Jerome,
That's a nice wedding album!
Regards,  Bob S.

On 9/3/07, Stan Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you have a good eye. I enjoyed your photos. What comes across
> to me is the people involved - they seem real, not just props in a
> staged wedding.
> I see what you mean about the white dresses. But didn't you shoot in
> RAW? Can't you easily adjust for the exposure and color balance issues?
>
> Disclaimer: I have been groom and best-man (total of five times) more
> often than I have tried wedding photography (as a back-up volunteer -
> four times).
>
> stan
>
> On Sep 3, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Jerome wrote:
>
> > [impatient? scroll down for the link]
> >
> > I shot my first wedding this past Saturday. Luckily, I was *not*
> > the paid
> > wedding photographer. Instead, some friends of mine who have a
> > videography
> > company let me tag along under the guise of their "still-shot
> > assistant".
> > In any event, I thought I'd share my experience in hopes of any
> > helpful
> > comments, criticisms, etc. Long story short, I learned that I am
> > not ready
> > for "prime time" just yet. But the practice was invaluable.
> >
> > To state the obvious: shooting a real wedding was a whole lot
> > different
> > than sitting around the house thinking about it! And getting
> > practice in a
> > situation where there was almost no pressure was great0, especially
> > given
> > the fact that I'm not all that thrilled with the results. If I was
> > getting
> > paid as the main photographer, I would definitely be stressing
> > right now
> > over the quality of the pictures. But one thing I will say is that I
> > LEARNED A LOT!! For example...
> >
> > 1. My autofocus is WAY too slow. FYI, I shot with 2 K10D's, a sigma
> > 70-200mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8, and the Pentax 12-24 lens. Granted
> > Pentax is
> > known for having slower autofocus than Canon and Nikon (begin debate
> > here)... but I've never seen this become a huge factor until
> > Saturday...
> > maybe because I mostly take pictures of waterfalls, landscapes, and
> > my son
> > who can't walk or crawl yet. Anyway, I missed a lot of shots while the
> > camera hunted for something to focus on. And many of the shots I
> > did fire
> > off were blurry beyond salvaging due to my shutter speed being too
> > slow.
> > In the end, I ended up having to switch to manual focus for almost
> > everything just for insurance purposes.
> >
> > 2.  My #1 objective was to not be seen or be a distraction to the
> > other
> > photographer, and with that I thought I could get away with not using
> > flash for the entire ceremony. Big mistake. This particular church
> > is on
> > television almost every day, and so they have great tv lighting. I did
> > some test shots the night before and the light temp seemed perfect
> > w/o a
> > flash. Well, I don't know what happened from one day to the next,
> > but all
> > of my photos in the sanctuary came out with the worst reddish
> > yellow hue.
> > Example here:
> >
> > http://exposedfilm.net/wwsmith/yellow.jpg
> >
> > I haven't a clue how I didn't pick it up during the ceremony, but I
> > didn't. So of course it was a fight to neutralize everything in
> > Photoshop.
> >
> > 3. Probably the most important thing I messed up...  I blew the
> > exposure
> > on all of the brides dress photos (d'oh!!). I think this is the one I
> > would've got murdered for if I was the "real photographer".
> > Absolutely no
> > detail in her dress. Just a big white mass. My guess is that I
> > should have
> > exposed for the dress and let everything else fall into place. If the
> > tuxedos ended up pitch black, I think that would've been better. But a
> > bride expects to see every trim line, lace, and bead on her dress
> > in the
> > photos. So I messed up big time on this one. According to all of my
> > photos, the bride just had on a big bright white sheet.
> >
> > But the tuxedos look sharp! (ha)
> >
> > 4. This is the only one that I couldn't do anything about. Being
> > 5th in
> > line behind 3 videographers and a paid photographer, I didn't want
> > to move
> > around too much, so my angles were limited. To be honest, even the
> > paid
> > photographer was in a number of spots that I don't think I would've
> > been
> > comfortable in (seemed a little intrusive). The funny part is, I've
> > got
> > about 5 shots that would've been great... but they've all got some
> > body
> > part of the other photographer in them (head, arm, shoulder, etc.)
> > It's
> > actually kinda funny. But hey, at least I know I stayed out of his
> > way.
> >
> >
> > 5. My flash recycle time was unbearable. I used the AF 540FGZ on both
> > bodies, and switched batteries on each one during the wedding. I
> > missed SO
> > MANY shots because the flash was recharging. The first thing I did on
> > Sunday was to order the Power Pack III from B&H. Hopefully that
> > will make
> > a huge difference the next time around (which is next Saturday, I
> > think).
> > Obviously I really need two, but alas there *is* a budget.
> >
> > And without further ado, here are the wee bit of keepers I managed to
> > salvage from the shoot. As always comments and suggestions are
> > welcomed
> > and encouraged.
> >
> > http://exposedfilm.net/wwsmith
> >
> > I'm looking forward to my next opportunity to see if I improve.
> >
> > Thanks for reading.
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Reply via email to