My first paid wedding (images)

TonyL · September 4, 2008

I did this as a favor for a friend. Didn't charge much, and I brought a second photographer.

some images:

Comments appreciated.
I shot with an Olympus E-500, now upgraded to the E-3, while my second photographer shot with the Canon 40D. DJ lighting makes it hard!

Moogle Pepper · September 4, 2008

Is there more?

#2

Was this before or after the wedding?

#3 Looks kinda dark, maybe lighten it up a bit?

I think your watermark here is distracting from the overall photographs.

TonyL · September 4, 2008

Moogle Pepper wrote:

Is there more?

#2 Was this before or after the wedding?

#3 Looks kinda dark, maybe lighten it up a bit?

I think your watermark here is distracting from the overall photographs.

Yeah I had an issue with people saving the images and cropping out the watermark so I threw it up there with it smack in the middle.

I have others that were lightened up in regards to #3.

Thanks for the comments.

Swartzy · September 4, 2008

From what one can see (as they are a bit small).....the first one is a fairly flat in composition shot with too much headroom and no dynamic light. Cropping this would serve it better.

#2

Cute snapshot of the little boy that crashed. Not really a photo to show the world. Don't mean to be harsh sounding but you could do much better I'm sure.

#3

For detail photos, it's all about "presentation". Setting the stage so to speak by arranging the rings, Bible, angle of perspective, DOF, proper lighting, etc. makes or breaks these shots. The empty ring case is a distraction and certainly not necessary to include. The overall flat composition makes for an uninteresting look. The flat piece of cloth (assuming that's what it is), looks like a piece of butcher paper beyond the Bible and has no place in the composition.

As I've stated before, shooting weddings (or any good photography) takes much more than pointing the camera. Work on compositions and correct exposure as those two elements will improve your efforts.

TonyL · September 4, 2008

Swartzy wrote:

From what one can see (as they are a bit small).....the first one is a fairly flat in composition shot with too much headroom and no dynamic light. Cropping this would serve it better.

#2

Cute snapshot of the little boy that crashed. Not really a photo to show the world. Don't mean to be harsh sounding but you could do much better I'm sure.

#3

For detail photos, it's all about "presentation". Setting the stage so to speak by arranging the rings, Bible, angle of perspective, DOF, proper lighting, etc. makes or breaks these shots. The empty ring case is a distraction and certainly not necessary to include. The overall flat composition makes for an uninteresting look. The flat piece of cloth (assuming that's what it is), looks like a piece of butcher paper beyond the Bible and has no place in the composition.

As I've stated before, shooting weddings (or any good photography) takes much more than pointing the camera. Work on compositions and correct exposure as those two elements will improve your efforts.

So I guess you are more or less saying I stink?
Better ring shot?

Swartzy · September 4, 2008

cadguru wrote:

So I guess you are more or less saying I stink?
Better ring shot?

Not at all. This ring shot is much much better. This contains the elements I described above. What I am suggesting is to put your "Best" foot forward rather than just taking snapshots. Nothing easy about good photography....keep going. I want to encourage not trash...so don't take it that way.

TonyL · September 4, 2008

Swartzy wrote:

Not at all. This ring shot is much much better. This contains the elements I described above. What I am suggesting is to put your "Best" foot forward rather than just taking snapshots. Nothing easy about good photography....keep going. I want to encourage not trash...so don't take it that way.

Gotcha....this was a favor (favors stink when you do this because you get in over your head).
I am more comfortable with action shots.

Scott_Quier · September 4, 2008

cadguru wrote:

Yeah I had an issue with people saving the images and cropping out the watermark so I threw it up there with it smack in the middle.

I have others that were lightened up in regards to #3.

Thanks for the comments.

May I suggest you block originals? I just downloaded the original of the first photo and guess what - no watermark:D Just trying to help you in your effort to protect your work (notice I didn't say how I downloaded the original).

As for ring shots, I'm not saying these are the best of all possible ring shots, but here are a few my assistant (my son) did on couple of recent weddings we worked together:

1. There's something of the program here to provide context

2. This was shot for the album. They had a white/purple theme going... What's particularly significant here is the inscriptions inside the rings. It's hard to read, but her's says "Better" and his says "Together". We just barely got her's, but his came out quite nicely.

3. Another wedding - that's the bouquet in the background

TonyL · September 4, 2008

Scott_Quier wrote:

May I suggest you block originals? I just downloaded the original of the first photo and guess what - no watermark:D Just trying to help you in your effort to protect your work (notice I didn't say how I downloaded the original).

In process of changing the watermark.
For some reason, it wasn't letting me change it out. I had to remove it first.
The other one should be up in a few.

Thanks for the headsup though.

divamum · September 4, 2008

Who did the ring shot where the shadows of the two rings formed a heart on the page of the book? That was one of the coolest things I've seen and, since the subject is coming up in here, perhaps it's not too tangential to ask about it? I wondered how it was done when I saw it.

Scott_Quier · September 4, 2008

divamum wrote:

Who did the ring shot where the shadows of the two rings formed a heart on the page of the book? That was one of the coolest things I've seen and, since the subject is coming up in here, perhaps it's not too tangential to ask about it? I wondered how it was done when I saw it.

Don't know who did it first, but I've seen it done by a number of different photogs on a few different forums.

