I do appreciate your honesty.

I think 7 and 10 would benefit from a vignette.

GREAT eyes in #2. I like the pose, too. I like #3 except that her back is slouchy, but still a nice shot.

Overall, a good set of photos.

Caroline

JulieLawsonPhotography

sweet caroline wrote:

I think 7 and 10 would benefit from a vignette.

GREAT eyes in #2. I like the pose, too. I like #3 except that her back is slouchy, but still a nice shot.

Overall, a good set of photos.

Caroline

Thanks Caroline. I don't know if its her height that made her do that. She is 6'1" and he's just about that. I'm 5'1". I knew I should have brought a stepladder that day.

jeffreaux2

These are truely well done Julie and I bet they are thrilled. In #3 he appears a tad uncomfortable, but regardless it is still my favorite.

5 and 6, the fill flash looks a tad too strong.....shadows from the flash. On number 6 especially, you probably could have skipped out on fill altogether. They appear to be lying on the ground and facing up. If this is so, their eyes would have been lit pretty well even with only available light from the sky above.

These are great...and well processed. Give yourself the pat on the back of looking back at some of the very first photos you posted on the forum....and then look again at these(i do this now and then)......my guess is that(like me) you will be very pleased with your progress.

JulieLawsonPhotography

jeffreaux2 wrote:

These are truely well done Julie and I bet they are thrilled. In #3 he appears a tad uncomfortable, but regardless it is still my favorite.

5 and 6, the fill flash looks a tad too strong.....shadows from the flash. On number 6 especially, you probably could have skipped out on fill altogether. They appear to be lying on the ground and facing up. If this is so, their eyes would have been lit pretty well even with only available light from the sky above.

These are great...and well processed. Give yourself the pat on the back of looking back at some of the very first photos you posted on the forum....and then look again at these(i do this now and then)......my guess is that(like me) you will be very pleased with your progress.

Thanks Jeff. I appreciate your comments.
Actually, all the comments on here are making me feel much better about the day.
I look at a number of people on here and your work and I take your techniques to heart and try to make them work for me too.

Scott_Quier

Not much I can add to what PF, Jeff, and Heather have already said. I think you did a stellar job and I'm not surprise the clients are pleased with the results.

As for shooting in a church with all windows and the very real chance that you will have to deal with a cloudless sky ... hmmmm .... that's a rough one. I have visions of bright sun-beams coming in through the windows, creating huge dynamic range problems. The only thing that comes to mind (what little I have) is to try to get as much of your subject either in the sunbeam or out of it. Limit, the degree you can, the shots where your subject is half-n-half. If that's not possible, expose for the face?

That's going to be a tough one.

I know ... pray for over-castwink

JulieLawsonPhotography

Scott_Quier wrote:

Not much I can add to what PF, Jeff, and Heather have already said. I think you did a stellar job and I'm not surprise the clients are pleased with the results.

As for shooting in a church with all windows and the very real chance that you will have to deal with a cloudless sky ... hmmmm .... that's a rough one. I have visions of bright sun-beams coming in through the windows, creating huge dynamic range problems. The only thing that comes to mind (what little I have) is to try to get as much of your subject either in the sunbeam or out of it. Limit, the degree you can, the shots where your subject is half-n-half. If that's not possible, expose for the face?

That's going to be a tough one.

I know ... pray for over-castwink

Thanks Scott. Thank you for your feedback on the church. I am going to be praying for an overcast day.

Here is a link to the site of the church.
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/Users/groups/StudentUnion/whitechapel/gallery.htm

Scott_Quier

JulieLawsonPhotography wrote:

Thanks Scott. Thank you for your feedback on the church. I am going to be praying for an overcast day.

Here is a link to the site of the church.
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/Users/groups/StudentUnion/whitechapel/gallery.htm

OMG - that is a beautiful sanctuary but you don't want over-cast skies with that church. That would turn the sky behind the alter into a huge softbox and you will never be able to compensate for that.

As it is, you will probably need to use lights to balance the light on "your" side of the B&G with the luminosity of the background. How to test for this .... at the same time of day at that church

• With your camera, zoom to fill your viewfinder with a shot of the sky. Record your exposure.
• Now, zoom into the near side of someone's face and take an exposure reading - record this.
• Compute the difference between these two readings. Is the difference more than about 1.5 or 2 stops? If so, you need lights to boost the exposure of your wedding party to up to something approximating that of the background.

No matter what you do, you DON'T want to under-expose your wedding party. Expose them correctly and let the rest fall where it may.

Here's a similar situation I encountered last year:


If you use lights, be aware there is one you will have to contend with ... the lights reflecting in the glass behind the wedding party - a major pain in the @$$ !! So be careful with positioning of the lights relative to that of the camera.

jeffreaux2

I agree with Scotts take on that church.....and I think, that if you pull it off....the photographs will be outta thius world. Is it possible you could make a few day trips there in advance...to practice on someone (in whire)?....and get yourself a game plan? The walls and roof look as if they might work well with some flash bounced at them rather than right at the wedding party. A pair of 580s fired via STE2 may be all you need there. In auto ETTL you could....

