Engagement Session from Sunday

anonymouscuban

I shot some photos of this young couple last Sunday. They're getting married in November and wanted some engagement photos. Thought about sharing them in the Wedding forum but you all are my peeps!!

This was a first for me. Had fun and best of all, the couple loves them.

1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9


10

divamum

Oh wow. You just keep getting better and better! These are terrific. I'll be doing an eshoot soon (first one in ages), so thanks for some fresh ideas

anonymouscuban

divamum wrote: »

Oh wow. You just keep getting better and better! These are terrific. I'll be doing an eshoot soon (first one in ages), so thanks for some fresh ideas

Thanks Diva. I'm pretty proud of these. Its funny because the first 10-15 minutes of the session, I felt very lost because this was a brand new location for me. I had never visited the place before since it was their choice and a last minute location request change. I finally relaxed and found my "groove" and really started to "see" the shots. It's a community garden in Pasadena. I got the stink-eye from an old woman because I think I was shooting from places you're not supposed to step on. . I was careful not to mess up any flowers but I don't think she cared.

The couple is into dressing up in vintage 30's style clothing and swing dancing. We started to talk after the session and they mentioned they want to do a second set of photos in that style. We chatted for a bit and suggested a "Film Noir" set using some of the older areas of Pasadena as a backdrop. They loved it and we loosely agreed to do them in a few weeks. Have to firm things up with them but I'm really excited about it.

Hackbone

I love the color and processing in these, you've got great color & exposure. There are a lot of things I would change but that is because these are not my style, more traditional. That being said you did a really great job on these. My only nit is you are obsessed with framing and foreground and at times I feel that takes away from them. 2 & 3 for me.

Qarik

bing bango bongo! good stuff..why is the dude photobombing his own image in 4 though? haha

the only flaw that stuck out was the "pillar" of blownoutness (I like making up words) on 9.

anonymouscuban

Hackbone wrote: »

I love the color and processing in these, you've got great color & exposure. There are a lot of things I would change but that is because these are not my style, more traditional. That being said you did a really great job on these. My only nit is you are obsessed with framing and foreground and at times I feel that takes away from them. 2 & 3 for me.

Thanks Hack. I guess we'll chalk your nits up to creative differences, which I completely understand.

Qarik wrote: »

bing bango bongo! good stuff..why is the dude photobombing his own image in 4 though? haha

the only flaw that stuck out was the "pillar" of blownoutness (I like making up words) on 9.

He did photobomb the shot and I loved it. So did they. It's one of their favorites because it's speaks to their playfulness.

Good point on #9... didn't really bother me till you pointed it out. It's just to camera right of him, right?

cbbr

Great set Alex - I can see why they are happy. You really used the light and foliage to your advantage. Its also great that you can see how much fun they were having.

michaelglenn

These are awesome Alex! I absolutely love #1

anonymouscuban

cbbr wrote: »

Great set Alex - I can see why they are happy. You really used the light and foliage to your advantage. Its also great that you can see how much fun they were having.

Thanks. It was a beautiful day and I decided to ditch my flashes and use natural light. I did use a reflector on a few of them but as was debated thoroughly in another thread, a reflector is not a light source. Or wait, was it one? No matter... We had a lot of fun during the session regardless of how you define it.

michaelglenn wrote: »

These are awesome Alex! I absolutely love #1

Thanks Michael.

PhilD41

To be honest, this does nothing for me but make me even more depressed that we still have snow on the ground outside. Oh Well, it has to warm up sometime. Okay, honestly, these are fantastic!! Colors are amazing as is the exposures (mentioned before). I also like your framing, but I tend to do that as well. Great job!!!

anonymouscuban

PhilD41 wrote: »

To be honest, this does nothing for me but make me even more depressed that we still have snow on the ground outside. Oh Well, it has to warm up sometime. Okay, honestly, these are fantastic!! Colors are amazing as is the exposures (mentioned before). I also like your framing, but I tend to do that as well. Great job!!!

Thanks Phil. I feel your pain man. Its really a pain trying to figure out if I should wear shorts or if I should wear pants every morning. And heaven forbid the days when I can't decide between going surfing in the morning or just hanging around the pool and having a couple beers.

Kidding aside, we do have easy here in Southern California. Something I have to remind myself come tax time. Its so expensive to live here but I don't think I could live in any other state. Other country... for sure but not another state.

wave01

I think you have done a very good job and i am sure they will be very happy with them. well done

VayCayMom

wowzer, you hit the bullseye! What lens did you use ? Love Love the bokeh.

anonymouscuban

wave01 wrote: »

I think you have done a very good job and i am sure they will be very happy with them. well done

Thank you. And yes, they are very happy.

VayCayMom wrote: »

wowzer, you hit the bullseye! What lens did you use ? Love Love the bokeh.

