No-flash bride and groom

Desmond · April 11, 2007

I have found that although the vast majority of pictures look better with flash a picture like this one with a dark background looks better [ to me ] than the one I also took with flash which lit the distracting background .
I know the skin tones are not perfect but then again I also like to capture memories at a wedding , not try to win a competiton for perfectionon each shot . Feedback appreciated .

gus · April 11, 2007

Desmond can you post the EXIF for the shot ? I see a tiny bit of camera shake or softness there.

Desmond · April 11, 2007

f9 , iso 640 , 200mm , 1/125th . I should have had VR switched on and I seem to have this habit of bumping the command dial and pushing the aperture setting up all the time . I am seriously considering using "P" mode to be safe in future because I seem to forget to check settings when the action gets hot .

gluwater · April 11, 2007

What did you have your WB set at? They are in the shade with no sunlight so there is a strong cyan cast to the image. You can fix it with a quick Curves adjustment. Their skin tones will thank you for it.

Desmond · April 11, 2007

That looks good, thanks for the advice . These pictures are just pulled out from a bunch I put on photobucket as samples for someone who asked so they weren't adjusted yet . I leave wb on auto sinc ehalf the time I am using flash , my D80 has a function button on the front that I set to "cancel flash" and take one with and one without most of the time for comparison so I need the camera to do the quick wb change for me .
I could use pse5.0 to do either a "remove colour cast" from the white dress or a "adjust for skin tone " on their faces , I'm wondering which will be more accurate ?

gluwater · April 11, 2007

Desmond wrote:

That looks good, thanks for the advice . These pictures are just pulled out from a bunch I put on photobucket as samples for someone who asked so they weren't adjusted yet . I leave wb on auto sinc ehalf the time I am using flash , my D80 has a function button on the front that I set to "cancel flash" and take one with and one without most of the time for comparison so I need the camera to do the quick wb change for me .
I could use pse5.0 to do either a "remove colour cast" from the white dress or a "adjust for skin tone " on their faces , I'm wondering which will be more accurate ?

I don't mean to be critical but if you are taking the time to upload the files and post them for the world to see, shouldn't they look the best they can? Sorry but I'm not familiar with PSE so I can't help you with that one. If you need help with the PP post this in the Finishing School and someone more knowledgable than I will be able to help. Do you have any other finished shots from this wedding? I'd like to see more.

Andy · April 11, 2007

Post processing is one-third of what we do as photographers. Yes, you can get it done in-camera, but if you don't, then you must do it in post

This B&G are blue.

http://blogs.smugmug.com/pros/2007/02/18/one-third-of-the-job/

Mitchell · April 11, 2007

Desmond wrote:

f9 , iso 640 , 200mm , 1/125th . I should have had VR switched on and I seem to have this habit of bumping the command dial and pushing the aperture setting up all the time . I am seriously considering using "P" mode to be safe in future because I seem to forget to check settings when the action gets hot .

What camera and lens were you using for this shot?

Mike02 · April 11, 2007

It looks okay, but theres a little bit of a blue cast there that is very unpleasing to the eye. I'd use auto levels on that.... otherwise the photo is framed nicely, and the only thing I would do differently next time if I were you is to try to stay at eye level with the couple, because having them look down at you looks a little bit wierd. But overall nice portrait.

Desmond · April 11, 2007

It was a Nikon D80 with the 18-200VR lens . To a certain degree I prefer showing the image as it came out of the camera so that I can hear comments that will maybe allow me to correct the problem when I take the picture and not rely on PP though i know that this is not always possible or practical . There are a few more images on this site and also some more on www.photobucket.com but you will have to do a search under "dvdowns" to get my album .
In this particular situation it was impossible to gain eye level as I was about 5 metres below them and they were in a bell tower , the post was more about flash and lighting than composition though I appreciate the comments .

Mitchell · April 11, 2007

Are you a professional wedding photographer?

If so, I think you just have to accept that your in camera photos are always going to require some PP. With varying lighting throughout the event, it will be tough for you to accurately WB all of your photos in camera on the fly. Do yourself a favor and shoot your weddings in RAW and adjust your WB after. For all of your shots in the same lighting, you can batch process the RAW files.

While your lens is versatile, it is hardly a Pro caliber piece of glass. Nikon certainly has some pro zooms you might prefer. We could also suggest some versatile primes for weddings.

Why did you shoot this one at f9?