Set a "manual" exposure in camera that just under exposes the background.......that is....no blinkies on the histogram for the background. Then set the flash units, and ETTL should let them fire hard enough to bring the exposure up on the foreground.

Id practice first to:

Be sure of the positioning of the lights

Be sure that where you position yourself, the STE2 will fire the lights

Work out exposures......at least enough so that on "the day" you know what to do if the foreground is overexposing.....or the BG.....or whatever. This should only be a matter of slight changes to shutter speed or ISO at this point.....but it would be worth it to get comforatable shooting there.


You wont have to worry with gels either, just set it to daylight....and your flashes should match. You can adjust your WB in post to taste later.


Its an awesome location....I cant wait!

JulieLawsonPhotography

jeffreaux2 wrote:

I agree with Scotts take on that church.....and I think, that if you pull it off....the photographs will be outta thius world. Is it possible you could make a few day trips there in advance...to practice on someone (in whire)?....and get yourself a game plan?

I am going to have to get a game plan. I'll see if I can get access to it during this time of day. I don't have the equipment that you all have. And Scott...I'm not real familiar about this.

"

• With your camera, zoom to fill your viewfinder with a shot of the sky. Record your exposure.
• Now, zoom into the near side of someone's face and take an exposure reading - record this.
• Compute the difference between these two readings. Is the difference more than about 1.5 or 2 stops? If so, you need lights to boost the exposure of your wedding party to up to something approximating that of the background."

How do I take the exposure reading? Look at the histogram?

Scott_Quier

jeffreaux2 wrote:

The walls and roof look as if they might work well with some flash bounced at them rather than right at the wedding party. A pair of 580s fired via STE2 may be all you need there. In auto ETTL you could....

Set a "manual" exposure in camera that just under exposes the background.......that is....no blinkies on the histogram for the background. Then set the flash units, and ETTL should let them fire hard enough to bring the exposure up on the foreground.

(it sounds like Jeff and I are members of a mutual love society:D) but be mindful of your exposure settings. Once you need to get into HSS (or whatever Nikon calls it - Jeff and I are both Canon shooters) - you may have problems getting enough light to the subject. Same for the aperture - too small an aperture and your flashes will have a hard time keeping up with you and you may prematurely exhaust the charge in your batteries. But, play with it and see what you get.

To my mind, you will be sitting good if you can get the background slightly (1/2 to 2/3 stop) under-exposed at f/4 and 1/200, which is the maximum x-sync speed for your D40. If those settings are too dark for the background, I would bring the aperture down (to f/3.5 or larger) to save your flashes the extra work. The shutter speed, once it's below the x-sync of your camera, will have no impact on the amount of charge the flash expends per exposure.

JulieLawsonPhotography wrote:

I am going to have to get a game plan. I'll see if I can get access to it during this time of day. I don't have the equipment that you all have. And Scott...I'm not real familiar about this.

• With your camera, zoom to fill your viewfinder with a shot of the sky. Record your exposure.
• Now, zoom into the near side of someone's face and take an exposure reading - record this.
• Compute the difference between these two readings. Is the difference more than about 1.5 or 2 stops? If so, you need lights to boost the exposure of your wedding party to up to something approximating that of the background."

How do I take the exposure reading? Look at the histogram?

No, you look at your exposure meter in the viewfinder for each of these. Record the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. Do the math to determine the exposure difference between them. The easiest way is to set your camera to Av, set your ISO to anything you like. Now, zoom the lens at I indicated above. What's the indicated shutter speed? Do the same thing for the face.

Now, how many stops difference is there between the two shutter speeds? For example,

1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000, 1/4000

These are all, with the exception of the jump from 1/60 to 1/125, exactly 1 stop different. The key here is that you don't need to know exactly what the difference is - you just need to be close. After all, it's not rocket science

jeffreaux2

I am sure the D90 will fire remote flash units in "commander" mode but....this uses the onboard flash, and you will possibly...well probably...get reflections in the glass. The SU800 on the other hand (I believe.....come to the rescue nikonians!) would be a better choice as it uses an IR signal. The SB 600...800...or 900 speedlights can be rented. If you set a couple of those up to be fired with the D90....then you could use your personal flash on your D40 to grab shots of the processional and exit shots.

Using TTL auto flash would be my approach. It will be stupid simple once you find the balance you desire.

This will require some thought....some experimentation....and some money spent (on the SU800 and rentals)....but the results will be fabulous.


Since I am Canon dumb and Nikon Dumber.....I may be off on some of the terminology as Canon and Nikon use different terminology.....if so...and a Nikonian can help her out.....That'd be great!

Scott_Quier

I think I may have mis-led you ... further reseach indicates that your D40 has a x-sync speed of 1/500. If that's true (check your owner's manual for the facts), that gives you a lot more lattitude in matching the ambient with your flash. The faster the shutter, the less contribution you will get from the ambient (the stuff outside the windows) and the easier time your flash will have in keeping up.

dank-photo

nice set!!! 3,8, and 9 are my favorites...but in #5, it looks like the groom could be my identical twin!