How it's done:

Open the Bible to an appropriate page - make sure you get a good verse!
Stand the rings up, with her's closer to the camera - this is the hard part - getting them to stand up
Move flash to a position such that it's light will cast the shadow. If you have it connected to the camera such that you can use HSS, you don't have to worry about ambient light.
Close down the aperture a bit, and with fast shutter speed (to reduce the exposure contribution of the ambient light, fire off a series at different flash power settings.

jeffreaux2 · September 4, 2008

divamum wrote:

Who did the ring shot where the shadows of the two rings formed a heart on the page of the book? That was one of the coolest things I've seen and, since the subject is coming up in here, perhaps it's not too tangential to ask about it? I wondered how it was done when I saw it.

This one?

I saw this somewhere else a year or so ago. Maybe in this forum. This is not difficult but requires off-camera-flash. The toughest part is getting the rings to stand up straight. The shot I saw that prompted me to try it was a bit different. The rings were spaced much farther apart and created two completely seperate hearts. To get a heart within a heart like this you need a groom's ring to be MUCH larger than the bride's ring. I was surprised last week by an anonymous request to purchase this photo to be used as a watermark for invitations for another couple.

-to add to what Scott said above, you also need a lens with close focus ability. This was done with the Tamron 28-75mmF2.8 Macro lens and shot at 75mm. 1/200 , ISO200, F4.0.

divamum · September 4, 2008

jeffreaux2 wrote:

This one?

Yup, that's the one! And I'm glad you posted it again, because i"ve been sitting here for the last half hr with a lamp and my own wedding/engagement rings trying to figure out which side the light has to come from to make the right shadow! lol

Thanks for reposting - and to both of you for demystifing the "how". I'm not a wedding photographer (ha - I'm just trying to make the jump from "quite nice snaps" to "I know at least a little about what I'm doing"), but I did think this was uebercool.

jeffreaux2 · September 4, 2008

divamum wrote:

Yup, that's the one! And I'm glad you posted it again, because i"ve been sitting here for the last half hr with a lamp and my own wedding/engagement rings trying to figure out which side the light has to come from to make the right shadow! lol

Thanks for reposting - and to both of you for demystifing the "how". I'm not a wedding photographer (ha - I'm just trying to make the jump from "quite nice snaps" to "I know at least a little about what I'm doing"), but I did think this was uebercool.

You are going to have issues replicating that with a lamp. A speedlight is very directional in nature, and it was located 12 inches or less from the rings here. In addition, not sure, but I think I remember having to push the flash power itself up quite a bit to harden the shadows. I'd be surprised if a lamp can do that.

eyeguy · September 4, 2008

The ring think
Good Day
I was was looking at another shot similar to this on on the web. I was playing around and had a Bible on the kitchen Island with the kitchen track lighting shining from behind the rings no, flash. you don't even have to have the rings standing up to get a heart shadow but it looks more impressive. If you are thinking of getting into Wedding Photography, I was reading this book Digital Wedding Photography. by Glen Johnson. A good book and some great photos with lots of great information on the topic. his web site is http://aperturephotographics.com/
I got the book from the local library.

eyeguy
P.S I do have photos of the ring but I am shooting film and it is still in the camera so if I will post later. suggestion lets see what people can come up with using this idea

divamum · September 4, 2008

jeffreaux2 wrote:

You are going to have issues replicating that with a lamp. A speedlight is very directional in nature, and it was located 12 inches or less from the rings here. In addition, not sure, but I think I remember having to push the flash power itself up quite a bit to harden the shadows. I'd be surprised if a lamp can do that.

No, no, you misunderstood me - I wasn't actually trying to PHOTOGRAPH it, just doing it as I sat here to try and understand the directional aspect of it (at a practical, rather than theoretical level) for my own benefit! But thanks for clarifying!

No, I have no aspirations to get into wedding photography - as a full time professional opera singer, I have more than enough stress in my life! But I admire and get sooo much out of looking at the magnificent work in this forum, and it DOES have a tremendous impact on improving my eye and understanding of *light* as I browse through, read, and try to better understand the concepts and possibilities to apply to the pictures I do take.

Thanks!

/unintentional thread hijack

ajlipe · November 22, 2008

Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by cadguru
So I guess you are more or less saying I stink?
Better ring shot?

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Not at all. This ring shot is much much better. This contains the elements I described above. What I am suggesting is to put your "Best" foot forward rather than just taking snapshots. Nothing easy about good photography....keep going. I want to encourage not trash...so don't take it that way.

Thanks. I was the second shooter and this was my interpretation of the ring shot. I was the one who put the ring box down in the corner but it was only to keep that part of the book under control so that I could get this shot and never intended for the box to be part of the photo.

jeffreaux2 · November 22, 2008

divamum wrote:

Who did the ring shot where the shadows of the two rings formed a heart on the page of the book? That was one of the coolest things I've seen and, since the subject is coming up in here, perhaps it's not too tangential to ask about it? I wondered how it was done when I saw it.

I have done that....but it didn't originate with me. I saw the shot somewhere else...or maybe here in the forum...I forget. Anyway it is simple with off camera flash. The hardest part is getting the rings to stand up. I keep some two-sided scotch tape in my bag now-a-days to help whenever I am shooting a wedding.

Here is a link that contains that shot.

Claire and Chris

joshhuntnm · November 24, 2008

That heart picture is really cool.

joshhuntnm · November 24, 2008

A simple crop on that first one would significantly. Rule of thirds.