These were done with individual tweaks in I2E. Some improved greatly, some marginally. Others (few) didn't improve at all. None were harmed IMO.
Please go ahead and order a full set of these, 4x6 (I recommend Lustre). And When you have ordered them, send an email to ATTN: Andy at our help Desk with the order# and I'll void the charge. The first order is on us, Paul
Wow, this is a humbling thread. I haven't seen this kind of generosity in a web community since, well, ever. If I hadn't signed up before, I would definitely do so now
Andy, great job with those photos. I'm pretty impressed with what I2E can do in the right hands. I'm sure the prints will look amazing.
So I'm trying to learn more from this particular thread, and I'm wondering if more of the issue with the photographer might have been his lack of post-processing skills rather than the photography itself? Obviously, based on Andy's work, the photographer could have saved himself big time by using something like I2E to help correct the images. Granted, I think he might have chosen a different lens and perhaps camera settings for this event. Perhaps better use of reflectors for more fill lighting would have helped?
So I'm wondering, In the opinion of the very skilled and talented folks on this discussion board, what could/should the photographer have done differently to come through for his client? In this situation, what suggestions might you have made were you in the position to give him some direction during the event? I'm really curious to find out if my own hunches are correct or if others have some different ideas...
So I'm wondering, In the opinion of the very skilled and talented folks on this discussion board, what could/should the photographer have done differently to come through for his client? In this situation, what suggestions might you have made were you in the position to give him some direction during the event? I'm really curious to find out if my own hunches are correct or if others have some different ideas...
I don't count myself among the skilled and talented, but I'll offer my "whipping post style" opinions on a select few shots:
Camera shake blur in some photos. Photos like this one were taken at 1/15 and are not sharp anywhere. Assuming the equipment isn't this bad, it's probably motion blur from the handheld 1/15th exposure. Since he's already at ISO 800, he either needs steadier technique (tripod or monopod) or up his shutter speed and rely on the flash more and let the background go darker.
Overexposed photos like tihs one. This is probably just a missed flash exposure and a similiarly missed white balance setting.
In the original of this photo if you look at the gentleman in the back left, he's very, very blurry. That could either be subject motion blur (exif says 1/40th) or it could be his equipment isn't sharp in the upper left corner. I can't say for sure. I wouldn't even say the front center guys are all that sharp so this is probably a combination of camera shake motion blur and the guy in the back left moving some.
Overexposed outdoor photos like this one. The red channel is blown in parts of all the faces and the several channels are blown in the whites. A simple look at the histogram would show this to be true. The camera's meter was on some sort of averaging metering mode and it was probably fooled by the predominance of black in the shot and that caused the overexposure just like a predominance of white in a snowy scene causes an underexposure.
Harsh lighting. Shots like this one just seem like the lighting isn't soft enough. The shot is also overexposed, but nothing is seriously blown and even when you try to bring it back in post processing, the shot just seems too harsh. Unless you are trying to do some kind of special effect with lighting, the point of lighting is to let you see the subject without calling attention to the lighting itself. This shot just seems like it cries out to me that it's a high intensity flash shot rather than it's a wonderfull shot of five beautifully dressed women. The fact that the bride has a very light complexion and is wearing a white dress makes this even more important to get right. I don't know the circumstances, but bounce lighting, diffusers, an assistant with a second diffused or bounced flash and a bias toward the underexposed side with such a fair skinned bride are all options.
Undesirable shadows. In a shot like this one, there are deep shadows in the woman's eyes and nearly all the light seems to be coming from the side. I don't know exactly how this happened unless it's all natural light or all with a flash on the side, but there needs to be at least some light that can light up her eye sockets. This one is sharp so the camera/lens can take sharp shots at 1/60, f/4 with the right technique.
Composition and wide angle distortion. In this one, it's got the same issue of overexposure and too much side lighting. But, it also shows a composition miss - the bride's dress is cut off at the bottom of the shot and there's extra background at the top. A little more care when aiming the camera would have solved that one. There's also some significant distortion for the people on the edges of this photo that stretches them and makes them look wide. You can see it clearly in the two people on the left of the photo and one on the right. The shot is at 20mm. I can't tell if this is a lens distortion issue or if you just can't take group shots at this wide angle with people at the edge and not get this kind of distortion. Back up and shoot at 25-35mm would certainly solve this if it's not just a bad lens.
Interesting thread...enough to scare off any just-getting-started wedding photographer such as myself.
The camera angles/style was well defined before you hired him. You can't expect someone to change their style dramatically for your event. If you didn't like his style, you shouldn't have hired him IMHO.
