It's been a while :)

tenoverthenose · September 2, 2010

For a while I got too busy with life to have time for forums. Trying to squeeze in too much summertime fun and work - something had to give! I missed you all and the great interaction here, and I thought it would be good to share a bit too!

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Moogle Pepper · September 2, 2010

So uhm.. if I get married, can you shoot it? Half serious here. ( the half thing is cause I am not looking to get married for another 10 years.. haha!)

tenoverthenose · September 2, 2010

Ted just say the word.

ian408 · September 2, 2010

The expanse of Yosemite's Glacier Point really makes that first one stand out. The balance between Half Dome and the couple is nice too. #4 is nice for the contrast between the bride and the meadow.

Cool stuff!

kdog · September 2, 2010

First one's like a postcard. #4 is crazy cool too. Great stuff!

Agnieszka · September 3, 2010

*sigh*. Just beautiful!

Darren Troy C · September 3, 2010

3 and 4....stellar!

kyeezie · September 3, 2010

Agnieszka wrote: »

*sigh*. Just beautiful!

thumb!!!!!!!!!!!! oooh, and a

.

tenoverthenose · September 3, 2010

Thanks everyone for the love! I was excited to book a shoot up there at sunset. But the problem of food came up, when the couple realized they needed to head back down to eat dinner (they skipped lunch) before all the restaurants closed, so I didn't get to the really crazy ideas I have in my head... Next time

mmmatt · September 3, 2010

Nice work as always Pat. GREAT to see you around again!

Matt

Matthew Saville · September 3, 2010

Without hesitation, one of my favorite DGrin wedding photographers. Thanks for posting!

Love that shot in the meadow with the OCF. Gorgeous...

=Matt=

mpaulie · September 3, 2010

Wowza Patrick, you don't disappoint! Steller work!

tenoverthenose · September 3, 2010

Thanks Matt, good to be back!

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Love that shot in the meadow with the OCF. Gorgeous...

I wish we could have stayed there longer, it was beautiful, but the mosquitos nearly ate us alive in two minutes.

Thank Michael!

marikris · September 4, 2010

Love them all, but #2 is my absolute FAVORITE! It looks like an ad for a perfume lol!

Ed911 · September 4, 2010

All are nice. It would have been my preference in number one for her not to be standing there like a limp noodle...harm hanging loosely at her side...was she mad at him...he's looking interested and she's won't even put her arm around him. Some might disagree... but it looks like...well, kiss me if you have too.

WillCAD · September 4, 2010

Fabulous series.

I didn't even notice till I read Ed's comments, but yeah, I have to agree with his assessment of the pose in #1. It's a truly awesome photo in every way - except her pose. It's a shame she wasn't a little more into it, but it's a very minor glitch in an otherwise stunning image.

ARKreations · September 5, 2010

In defense of the #1 pose, she does have her left arm around his back and I've heard more than one bride complain how heavy those big bouquets get by the time formals roll around. IMO, the overall impact of the view and setting really shines.

After having just spent most of my time at PSW in the wedding track listening to people talk about how to take advantage of natural light, I'm seeing this set in "an entirely different light" ( OK - really bad joke... ) than I would have looked at it.

#2 & #3 are my personal favs. I've been working on trying to develop my own flare technique and am really starting to appreciate those who can deliver shots like #2. But the back-lighting, DOF and composition in #3 really captures a moment.

tenoverthenose · September 5, 2010

Interesting thoughts on #1. I appreciate that idea and will look for something better next time. Sometimes when I pose people, I more or less put them in a general position and let them work out the details. I think you're correct that the passion in person doesn't translate well in the photo. The fact that his back in dark doesn't help - you can't see her hand.

For the record Ross, #1 has a crap load of light (yes, I metered it) pushed at the couple. Flare can be tough to work with, but the good news is that you can see it right in your viewfinder.

divamum · September 5, 2010

A gorgeous set, as always. I just sit and slobber over how lovely they are!!

