Melodina - you did get paid with experience and gear, I think what Matt was saying is - you could have not spent $300 on a lens etc and gotten a second shooter is all.
I'm still not sure how to post specific photos here but I think you can go to my wall (is that what you call it) and see the Roswog - Miller pre-wedding, wedding and reception photos
Well Matt ........... as always I thank you for even responding. I expect to receive some tough advice. The only way to keep going is to pay attention to the good and bad. You gotta remember though, my Sister wouldn't hire a 2nd shooter. And sorry, "I'm" not going to hire one! I didn't get paid myself? Oh, but in reality ....... I did in so many different ways. I do know of some photographers that do a lot of weddings for members of our church in this area. I've thought about asking them if I could 2nd shoot with them sometime. And thanks, too, for the positive note.
Thanks Melodina for making me smile - broadly. Glad you are having fun. You got me too..
Oh ......... My ....... Goodness!! 8 million hours later I finally figure out how to make visible my homepage! I keep trying? Dave asked about my "wall". This is not Face Book. OK - My "homepage" now works when you click my name to see the wedding shots. Thanks for being patient. By the way, if you do look, I'm open for suggestions on getting better on anything. Now that the wedding is over I plan to learn how to post more efficiently.
I took a look at pictures. Just for the record I was very skeptical when you initially posted about your intentions. Results? Not bad. There are plenty of things you could have done better of course but the exposure and and focus were for the most part decent. Every once in a while I came a across a shot that was in the "good" range. From the perspective of where you started and the results..I would call this a mild success..you have lot's to be proud of.
The obvious weaknesses include..white balance on the church shots, bare flash (no no!), and general framing/composition.
Well, I'm not in much of a position to tell anyone if their wedding shots are good, but hey they look pretty good for a first try! (at least from a technical standpoint)
Well, I'm not in much of a position to tell anyone if their wedding shots are good, but hey they look pretty good for a first try! (at least from a technical standpoint)
Well, I'm not in much of a position to tell anyone if their wedding shots are good, but hey they look pretty good for a first try! (at least from a technical standpoint)
The pics do look good for a first wedding - and for a first DSLR !
I took a look at pictures. Just for the record I was very skeptical when you initially posted about your intentions. Results? Not bad. There are plenty of things you could have done better of course but the exposure and and focus were for the most part decent. Every once in a while I came a across a shot that was in the "good" range. From the perspective of where you started and the results..I would call this a mild success..you have lot's to be proud of.
The obvious weaknesses include..white balance on the church shots, bare flash (no no!), and general framing/composition.
I remember your post ......... thanks for the vote of confidence from all of you! As far as the church shots. I used a flash bounce for all but the ceremony. It fit right on the flash (rectangular). I used that one (since the one I ordered was safely delivered to my address in Maryland ....... when I needed it in Indiana). sighhh The one delivered here is a "flash adapter and dome" from harbordigitaldesign.com. (adorama was out of stock). It fits on this sigma flash MUCH better. The rectangular one fell off a number of times during the reception.
I noticed some church shots were a golden hue .... then more white ....... always changing? That's my next assignment. Learn about controlling all of that!
Technical caveat with the 7d: don't try to use wide open apertures and let it pick its own focus points. Set it to single focus point (not auto or zone) and make sure YOU decide which one to use, and place it over whatever you want to be in sharp focus. This is particularly important at wide (small number) apertures!!!
As mentioned above, it's a superb machine, but it's complex and takes some getting used to. The auto exposure modes will be fine (Av will be your friend if you're not comfortable shooting manual), but the AF assumes the photographer will take charge of it - if you leave it to the camera, in situations where there is critical depth of field, it may not focus where you intend and the shots will be useless. Really, REALLY take the time to figure out the AF settings - this means a long afternoon with the manual, and a lot of really bad practice shots. You'll be glad you took the time
I wanted to say to you, especially, that your auto focus suggestions for the 7D were "very" helpful to me. Many pixs did not have clarity for all the subjects? I tried what you said with the auto focus and "single focus". Finally, everyone in the pixs were clear (not just one person!) Funny how one little suggestion can be so helpful. Thanks again.........