As far as the formals, what type of lighting did he use? Continuous set up on stands + umbrellas? Or on camera flash?
Would using a diffused speedlite on a bracket (with close attn to EV) have salvaged the formals significantly in anyone's opinion? Am I on the right track?
Interesting thread...enough to scare off any just-getting-started wedding photographer such as myself.
You should be scared. This is the single most important photo-event of most people's lives. If you don't know what you're doing, don't do them. I don't mean this to say "don't ever do them." Just make sure that when you do, you have your stuff together.
The camera angles/style was well defined before you hired him. You can't expect someone to change their style dramatically for your event. If you didn't like his style, you shouldn't have hired him IMHO.
You're mostly correct here. I appealed to the bride-to-be and her mother that this was not the photographer for me, but they paid the bill. To their defense, he assured them that he would take an equal mix of traditional and "trendy" shots. He did not live up to this part of the deal.
As far as the formals, what type of lighting did he use? Continuous set up on stands + umbrellas? Or on camera flash?
This is what made the MOTB so angry. When he came to the rehearsal, he had no umbrellas, no external lighting. He had never mentioned that before. She told him that she was sure he needed more light and he said "Don't worry, there's plenty of light, this is what I do." Having hired a professional and paid him a professional's fee, she took his word for it. He used an on-camera flash for every picture. He had no off-camera lighting.
You should be scared. This is the single most important photo-event of most people's lives. If you don't know what you're doing, don't do them. I don't mean this to say "don't ever do them." Just make sure that when you do, you have your stuff together.
I totally agree...which is why I scored myself several assistant gigs before doing one on my own (again).
A lot of class in this thread. I am glad that everything has worked out with the photos and I hope the beautiful new wife allows a new DSLR to join the family soon.
Thank you Paul!!!!!
Thank you for the $50 Starbucks card - though that was totally unnecessary, it's just well, my job to make SmugMuggers prints look great
I'll bring the Starbucks card out to HQ in a few weeks on my next trip and buy drinks for all of SmugMug :ivar
I'm reading this and thinking this must be the coolest forum in existence. I participate in many fora on many subjects and this one shows the highest level of professionalism and experience while also being the nicest bunch of people. Bravo!
I have to say...
I'm new to this board, and I'm thoroughly impressed with the people so far.
Andy, you are a class act. Your processing did improve the photos in most cases a great deal.
I have to say that the photographer's style wasn't undesirable to me...though some of the technique was questionable. I do like alot of the crops and angles he used though. I tend to take a more traditional approach myself so that could be why the "trendy" style appeals to me.
Like I said... his technique wasn't sound. He should have used more lighting. I saw quite a few photos where he used shutter speeds that were way too low. I'm guessing he had a 17-55 Canon lens which has IS, but I think that photographers rely too much on it and forget that IS is only good for taming camera motion at slow shutters.. and does nothing for subject motion. I also didn't see a single image where he went above ISO 800 though I didn't look through them all. I think ISO 1600 on the camera's he used are so good at noise control... he would have been better off bumping up. I mean the images are VERY noisey as is. No doubt from severe underexposure and being corrected in RAW conversion.
Ok these won't be easy but here's a quick stab at one through I2E
Hi Andy!
You and the dgrin community are amazing. When I grow up, I wanna be just like you.
Am just starting to play with i2e, was wondering what defaults you generally use. I've only processed some photos using the 100% defaults and they are coming out better. Just wondering if you have other general defaults.
To the OP, I wouldn't worry to much about putting the word out about this guy. He's got no business shooting weddings IMO as they just happen to be one of lifes most important days. Maybe you'd save someone else the pain of going through this by doing so.
Your much more forgiving than I am, thankfully you've managed to find a great bunch here.
wedding photographs , really needs a very professional photographer and experience ( not just professional ) he have to be expert in suddenly situations , cause the only thing lasts from this day is the wedding photos , drinks , food , every thing is about to be gone in the end of the day , but the photographs last for long time
I just happened upon this thread while drinking my morning coffee. Wow. What started out as a terrible situation and plea, ended in an amazing, kind solution. Kudos to DG, Smugmug members and Andy for your willingness to help out with your knowledge and expertise.
I haven't been a member of this forum for long, but any questions I have had has been clearly and quicky answered by so many kind people.
I'm very glad this thread got resurrected. I've also only been here for a short amount of time..this just shows me I selected the right place to call home. This was an amazing story.
Awesome job by the community coming to the aid of a fellow member.
Truth is at that price point this guys work is average in todays market.
If he did have a flash he did not know how to use it. I shoot formals sometimes with one flash on a bracket, it is all in how you use it. Sometimes the conditions allow that sometimes they don't...a professional needs to show up at the wedding prepared to light the formals in whatever method is necessary to achieve "professional" results.