Btw, speaking of flare.... #2. I have tried and tried to get a decent flare shot (just practicing, of course) and it has always been an EPIC FAIL. How do you (and Angie and Pat Furey and the other flarefotogs) get them so they look artistic and elegant - with flying saucers in just the right places to boot! - instead of merely blown and a mess? Also, how much is the processing creating to the final "look". I absolutely LOVE LOVE LOVE this kind of shot and really want to come to terms with *how* to achieve the look. Please share? ~pleading look~

ARKreations · September 5, 2010

One thing I'm finding and also had corroborated by a number of folks at PSW is that the newer Nikon nano-crystal coated glass is much tougher to get to flare. There was a pretty informative segment on D-Town TV a couple months back on shooting to get lens flare. Have a look here

tenoverthenose · September 5, 2010

divamum wrote: »

Btw, speaking of flare.... #2. I have tried and tried to get a decent flare shot (just practicing, of course) and it has always been an EPIC FAIL. How do you (and Angie and Pat Furey and the other flarefotogs) get them so they look artistic and elegant - with flying saucers in just the right places to boot! - instead of merely blown and a mess? Also, how much is the processing creating to the final "look". I absolutely LOVE LOVE LOVE this kind of shot and really want to come to terms with *how* to achieve the look. Please share? ~pleading look~

It's easier than you think. Just include a really bright light source in the frame - in this case, the sun. If there is no sun, use a flash. Different apertures will affect the flare shape. For the flying saucer look just open up all the way and fire away. Different lenses will create different flare shapes (because of the different elements inside). I have _generally_ found the zooms produce less desirable flare.

Generally PP on this type of shot is just about adding contrast back into the shot. In this case, I did tone it a bit. Below is the shot from camera for reference.

Ross although I am not a Nikon shooter, I would have to assume that is correct. One of the things these newer coatings are promised to provide is flare resistance. Remember, flare is generally considered a bad thing and will probably ruin more photos of the average user than help. Some of the older Canon lenses produced beautiful flare that is reduced in the updated versions (85L -> 85LII).

divamum · September 5, 2010

Hmm... I've usually tried with a zoom, simply because I wanted a wider angle and my Tamron 17-50 is the widest thing I've got.... I'll experiment around with it some more with my primes and see if I can do a little better. I'm interested you say you open up - usually shooting at wide aps has given me the washed out mess, and the flying saucers have been green "flashes" rather than recognizable flare marks. Clearly, I need to play around with this some more

In the shot you're referencing I see you've got the full sun at about 2 o'clock rather than straight into the lens - is it generally better to offset a little bit? (it gave you that beautiful rim lighting too!)

Thanks so much for responding - your work is so yummy and I really appreciate you taking the time to enlighten!

Shima · September 5, 2010

#1 and #4 are my favorites but they're all wonderful!

tenoverthenose · September 5, 2010

divamum wrote: »

Hmm... I've usually tried with a zoom, simply because I wanted a wider angle and my Tamron 17-50 is the widest thing I've got.... I'll experiment around with it some more with my primes and see if I can do a little better. I'm interested you say you open up - usually shooting at wide aps has given me the washed out mess, and the flying saucers have been green "flashes" rather than recognizable flare marks. Clearly, I need to play around with this some more

In the shot you're referencing I see you've got the full sun at about 2 o'clock rather than straight into the lens - is it generally better to offset a little bit? (it gave you that beautiful rim lighting too!)

Thanks so much for responding - your work is so yummy and I really appreciate you taking the time to enlighten!

Opening up the aperture will wash out the image - the glass inside the lens is more exposes and will have more light bouncing around inside. That's why the normal PP is to add more contrast back into the image.

You will have to experiment with placement, the one key is to make sure that the flare doesn't cross the subject (unless you want it to of course). In this case I wanted the flare to move across the bride and partially cover her.

Sadly, this is an area of photography where higher-end lenses produce more desirable results

Here's a few more flare shots from the past... (more lurking around my site)

Opened up on a 35L

Stopped down on a 16-35 - notice the sun, but not too much flare

Again stopped down on a 16-36 - notice all the lens elements in the center of the frame

divamum · September 5, 2010

Thanks again, Patrick!

Kinkajou · September 8, 2010

#4 LOVE IT :jawdrop

It's been a while :)

Comments