Yeah, you might want to go page for page with the user manual and piece all of that together. Sooner or later, the camera will become an autonomous part of your body. lol.
I wanted to say to you, especially, that your auto focus suggestions for the 7D were "very" helpful to me. Many pixs did not have clarity for all the subjects? I tried what you said with the auto focus and "single focus". Finally, everyone in the pixs were clear (not just one person!) Funny how one little suggestion can be so helpful. Thanks again.........
There is SOOOOOO much to learn about aperture, focus and depth! Again, I'll encourage you to pour over your camera, and online learning resources, to better understand things like depth and aperture. Getting "additional faces" in sharp focus is 100x more complicated than simply flipping one switch on the camera.
I wanted to say to you, especially, that your auto focus suggestions for the 7D were "very" helpful to me. Many pixs did not have clarity for all the subjects? I tried what you said with the auto focus and "single focus". Finally, everyone in the pixs were clear (not just one person!) Funny how one little suggestion can be so helpful. Thanks again.........
There is SOOOOOO much to learn about aperture, focus and depth! Again, I'll encourage you to pour over your camera, and online learning resources, to better understand things like depth and aperture. Getting "additional faces" in sharp focus is 100x more complicated than simply flipping one switch on the camera.
So, get out there and shoot! :-)
Very glad I could help, Melodina. Learning how to focus accurately at wide apertures is challenging, and the inherent difficulties aren't immediately obvious through the viewfinder, but at least with a single focus-point you stand a better chance of nailing your subject.
That said, I agree with Matt - that's just *one* piece of the puzzle. I'm very glad it helped, but now's the time learn how and why it did so you can make your own choices in the future! Definitely worth getting to grips with the basics eg aperture and how it affects depth of field, shutter speed and how it affects sharpness, and how ISO affects the relationship between them. Understanding these elements and how they work together will give you *control* over your shots... even if you're shooting in the semi-automatic modes like Av and Tv rather than full manual.
I haven't read it, but I believe there's an excellent book on the basics called "Understanding Exposure" - perhaps somebody else can chime in on this, but from what I"ve heard about it, it sounds like it might be just what you need to fill you in.
I just found a photography group, calvertphotographyclub.com, here in my County. Anxious to meet them and keep learning. I'm checking the Community College here for a photography class.
I took at crack at one of your shots, Melodina.
I did a screen capture off of your web site.
Everyone's opinion will be different on how to process a photo, this is mine.
When a bride a glancing out the window, as if looking for her groom, I feel she should be in a soft light.
This shot of your niece is very nice, but I think the light is just a bit harsh, and her left eye is just out of focus.
So I tried to change those two things.
Not knowing what your skill level is at Photoshop, I hope I'm helping and not taking you places that you are well aware of.
I did most of the processing in camera raw (aka ACR)
ACR is a great tool now for folks like me that shoot JPG's. I think PS version CS3 was the first version to allow this.
So what I did, I softened the shot using the clarity slider, I tried for a slightly warmer white balance, though I don't
think I did a very good job on that. Then added a vignette and removed some of the color to again soften the shot.
In PS, I worked a bit on the exposure, brightening it up a bit, and sharpening that left eye.
Like I say, everyone has a different idea on how to make a shot work, this is mine.
the before.
the after.
When I did the processing, I recorded the screen with Quicktime.
Here's a link to that video. LINK
Your experiment was a good one because I don't have photo shop. I have worked some with picnik and have found that you can spend HOURS on one photo!? I really like the "softness" in the dress. Nice difference! And the vignette has always been a favorite of mine. I never noticed the left eye? You're right. Amazing all the errors I am noticing with some of the suggestions above. Errors to which I was clueless. It's fun to see these things. To be able to look at a photo with entirely "new" eyes. An amazing world lies ahead of me! Thanks for your interest.....
Okay, IMHO you should get Photoshop right now if you don't have it... even Elements, the scaled-down and cheaper version of CS5/CS4/CS3...
I have CS2, and it does everything I need it to do.
While PS is great..the learning curve is too much. Get Light room or aperture. These tools were made for photo processing from the ground up and are much more intuitive and can do 95% of what PS can do for images.
I just found a photography group, calvertphotographyclub.com, here in my County. Anxious to meet them and keep learning. I'm checking the Community College here for a photography class.