Slow shutter speeds and poor lighting skills are this guys kryptonite, he did not control the light inside or out.
I agree the cut off body parts and tilts are not for me, but that is one of the trends these days. Granted having told him not to do it...he has no excuse.
There are so many NOT professional photographers out there these days that it is a real buyer beware market. Unfortunately the average person getting married just does not have the knowledge to choose a good photographer. And spending more won't necessarily save you either, there are plenty of hacks charging $4000. wedding photography as well.
Insist on seeing examples of full wedding galleries from your potential photographer, indoor and outdoor. A professional should be able to provide a consistent result no matter where he is or what the lighting conditions are.
WHEN TO RUN
Make sure he/she has professional equipment, camera, lenses, lighting.
If your photographer says he shoots everything in natural light and doesn't even have a flash.....run....
If he/she does not have any 2.8 or faster lenses or asks you what you mean when you ask them about it.....run.....
If they refuse to show you examples of their work until you can't stand to look at one more picture....run....
If they don't want to listen to you talk about your wedding dreams and your plans for your day......run.....
If a photographer won't give you the names of at least 3 brides whose weddings he photographed that you could ask them about their experience with the photographer....run....
Great Read...
I know this thread is old... but I'm new here and just came upon it. The love and support of the community, dgrin and SmugMug is amazing... and yet somehow, even with my brief experience with you all... I'm not surprised.
It amazes me how often this sort of stuff happens. A friend of mine who I work with (my day job ) got married last year. Hired a professional photographer who showed lots of examples of great wedding photos. However, when she got her proofs.... they were horrible. Some out of focus, some in horrible lighting and I swear the girl's name must have been Eileen... because every picture was askew. For this she paid $1000 and didn't have a single print yet. She had to pay an additional $500 for the disc with the originals.... which she gave to me to edit. I managed to fix up quite a few for her. But am still amazed at what some professionals are able to ruin. Oh, and did I mention... come to find out the photog showed up with only a wide angle lens!
Pho-tog-ra-pher (n) 1. One who practices photography 2. one obsessed with capturing life with their camera. 3. One who eats, sleeps and breathes photographs. 4. One who sees the world in 4x6. www.lisaspeakmanphotography.com
Heh - I got a kick out of seeing this thread resurrected (I was the groom in the poorly photographed wedding). Daphne and I celebrate our 5th anniversary this Friday. We have two kids now. How time flies.
I did want to comment on this:
WHEN TO RUN
Make sure he/she has professional equipment, camera, lenses, lighting.
If your photographer says he shoots everything in natural light and doesn't even have a flash.....run....
If he/she does not have any 2.8 or faster lenses or asks you what you mean when you ask them about it.....run.....
If they refuse to show you examples of their work until you can't stand to look at one more picture....run....
If they don't want to listen to you talk about your wedding dreams and your plans for your day......run.....
If a photographer won't give you the names of at least 3 brides whose weddings he photographed that you could ask them about their experience with the photographer....run....
Very few of those questions would have resulted in our running from this guy. He did have f/2.8 lenses. We did see plenty of his work and, apart from artistic differences, they were technically fine. He did have a flash, an assistant, and (IIRC) indicated that he used natural light "whenever possible." He was very good at communication and was a very hard-worker (he was everywhere) on the wedding day. Unfortunately, he was not technically proficient enough to cope with the difficult lighting scenarios in this particular church and he was not professional enough to find that out beforehand.
Comments
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/2276766/1/120334583
These were done with individual tweaks in I2E. Some improved greatly, some marginally. Others (few) didn't improve at all. None were harmed IMO.
Please go ahead and order a full set of these, 4x6 (I recommend Lustre). And When you have ordered them, send an email to ATTN: Andy at our help Desk with the order# and I'll void the charge. The first order is on us, Paul
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
PBase Gallery
So I'm trying to learn more from this particular thread, and I'm wondering if more of the issue with the photographer might have been his lack of post-processing skills rather than the photography itself? Obviously, based on Andy's work, the photographer could have saved himself big time by using something like I2E to help correct the images. Granted, I think he might have chosen a different lens and perhaps camera settings for this event. Perhaps better use of reflectors for more fill lighting would have helped?
So I'm wondering, In the opinion of the very skilled and talented folks on this discussion board, what could/should the photographer have done differently to come through for his client? In this situation, what suggestions might you have made were you in the position to give him some direction during the event? I'm really curious to find out if my own hunches are correct or if others have some different ideas...