Thanks Trudy. I used what has become the lens that is basically permanently attached to my D700: Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI. Absolutely love this lens. I only wish it would have been the first lens I purchased rather than the last.

divamum

anonymouscuban wrote: »

Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI. Absolutely love this lens. I only wish it would have been the first lens I purchased rather than the last.

I am about topple as well - I have fought long and hard against the 2.8 70-200 zoom series partly for cost, but also for *weight*. But I rented one this week since I had so many shoots, and I'm now thinking "How the hell would I manage without it?". Trying to figure out what I can sell to fund it (my child and my body are not options )

Lightsearcher

The pictures are great Alex, my favorites are 1-5-3 and 9 is nice how you framed it and included the blue vessel with the plant.

Thank you for sharing.

Marcelo

Bryce Wilson

divamum wrote: »

I am about topple as well - I have fought long and hard against the 2.8 70-200 zoom series partly for cost, but also for *weight*. But I rented one this week since I had so many shoots, and I'm now thinking "How the hell would I manage without it?". Trying to figure out what I can sell to fund it (my child and my body are not options )

Interesting.

Although Alex has achieved wonderful results (Big time Kudos to you Alex on this shoot) with that lens, and you also seem to be a big fan via your comments on the rental. My thoughts are a bit different and before you go out and buy a mini skirt and garish makeup:D, I'm gonna chime in!

I have the 70-200 VR II. While I absolutely love the lens for sports, dance, theater etc. I've only used it a couple of times doing outdoor portraiture and I wasn't really comfortable with it.

When doing scenic portraiture of people with it I felt that I was too far away from the subjects to keep an ongoing dialogue with them without shouting. That made me uncomfortable at least with the shooting style I use to get candid expressions.

After using it a few times, I went back to using my trusty old 35-70mm 2.8 (300.00 used) for scenic type shots with people in them and the 105mm 2.8 (800.00 new) for closer head shot/intimate work. It does help to have two bodies so you don't have to change lenses though.

If I would have purchased this lens just for outdoor portraiture, I would have been less than thrilled, but it may be because of my particular style.

My two cents for what their worth.

zoomer

70-200 2.8 is the best portrait lens, you show that here. The separation and sharpness you can get at 200mm at 2.8 is gorgeous.

With engagements it is all about the relationship....if you capture that... all else is forgiven.

You did capture the relationship and not much on the techs to be forgiven. Really nice work!

Hackbone

The compression factor is very different from the 70-200 and the 35-70. The first one looks more realistic to ones eye than the 35-70. It does help if you shoot from a tripod on the 70-200 however.

Bryce Wilson

How do you deal with having to be in a different county to frame a shot properly and still maintain control of the subjects? Especially little ones?

zoomer

can't speak for Alex....
For me I never noticed it being a problem at all....usually being far away is an advantage...although sometimes when I turn away and walk off then turn back around my client will have a funny look on their face like they are wondering where I am going haha.

For groups of more than 4 I use the 24-70.

Hackbone

Got my practice by shooting weddings.

anonymouscuban

Are you on a crop body or FF Bryce?

I don't have any trouble communicating on my D700. But then again, I'm a Cuban loud mouth.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

Tango

#2

divamum

Guess I'm a loudmouth too - no problem using either of the 70-200s. Then again, I'm not usually shooting full length so not that far away.

Speaking of full length - why the HECK is it so hard to focus longshots accurately? I notice this with both bodies and all lenses, so clearly it's me and not the gear. Makes me crazy. Beautiful shot zoomed in to head and shoulders, but then I zoom out or step back for full-length and get it home and it's fuzzy and meh. What am I doing wrong?

zoomer

divamum wrote: »

Guess I'm a loudmouth too - no problem using either of the 70-200s. Then again, I'm not usually shooting full length.

Speaking of full length - why the HECK is it so hard to focus longshots accurately? I notice this with both bodies and all lenses, so clearly it's me and not the gear. Makes me crazy. Beautiful shot zoomed in to head and shoulders, but then I zoom out or step back for full-length and get it home and it's fuzzy and meh. What am I doing wrong?

You zoom in to focus and then back out to shoot..maybe that is it. Not necessary to do that.
I have never had that problem.
I have a friend with a Canon 5d II that has fits with that problem.

divamum

Are you saying I SHOULD zoom in to focus, or not? I typically don't. I shoot single-point focus and always press twice to be sure. It happens on both my 7d and the 5dII, so I'm hard-pressed to blame the camera...

zoomer

divamum wrote: »

Are you saying I SHOULD zoom in to focus, or not? I typically don't. I shoot single-point focus and always press twice to be sure. It happens on both my 7d and the 5dII, so I'm hard-pressed to blame the camera...

No you shouldn't, I though you said before that you were.
I have read alot about focus issues with the Canon and seen a couple of my friends struggle with them as well.

If you lock focus and they don't move and you don't move it should be sharp every time. Unless you have some sort of calibration issue. With my Nikon equip if I do my part it is pretty much always sharp.