If you work and if finding a class schedule that works for you then you might want to check out New York Institute of Photography ...... I know lots of Photogs that took their courses....of course at one time they were the ONLY photog school offering home study........
While PS is great..the learning curve is too much. Get Light room or aperture. These tools were made for photo processing from the ground up and are much more intuitive and can do 95% of what PS can do for images.
sapphire73Registered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 1,972moderator
edited March 25, 2011
Melodina, I sort of came across this thread by chance. That is, I was looking through dgrin to see what folks think of various lenses and read the beginning and end of this thread. Looks like you got lots of great advice from these great folks! I am just going to add my two cents worth as far as post-processing goes. I second the recommendation to get Lightroom. When I started spending more time shooting and processing images, I first got photoshop elements because it is so affordable. It wasn't long before I purchased Lightroom for post-processing and to help me catalog the images! I am post-processing RAW files with Lightroom and then making further adjustments in Photoshop as needed. I used Scott Kelby's books (Photoshop Elements 6 and then Lightroom 2) to help me learn the ropes and also found some online tutorials that were a great help. Wishing you all the best!
I'm listening! Lightroom ...... New York Institute of Photography ...... Keep pouring over my manual and shooting at the same time. Does anyone know if taking a course at the community college has any advantages or disadvantages to taking one online? And as far as all this post processing, hmmmmm. It's almost a shame that our blessings of technology are now an expected part of the final product. When it used to be - the talent and art of taking the picture. I realize it has it's advantages but it's still kind of sad to see. I almost don't want to delve into it too deep, rather, learn more of "taking" the picture than "changing" it. I know ........... at this point in my life I NEED all the post processing (and surely did use and appreciate it after the wedding). Just thoughts ......... I tend to always like the more natural route to life.
- digital processing = darkroom of old. If you shoot raw (and there are many good arguments to do so), then those images NEED processing. Don't consider it "altering" but "developing".
- Yes, IME a community college course is worth doing. They will of course vary according to whoever is teaching it, but for the kind of technical basics you're exploring, it will be an ideal starting point, and probably a lot of fun. You may find that a Photo 101 course requires you to work with film as well as digital (many teachers feel that it's worth going "old school" first, and there's something to that), but you can pick up film SLR's cheaply enough (Craigslist or the like). You may also have access to studio facilities which is very useful, too.
- digital processing = darkroom of old. If you shoot raw (and there are many good arguments to do so), then those images NEED processing. Don't consider it "altering" but "developing".
- Yes, IME a community college course is worth doing. They will of course vary according to whoever is teaching it, but for the kind of technical basics you're exploring, it will be an ideal starting point, and probably a lot of fun. You may find that a Photo 101 course requires you to work with film as well as digital (many teachers feel that it's worth going "old school" first, and there's something to that), but you can pick up film SLR's cheaply enough (Craigslist or the like). You may also have access to studio facilities which is very useful, too.
I agree that a community college course would be worth while, unless they wanted me to start with film.
Although you'd still get the basics of aperture/shutter/iso, the time wasted on developing film would send me over the edge.
Find a course that is digital only, that's where your photography is headed, why not stay on that road.
For processing, like others have said, Lightroom does a very good job of tweaking your shots.
The one thing I can't stand about it is loading my shots into the library.
If it would use Bridge the way CS5 does, I'd give it 2 thumbs up. Because of the library, only 1 thumb up.
Photoshop CS5 is a more complex program. It can help you turn trash into something good. (I know, I do it with every shot)
But the learning curve is very steep, and if you don't use it often, you'll forget how to do what.
With lightroom, you're mostly just moving sliders till the shot looks like you remember.
If you want your shots to look better straight from the camera, shoot JPG's. The camera will do some of the work for you prettying up the shots.
But, if you shoot JPG's, your camera settings have to be very close to spot on.
You will lose a lot of the forgiveness that a RAW file gives you.
I shoot JPG's, and I get what I tell the camera to give me. Sometimes, I give it very bad info.
To recap:
CS5 - lots of learning
Lightroom 3 - some learning, but much easier to get started with.
Photography class - good idea, but not one that want's to start you off with film.
