A few more from my first REAL wedding

joshhuntnm

A few more from the wedding itself

1



2



3


4



5


6


7


8

Swartzy

Josh, sometimes the sanctuary doesn't allow us to move around much. These have that look of "sameness", everything shot at eye level, moving around the room. In situations like this, one has to put their creative thinking cap on and try to figure out what kind of cool angle/perspective/light can they utilize. For instance, during the ceremony, was there a place to get the B&G with the pastor framed? It's evident that sanctuary was pretty tough. Great shots just don't happen (only sometimes ). It's these types of challenges that will make you "look" differently at "how" to shoot it.

Yes, everthing is exposed properly, focus is ok, etc......but something's missing......ahh, subject matter....and the attention drawn to it. #4 is a throw away....."what's the subject" and it's blurry....#5 was taken by? (not a paid photographer) #8 is like #4...snapshot of a room of people. #7 has your son (in a blue shirt-which stands out from the crowd) and video camera. Vertical orientation on this would serve much better.

I only point these out so you can see from a different perspective...then next time, you'll be looking for other cool ways and things to do...improving and growing. I hope this helps.

joshhuntnm

Swartzy wrote:

Josh, sometimes the sanctuary doesn't allow us to move around much. These have that look of "sameness", everything shot at eye level, moving around the room. In situations like this, one has to put their creative thinking cap on and try to figure out what kind of cool angle/perspective/light can they utilize. For instance, during the ceremony, was there a place to get the B&G with the pastor framed? It's evident that sanctuary was pretty tough. Great shots just don't happen (only sometimes ). It's these types of challenges that will make you "look" differently at "how" to shoot it.

Yes, everthing is exposed properly, focus is ok, etc......but something's missing......ahh, subject matter....and the attention drawn to it. #4 is a throw away....."what's the subject" and it's blurry....#5 was taken by? (not a paid photographer) #8 is like #4...snapshot of a room of people. #7 has your son (in a blue shirt-which stands out from the crowd) and video camera. Vertical orientation on this would serve much better.

I only point these out so you can see from a different perspective...then next time, you'll be looking for other cool ways and things to do...improving and growing. I hope this helps.

Anyone who can shoot weddings like this, I am happy for them to speak into my life.

The hall was about as bad as it gets. It was dark, not that attractive, and had a very strange color cast. The center section was lit with florescents of various colors bouncing off the ceiling of who knows what color. the sides were incandescent. The mixture was hideous. And, just not much of it.

I shot all the wedding shots on a tripod with a remote to trigger the camera and ISO 800. I think #4 was handheld, and, you are right, needs to be tossed. it more or less duplicates the last one which was shot on the tripod.

Anyway, your comment--all of them really--about the angle is a good one. You really demonstrate that at your last wedding. I bet your shirt is dirty when you get home!

I did get one of the bride and groom and priest--about 200 of the ceremony itself; I just posted a few here.

gregneil

If the color cast in the room is that bad and you have no control over it, then convert those shots to B&W! They'll look much better.

If you have a more recent camera, you can shoot in high ISO and still get usable shots - especially if you're going to convert to B&W anyway. Shooting a ceremony is all about capturing the emotion, and that's hard to do from a tripod. You need to be able to wait for the right moment, frame, and click. One thing you can do is use a long lens with a wide aperture to help blur the distracting background and bring the attention to your subject's faces.

I've shot ceremony shots at ISO3200 and had very usable results on both my 40D and 5D. I've been able to get sharp enough shots on my 70-200 wide open at 2.8 with shutter speeds of 1/60, if I really steady myself. (I just picked up the IS version... now I can go even slower!) Another little trick is to put your camera on burst mode, and fire off a couple frames each time when you're at a shutter speed slower than you'd like... sometimes the first picture will be blurry from the action of pressing the shutter, but the second or third shot will be much sharper.

joshhuntnm

gregneil wrote:

If the color cast in the room is that bad and you have no control over it, then convert those shots to B&W! They'll look much better.

If you have a more recent camera, you can shoot in high ISO and still get usable shots - especially if you're going to convert to B&W anyway. Shooting a ceremony is all about capturing the emotion, and that's hard to do from a tripod. You need to be able to wait for the right moment, frame, and click. One thing you can do is use a long lens with a wide aperture to help blur the distracting background and bring the attention to your subject's faces.

I've shot ceremony shots at ISO3200 and had very usable results on both my 40D and 5D. I've been able to get sharp enough shots on my 70-200 wide open at 2.8 with shutter speeds of 1/60, if I really steady myself. (I just picked up the IS version... now I can go even slower!) Another little trick is to put your camera on burst mode, and fire off a couple frames each time when you're at a shutter speed slower than you'd like... sometimes the first picture will be blurry from the action of pressing the shutter, but the second or third shot will be much sharper.

to add to wish list: 40D (actually two; we do need a backup, right?) 70 - 200 IS f/2.8

I have the xti. I am always nevous about going above 800.

good news about the color cast. ACR does an pretty good job of straightening that out with a click or two.

good idea about the burst mode.

Shima

joshhuntnm wrote:

to add to wish list: 40D (actually two; we do need a backup, right?) 70 - 200 IS f/2.8

I have the xti. I am always nevous about going above 800.

good news about the color cast. ACR does an pretty good job of straightening that out with a click or two.

good idea about the burst mode.