Digital Multimedia Creations
www.digital-multimedia-creations.com
I don't count myself among the skilled and talented, but I'll offer my "whipping post style" opinions on a select few shots:
Camera shake blur in some photos. Photos like this one were taken at 1/15 and are not sharp anywhere. Assuming the equipment isn't this bad, it's probably motion blur from the handheld 1/15th exposure. Since he's already at ISO 800, he either needs steadier technique (tripod or monopod) or up his shutter speed and rely on the flash more and let the background go darker.
Overexposed photos like tihs one. This is probably just a missed flash exposure and a similiarly missed white balance setting.
In the original of this photo if you look at the gentleman in the back left, he's very, very blurry. That could either be subject motion blur (exif says 1/40th) or it could be his equipment isn't sharp in the upper left corner. I can't say for sure. I wouldn't even say the front center guys are all that sharp so this is probably a combination of camera shake motion blur and the guy in the back left moving some.
Overexposed outdoor photos like this one. The red channel is blown in parts of all the faces and the several channels are blown in the whites. A simple look at the histogram would show this to be true. The camera's meter was on some sort of averaging metering mode and it was probably fooled by the predominance of black in the shot and that caused the overexposure just like a predominance of white in a snowy scene causes an underexposure.
Harsh lighting. Shots like this one just seem like the lighting isn't soft enough. The shot is also overexposed, but nothing is seriously blown and even when you try to bring it back in post processing, the shot just seems too harsh. Unless you are trying to do some kind of special effect with lighting, the point of lighting is to let you see the subject without calling attention to the lighting itself. This shot just seems like it cries out to me that it's a high intensity flash shot rather than it's a wonderfull shot of five beautifully dressed women. The fact that the bride has a very light complexion and is wearing a white dress makes this even more important to get right. I don't know the circumstances, but bounce lighting, diffusers, an assistant with a second diffused or bounced flash and a bias toward the underexposed side with such a fair skinned bride are all options.
Undesirable shadows. In a shot like this one, there are deep shadows in the woman's eyes and nearly all the light seems to be coming from the side. I don't know exactly how this happened unless it's all natural light or all with a flash on the side, but there needs to be at least some light that can light up her eye sockets. This one is sharp so the camera/lens can take sharp shots at 1/60, f/4 with the right technique.
Composition and wide angle distortion. In this one, it's got the same issue of overexposure and too much side lighting. But, it also shows a composition miss - the bride's dress is cut off at the bottom of the shot and there's extra background at the top. A little more care when aiming the camera would have solved that one. There's also some significant distortion for the people on the edges of this photo that stretches them and makes them look wide. You can see it clearly in the two people on the left of the photo and one on the right. The shot is at 20mm. I can't tell if this is a lens distortion issue or if you just can't take group shots at this wide angle with people at the edge and not get this kind of distortion. Back up and shoot at 25-35mm would certainly solve this if it's not just a bad lens.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
The camera angles/style was well defined before you hired him. You can't expect someone to change their style dramatically for your event. If you didn't like his style, you shouldn't have hired him IMHO.
As far as the formals, what type of lighting did he use? Continuous set up on stands + umbrellas? Or on camera flash?
Would using a diffused speedlite on a bracket (with close attn to EV) have salvaged the formals significantly in anyone's opinion? Am I on the right track?
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
You should be scared. This is the single most important photo-event of most people's lives. If you don't know what you're doing, don't do them.
You're mostly correct here. I appealed to the bride-to-be and her mother that this was not the photographer for me, but they paid the bill. To their defense, he assured them that he would take an equal mix of traditional and "trendy" shots. He did not live up to this part of the deal.
This is what made the MOTB so angry. When he came to the rehearsal, he had no umbrellas, no external lighting. He had never mentioned that before. She told him that she was sure he needed more light and he said "Don't worry, there's plenty of light, this is what I do." Having hired a professional and paid him a professional's fee, she took his word for it. He used an on-camera flash for every picture. He had no off-camera lighting.
I totally agree...which is why I scored myself several assistant gigs before doing one on my own (again).
do you mean on camera as in the 30d's pop-up flash (holy moly, unforgiveable!!!)? or an on-camera speedlite?
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
I've voided the charge on your print order. Enjoy them, on the house, from SmugMug with Love
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
www.capture-the-pixel.com
Thank you for the $50 Starbucks card - though that was totally unnecessary, it's just well, my job to make SmugMuggers prints look great
I'll bring the Starbucks card out to HQ in a few weeks on my next trip and buy drinks for all of SmugMug :ivar
Thanks again!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Andy - You da man.
Paul - Congratulations on your marriage and your lovely bride.
Smugmuggers - I love you all.