Desmond · April 12, 2007

As I mentioned I seem to have this habit of bumping the command dial by accident which is why I ended up on f9 . I am not professional yet and am charging $500[NZ] [ about US$380?] per wedding . I let people know I am not professional and that they should hire a $2000 photographer if they are unsure but so far the 4 I have done have left the customers vey happy .
I understand what you are saying about RAW but also want to limit PP time . I have PSE5.0 which doesn't do batch process except with auto levels/colour/sharpening etc . Maybe it's different with RAW processing .
I know the perfectionists would say "shoot with primes " all the time but personally I feel the task of the wedding photographer is primarily to capture as many memories as possible rather than missing photo opportunities while trying to take competition winning pictures . I would agree that when you have time to take the formals and pose everyone primes will be better, but you cans still miss some good shots with the wrong lens and while changing lenses [ besides introducing dust ] .
When I am walking from one spot to the next on the day going from wide angle while they are walking toward me and zoom to capture the couple on their own I don't see the sense in changing lenses all the time for the number of shots I would miss .
Maybe when I am charging $1000 I'll shoot RAW and spend more time doing PP .

gluwater · April 12, 2007

Desmond wrote:

I am not professional yet and am charging $500[NZ] [ about US$380?] per wedding. I let people know I am not professional and that they should hire a $2000 photographer if they are unsure

Your rate does not necesarily say anything about your skill level. I have seen some really awful wedding pictures from the $2000 wedding photogs and some stunning photos from people just doing it for fun.

Desmond wrote:

but so far the 4 I have done have left the customers vey happy.

In the end that is what matters the most. We are only trying to give helpful suggestions here, not pick on you. As far as RAW goes, do some research on it. It is really much easier than you might think. Your camera should have come with software to convert the RAW files to .tif or .jpg, or there are some good free ones out there. You would do exposure, WB and other basic editing in the RAW processor then your finishing touches in PSE.

I think Mitchell made a good point that your images will require PP. If you don't want to be doing that then your images will suffer. Your clients may be happy now but don't you want to WOW them and show the true potential of your images? In my opinion when you make the choice to be a wedding photographer you are accepting a huge responsibility and should deliver the best possible images you are capable, that means taking the time to PP and learn how to do it quickly and accuratly.

Desmond · April 12, 2007

I get what you are saying , I plan to spend more time in PP after the discussions I have had here .

I just did a "beginners wedding photography " course , 6 evenings 2 hours each to make sure of what I think i know

. The other night the tutor brought in 260 pictures from his last wedding , he still shoots film and gives the customer a box of the pictures at $1600NZ . I was not that impressed with the pictures and those taken under the trees had a green cast to them . He uses a 24-120 lens , nothing else .
I will try to steer away from wanting to get the pictures to the customer as soon as possible and concentrate on "WOWing" them in future .
Thanks for the advice .

urbanaries · April 12, 2007

I too was frustrated and skeptical of the added time of RAW workflow until I was turned on to this amazing program.

They offer a generous 30 day fullversion trial, and after that, $199 is much cheaper than a full version of photoshop, and honestly, I almost never open photoshop now except to clone out large areas.

Shooting RAW yields less noisy images when I (often) don't get the exposure or white balance quite right in camera. I'd highly recommend it to anyone, at any level but most especially a beginner/intermediate, because the interface is simplistic and intuitive.

If you or any of your family is associated with higher education (college student, faculty/staff) you can get it for $99 like I did.

Andy · April 12, 2007

Desmond wrote:

I know the perfectionists would say "shoot with primes " all the time

Nearly all the good wedding pros I know shoot with really good zooms

urbanaries · April 12, 2007

Andy wrote:

Nearly all the good wedding pros I know shoot with really good zooms

doesn't Jim Fuglestad shoot weddings w/ superfast primes?

Mitchell · April 12, 2007

Andy wrote:

Nearly all the good wedding pros I know shoot with really good zooms

My point exactly.

I was not suggesting giving up using a zoom for weddings. I just think if you are getting serious, you may want to consider one of Nikon's professional zooms. I shoot events with a Nikon 28-70mm, f2.8 zoom with pretty good success. You can open the lens up and get some good separation. Focus is also quite fast. 90% of my shots are taken with this lens. My 85mm, f1.4 is then used for more formal portraits.

Mike02 · April 12, 2007

Desmond wrote:

It was a Nikon D80 with the 18-200VR lens.... the post was more about flash and lighting than composition though I appreciate the comments .

Then you shouldn't have said "Feedback appreciated ..." and been more clear by asking a specific question, instead of making two indistinct statements and asking for feedback.

photogmomma · April 12, 2007

urbanaries wrote:

I too was frustrated and skeptical of the added time of RAW workflow until I was turned on to this amazing program.

They offer a generous 30 day fullversion trial, and after that, $199 is much cheaper than a full version of photoshop, and honestly, I almost never open photoshop now except to clone out large areas.

Shooting RAW yields less noisy images when I (often) don't get the exposure or white balance quite right in camera. I'd highly recommend it to anyone, at any level but most especially a beginner/intermediate, because the interface is simplistic and intuitive.

If you or any of your family is associated with higher education (college student, faculty/staff) you can get it for $99 like I did.

DEFINITELY check this out! This program alone has cut my processing time in half from what I was doing before and has given me MUCH better results than I've ever had, too!

Great shot. I really like it! But I agree about the color cast. The edit is MUCH more pleasing to the eye and the skin tones.

Their expressions are quite nice and they look very happy. I would PS out that elbow on the right, but otherwise I like it!