Good luck. It seems like a lot right now, but it does come along fairly quickly once you get started.
As others have said, post processing is just the digital darkroom. Lightroom doesn't dramatically change the shot, it makes it better. Example: You underexpose a shot, and the white balance is off. With Lightroom you can brighten it up and correct the WB to what it actually looked like when you took the shot.
For dramatically changing shots, Photoshop is powerful, much more than Lightroom. If you just want to tweak settings like brightness and stuff, then you can save yourself $500 of whatever by not getting photoshop, but Lightroom instead ;~).
I am following a community course at the moment and enjoying it. It is part of the Belgian adult education system so professionally run and it is so basic that some people need to be taught how to turn the camera on. I joined up initially because my wife wanted to go and thinks we need to do more together. Despite having taking photos since age 7, I am learning to my surprise and my photography is improving. My wife likes it too.
I think I understand the theory, but going back to basics and taking eg a whole series of photos to understand dof or exposure adjustments is something I did not do for decades. Then showing them to the class on a Wednesday morning, well you better be sure you got it right.
The other side is social - you meet people with the same passion and have fun. You can help them, and maybe they help you.
In the last few weeks I have learned things about my camera that I did not know, and some things I always found difficult in theory like exposure adjustment I have learned to see in a completely new light. And I am having fun. I am fed up that I have to miss next week's morning at the community college because I have to work.
I think the joy of photography is that you never stop learning and sometime learn important lessons in the most unexpected places.
PS on the RAW thing. I am a believer in knowing how to get things right in camera, ie JPEG. Yesterday, I volunteered to take photos for a theatrical event - 40 shots in total. Shooting in JPEG saved me a lot of time although I normally shoot RAW only.
PSS. When you have Apple you should consider Aperture instead of Lightroom.
Fun ideas and observations. I'm excited! I suppose a lot of what you all referred to - lightroom vs. photoshop, dark room = post processing, learning iso and aperture, etc I'll learn about in my class. Funny? The college is only offering digital "editing" classes NOT a photography class? Maybe because it's Spring? Maybe in the Fall there would be more. I'll check with the photography club here. They'll have more ideas, I'm sure.
Comments
Glad you enjoyed yourself
Sorry the 7D error showed up
Do you have a link?
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Thanks Melodina for making me smile - broadly. Glad you are having fun. You got me too..
I took a look at pictures. Just for the record I was very skeptical when you initially posted about your intentions. Results? Not bad. There are plenty of things you could have done better of course but the exposure and and focus were for the most part decent. Every once in a while I came a across a shot that was in the "good" range. From the perspective of where you started and the results..I would call this a mild success..you have lot's to be proud of.
The obvious weaknesses include..white balance on the church shots, bare flash (no no!), and general framing/composition.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
+1 Nice job!
The pics do look good for a first wedding - and for a first DSLR !
I noticed some church shots were a golden hue .... then more white ....... always changing? That's my next assignment. Learn about controlling all of that!
Would you mind if I reworked one or two of your shots and post them in this thread?
I'll do a short movie showing what I did.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
So, get out there and shoot! :-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Very glad I could help, Melodina. Learning how to focus accurately at wide apertures is challenging, and the inherent difficulties aren't immediately obvious through the viewfinder, but at least with a single focus-point you stand a better chance of nailing your subject.
That said, I agree with Matt - that's just *one* piece of the puzzle. I'm very glad it helped, but now's the time learn how and why it did so you can make your own choices in the future! Definitely worth getting to grips with the basics eg aperture and how it affects depth of field, shutter speed and how it affects sharpness, and how ISO affects the relationship between them. Understanding these elements and how they work together will give you *control* over your shots... even if you're shooting in the semi-automatic modes like Av and Tv rather than full manual.
I haven't read it, but I believe there's an excellent book on the basics called "Understanding Exposure" - perhaps somebody else can chime in on this, but from what I"ve heard about it, it sounds like it might be just what you need to fill you in.
I did a screen capture off of your web site.
Everyone's opinion will be different on how to process a photo, this is mine.
When a bride a glancing out the window, as if looking for her groom, I feel she should be in a soft light.
This shot of your niece is very nice, but I think the light is just a bit harsh, and her left eye is just out of focus.