Malte
This has left me speachless-
There is nothing like dgrin members and staff- Thank you to everyone who has helped me along the way.
Pamela
www.exposedimages.net
......by everyone on this forum.
www.allensklar.smugmug.com
I'm new to this board, and I'm thoroughly impressed with the people so far.
Andy, you are a class act. Your processing did improve the photos in most cases a great deal.
I have to say that the photographer's style wasn't undesirable to me...though some of the technique was questionable. I do like alot of the crops and angles he used though. I tend to take a more traditional approach myself so that could be why the "trendy" style appeals to me.
Like I said... his technique wasn't sound. He should have used more lighting. I saw quite a few photos where he used shutter speeds that were way too low. I'm guessing he had a 17-55 Canon lens which has IS, but I think that photographers rely too much on it and forget that IS is only good for taming camera motion at slow shutters.. and does nothing for subject motion. I also didn't see a single image where he went above ISO 800 though I didn't look through them all. I think ISO 1600 on the camera's he used are so good at noise control... he would have been better off bumping up. I mean the images are VERY noisey as is. No doubt from severe underexposure and being corrected in RAW conversion.
Hi Andy!
You and the dgrin community are amazing.
Am just starting to play with i2e, was wondering what defaults you generally use. I've only processed some photos using the 100% defaults and they are coming out better. Just wondering if you have other general defaults.
Gracias,
blog: www.rosaurasandoval.com
galleries: www.rosaura.smugmug.com
Your much more forgiving than I am, thankfully you've managed to find a great bunch here.
5D2/1D MkII N/40D and a couple bits of glass.
Thanks to Andy, Smugmug, and the entire dgrin community for their help.
http://www.emilsit.net/blog/archives/excellent-customer-service-from-smugmug/
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Awwwww. My heart just melted a little...
I just happened upon this thread while drinking my morning coffee. Wow. What started out as a terrible situation and plea, ended in an amazing, kind solution. Kudos to DG, Smugmug members and Andy for your willingness to help out with your knowledge and expertise.
I haven't been a member of this forum for long, but any questions I have had has been clearly and quicky answered by so many kind people.
Keep up the great work!
www.springkeisphotography.com
Truth is at that price point this guys work is average in todays market.
If he did have a flash he did not know how to use it. I shoot formals sometimes with one flash on a bracket, it is all in how you use it. Sometimes the conditions allow that sometimes they don't...a professional needs to show up at the wedding prepared to light the formals in whatever method is necessary to achieve "professional" results.
Slow shutter speeds and poor lighting skills are this guys kryptonite, he did not control the light inside or out.
I agree the cut off body parts and tilts are not for me, but that is one of the trends these days. Granted having told him not to do it...he has no excuse.
There are so many NOT professional photographers out there these days that it is a real buyer beware market. Unfortunately the average person getting married just does not have the knowledge to choose a good photographer. And spending more won't necessarily save you either, there are plenty of hacks charging $4000. wedding photography as well.
Insist on seeing examples of full wedding galleries from your potential photographer, indoor and outdoor. A professional should be able to provide a consistent result no matter where he is or what the lighting conditions are.
WHEN TO RUN
Make sure he/she has professional equipment, camera, lenses, lighting.
If your photographer says he shoots everything in natural light and doesn't even have a flash.....run....
If he/she does not have any 2.8 or faster lenses or asks you what you mean when you ask them about it.....run.....
If they refuse to show you examples of their work until you can't stand to look at one more picture....run....
If they don't want to listen to you talk about your wedding dreams and your plans for your day......run.....
If a photographer won't give you the names of at least 3 brides whose weddings he photographed that you could ask them about their experience with the photographer....run....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
Some fabulous consumer advice at this site: http://www.takeoffyourmommygoggles.com/consumers/what-is-a-fauxtographer-2/
Galleries here Upcoming Ranch/Horse Workshop
I know this thread is old... but I'm new here and just came upon it. The love and support of the community, dgrin and SmugMug is amazing... and yet somehow, even with my brief experience with you all... I'm not surprised.
It amazes me how often this sort of stuff happens. A friend of mine who I work with (my day job
www.lisaspeakmanphotography.com
I did want to comment on this:
Very few of those questions would have resulted in our running from this guy. He did have f/2.8 lenses. We did see plenty of his work and, apart from artistic differences, they were technically fine. He did have a flash, an assistant, and (IIRC) indicated that he used natural light "whenever possible." He was very good at communication and was a very hard-worker (he was everywhere) on the wedding day. Unfortunately, he was not technically proficient enough to cope with the difficult lighting scenarios in this particular church and he was not professional enough to find that out beforehand.