Desmond · April 12, 2007

I recently bought the Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 lens which I have been keeping as a backup on my D50 . Would anyone suggest that as the main lens ?
My frustration with PP has been trying to get PSE5.0 to batch process something like convert to B&W while it can only do batch conversions of the basics . I know the RAW conversion tool is similar since I have tried shooting RAW once or twice . This "lightroom" program , does anyone know if I can use it to batch process adjustments other than the basics ? [ B&W , sepia etc. ] .
My conection is "out of town" in New Zealand and not very fast for downloading videos etc. I have upgraded my computer though to a 2.1 core2 duo with 2 gig of RAM and now I can batch process 400 files and the first one take 2 seconds and the last one takes 2 seconds so that won't be an issue .
I'm wondering if lightroom is just about organising and batch processing or has some other features for adjusting that PE5.0 doesn't have ?
Tomorrow I have another wedding by the sea , it will only be about 4 hours .
I have 4x 2 gig cards so maybe I should try shooting in RAW+jpeg fine for a change ?

photogmomma · April 12, 2007

Desmond wrote:

I recently bought the Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 lens which I have been keeping as a backup on my D50 . Would anyone suggest that as the main lens ?
My frustration with PP has been trying to get PSE5.0 to batch process something like convert to B&W while it can only do batch conversions of the basics . I know the RAW conversion tool is similar since I have tried shooting RAW once or twice . This "lightroom" program , does anyone know if I can use it to batch process adjustments other than the basics ? [ B&W , sepia etc. ] .
My conection is "out of town" in New Zealand and not very fast for downloading videos etc. I have upgraded my computer though to a 2.1 core2 duo with 2 gig of RAM and now I can batch process 400 files and the first one take 2 seconds and the last one takes 2 seconds so that won't be an issue .
I'm wondering if lightroom is just about organising and batch processing or has some other features for adjusting that PE5.0 doesn't have ?
Tomorrow I have another wedding by the sea , it will only be about 4 hours .
I have 4x 2 gig cards so maybe I should try shooting in RAW+jpeg fine for a change ?

Lightroom will take your photos and organize them, much like PSE5 does, but it also does non-destructive editing. So you can crop, color correct, adjust tone and much more, apply that to as many different photos from the shoot as you'd like and then revert to the original and still keep track of all teh changes you made. You can also do BASIC blemish removal. But the real power is being able to work directly with the Raw file and not chew up your hard drive with 3 copies of the same image - everything works in the database and is shown on your screen as edited. Once done, you can export the image as a JPG, TIF or whatever....

I would follow this linke: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/ and click on some of the "view it" buttons at the bottom.

As someone who was a HUGE PSE Organizer fan, I will never touch it again. Lightroom is amazing - and it works great with PSE Editor, too, I believe. (I use PSCS now.) So you can do all the tweaks to the Raw file in Lightroom and then pull it into PS for any special effects, major blemish removal and more. And it remembers to put it with the original - like PSE Organizer.

Does that help? Hopefully!

Elaine · April 12, 2007

photogmomma wrote:

Lightroom will take your photos and organize them, much like PSE5 does, but it also does non-destructive editing. So you can crop, color correct, adjust tone and much more, apply that to as many different photos from the shoot as you'd like and then revert to the original and still keep track of all teh changes you made. You can also do BASIC blemish removal. But the real power is being able to work directly with the Raw file and not chew up your hard drive with 3 copies of the same image - everything works in the database and is shown on your screen as edited. Once done, you can export the image as a JPG, TIF or whatever....

I would follow this linke: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/ and click on some of the "view it" buttons at the bottom.

As someone who was a HUGE PSE Organizer fan, I will never touch it again. Lightroom is amazing - and it works great with PSE Editor, too, I believe. (I use PSCS now.) So you can do all the tweaks to the Raw file in Lightroom and then pull it into PS for any special effects, major blemish removal and more. And it remembers to put it with the original - like PSE Organizer.

Does that help? Hopefully!

I think you just sold me on it!

I have PSE 5 too and have been toying with the idea of trying RAW for the first time. I just watched the intro video at Adobe's site and was impressed with what I saw. I'm nervous about learning a new program, but it sounds like what I've been looking for, without forking out all the $$ for CS3.

Oops! Sorry for hi-jacking, Desmond!

Elaine

DavidS · April 12, 2007

urbanaries wrote:

I too was frustrated and skeptical of the added time of RAW workflow until I was turned on to this amazing program.

I echo what Lynne says about Lightroom. It has sped up my post processing workflow a great deal. I have also found I can spend less time in Lightroom by using i2e on the images after converting to JPEG.

Desmond · April 13, 2007

I can edit RAW images to a degree with pse5 but can't do batch processing with it . I have been trying to work out how to do a batch conversion of B&W and sepia with pse5 but it sounds like I will need lightroom to do this .
I'll have a look on the local NZ auction site [ www.trademe.co.nz ]to see if it is available .Thanks for the advice .... don't worry about hijacking my thread , I come from South Africa so I'm just glad I'm still alive after a hi-jacking !

No-flash bride and groom

Comments