So I tried to change those two things.
Not knowing what your skill level is at Photoshop, I hope I'm helping and not taking you places that you are well aware of.
I did most of the processing in camera raw (aka ACR)
ACR is a great tool now for folks like me that shoot JPG's. I think PS version CS3 was the first version to allow this.
So what I did, I softened the shot using the clarity slider, I tried for a slightly warmer white balance, though I don't
think I did a very good job on that. Then added a vignette and removed some of the color to again soften the shot.
In PS, I worked a bit on the exposure, brightening it up a bit, and sharpening that left eye.
Like I say, everyone has a different idea on how to make a shot work, this is mine.
the before.
the after.
When I did the processing, I recorded the screen with Quicktime.
Here's a link to that video. LINK
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
I have CS2, and it does everything I need it to do.
While PS is great..the learning curve is too much. Get Light room or aperture. These tools were made for photo processing from the ground up and are much more intuitive and can do 95% of what PS can do for images.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
If you work and if finding a class schedule that works for you then you might want to check out New York Institute of Photography ...... I know lots of Photogs that took their courses....of course at one time they were the ONLY photog school offering home study........
My SmugMug Galleries
- digital processing = darkroom of old. If you shoot raw (and there are many good arguments to do so), then those images NEED processing. Don't consider it "altering" but "developing".
- Yes, IME a community college course is worth doing. They will of course vary according to whoever is teaching it, but for the kind of technical basics you're exploring, it will be an ideal starting point, and probably a lot of fun. You may find that a Photo 101 course requires you to work with film as well as digital (many teachers feel that it's worth going "old school" first, and there's something to that), but you can pick up film SLR's cheaply enough (Craigslist or the like). You may also have access to studio facilities which is very useful, too.
I agree that a community college course would be worth while, unless they wanted me to start with film.
Although you'd still get the basics of aperture/shutter/iso, the time wasted on developing film would send me over the edge.
Find a course that is digital only, that's where your photography is headed, why not stay on that road.
For processing, like others have said, Lightroom does a very good job of tweaking your shots.
The one thing I can't stand about it is loading my shots into the library.
If it would use Bridge the way CS5 does, I'd give it 2 thumbs up. Because of the library, only 1 thumb up.
Photoshop CS5 is a more complex program. It can help you turn trash into something good. (I know, I do it with every shot)
But the learning curve is very steep, and if you don't use it often, you'll forget how to do what.
With lightroom, you're mostly just moving sliders till the shot looks like you remember.
If you want your shots to look better straight from the camera, shoot JPG's. The camera will do some of the work for you prettying up the shots.
But, if you shoot JPG's, your camera settings have to be very close to spot on.
You will lose a lot of the forgiveness that a RAW file gives you.
I shoot JPG's, and I get what I tell the camera to give me. Sometimes, I give it very bad info.
To recap:
CS5 - lots of learning
Lightroom 3 - some learning, but much easier to get started with.
Photography class - good idea, but not one that want's to start you off with film.
Good luck. It seems like a lot right now, but it does come along fairly quickly once you get started.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
For dramatically changing shots, Photoshop is powerful, much more than Lightroom. If you just want to tweak settings like brightness and stuff, then you can save yourself $500 of whatever by not getting photoshop, but Lightroom instead ;~).
I think I understand the theory, but going back to basics and taking eg a whole series of photos to understand dof or exposure adjustments is something I did not do for decades. Then showing them to the class on a Wednesday morning, well you better be sure you got it right.
The other side is social - you meet people with the same passion and have fun. You can help them, and maybe they help you.
In the last few weeks I have learned things about my camera that I did not know, and some things I always found difficult in theory like exposure adjustment I have learned to see in a completely new light. And I am having fun. I am fed up that I have to miss next week's morning at the community college because I have to work.
I think the joy of photography is that you never stop learning and sometime learn important lessons in the most unexpected places.
PS on the RAW thing. I am a believer in knowing how to get things right in camera, ie JPEG. Yesterday, I volunteered to take photos for a theatrical event - 40 shots in total. Shooting in JPEG saved me a lot of time although I normally shoot RAW only.
PSS. When you have Apple you should consider Aperture instead of Lightroom.