Yeah I used to have XTi and the noise does get pretty noticeable at 1600... the 40D is much better at noise at 1600 on a more usable level.

I too have the 70-200 f2.8/ L IS USM on my wish list....the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 works pretty well, but I'd love that little boost from the IS....

I agree w/ the comments about funky color = change to black and white. Even terrible grain or other oddities can be still salvaged as a photo by converting to black and white I've found.

jeffreaux2

I agree with much of what Swartzy had to say. My immediate thought was that several had far to many other distractions between you and your subjects. Get in there close and get the shots. Don't be shy about it.

Also, as far as light for weddings, it probably won't get a whole lot better than this except for a daytime outdoor wedding. The last photo shows the altar area to be very well lit, and also you have nice light colored surfaces there to bounce light from....and fairly low ceilings as a bonus. ISO1600 on the XTi is not unusable. It just requires some careful handling that begins with getting a good solid exposure, and ends with some (but not too much)noise removal.

Swartzy

Just as an aside Josh.....considering the 40D and 70-200 combo. You may find that the focal length to be a tad too tight in most instances unless you are standing way back of a very large church. I had my eyes set on one and used a buddies a few times......it usually was removed after about 10 shots....the 1.6 crop really draws stuff in a bit much with not much wiggle room.

Jeff, Urbanaries, and a few others swear by the 17-55 IS......I'd love to get that lens but use the Tamron 17-50.....the copy here is incredibly sharp and the colors/saturation are so close I highly doubt anyone could tell side by side. The Tammy can be picked up for a good deal if you watch for it. The 70-200 on the 5D works much better along with the 24-70......a little food for thought (as I've been pontificating for awhile as well).

joshhuntnm

Swartzy wrote:

Just as an aside Josh.....considering the 40D and 70-200 combo. You may find that the focal length to be a tad too tight in most instances unless you are standing way back of a very large church. I had my eyes set on one and used a buddies a few times......it usually was removed after about 10 shots....the 1.6 crop really draws stuff in a bit much with not much wiggle room.

Jeff, Urbanaries, and a few others swear by the 17-55 IS......I'd love to get that lens but use the Tamron 17-50.....the copy here is incredibly sharp and the colors/saturation are so close I highly doubt anyone could tell side by side. The Tammy can be picked up for a good deal if you watch for it. The 70-200 on the 5D works much better along with the 24-70......a little food for thought (as I've been pontificating for awhile as well).

My plan right now is to get the 17 - 55 before my next wedding. Dawson, my son, has a wedding in a month (I will be out of town) and he is talking like he might get one for that. My thought is to get the 70 - 200 after that.

I use the 28 - 200 now and often use the 200 end. the first shot above is shot with that, then cropped just a bit beyond that. what would probably actually make more sense, sense we plan to do these together is for me to get the 70 to 200 if he gets the 17 - 55, but I don't know if I can bring myself to do it. I really have my heart set on the 17 - 55. We will see. I dont have any weddings for me till November at this time.

I have not really considered non-canon brand glass. It is probably stupid, but I just have a good feeling about the Canon name.

jeffreaux2

joshhuntnm wrote:

My plan right now is to get the 17 - 55 before my next wedding. Dawson, my son, has a wedding in a month (I will be out of town) and he is talking like he might get one for that. My thought is to get the 70 - 200 after that.

I use the 28 - 200 now and often use the 200 end. the first shot above is shot with that, then cropped just a bit beyond that. what would probably actually make more sense, sense we plan to do these together is for me to get the 70 to 200 if he gets the 17 - 55, but I don't know if I can bring myself to do it. I really have my heart set on the 17 - 55. We will see. I dont have any weddings for me till November at this time.

I have not really considered non-canon brand glass. It is probably stupid, but I just have a good feeling about the Canon name.

You are gonna kick yourself when you get that 17-55 for buying anything else ahead of it. I could throw away everything else in my bag. I do plan to add a 70-200, but I doubt it will see a ton of usage for weddings.

joshhuntnm

jeffreaux2 wrote:

You are gonna kick yourself when you get that 17-55 for buying anything else ahead of it. I could throw away everything else in my bag. I do plan to add a 70-200, but I doubt it will see a ton of usage for weddings.

I already am. I bought two primes in preparation for this wedding. First an 85 thinking I could at least get some really good portraits. then, I realized I nearly had to be in the next room to take even a ful body shot so i got a 50. While I am sure I will always use those, together they are 2/3s of the cost of the 17 - 55. As I have been editing the last couple days I thought a hundred times, "I wish I had had the 17 - 55." I plan to get it before the next wedding.

Scott_Quier

joshhuntnm wrote:

I already am. I bought two primes in preparation for this wedding. First an 85 thinking I could at least get some really good portraits. then, I realized I nearly had to be in the next room to take even a ful body shot so i got a 50. While I am sure I will always use those, together they are 2/3s of the cost of the 17 - 55. As I have been editing the last couple days I thought a hundred times, "I wish I had had the 17 - 55." I plan to get it before the next wedding.

At the risk of appearing to hi-jack this thread ... here's more fuel for the fire

17-55 Examples from the 7Jun wedding (click on photo for EXIF):

1. 17mm


2. 48mm

joshhuntnm

It is not nice to give fellow photographers lens-lust.

Scott_Quier

joshhuntnm wrote:

It is not nice to give fellow photographers lens-lust.

But it's so much fun