Shot my first wedding...

[berettafan]

Did it for a coworker. Used my D70 and kit lense w/ SB600 flash. Had a backup D40 NIB just in case.

It went pretty well. I will caution you that the pics look a LOT different from one monitor to the other so colors may be out of whack depending on your settings, etc. Also note the 'shrinking' software took out a LOT of the detail/quality of the photos when i exported them for posting. Originials look quite a bit better.

I learned a LOT. You can read up all day long but actually doing it will really teach you quickly. I have a lens shopping list about $3k long now and will aquire them over time.

[berettafan]

[nostatic]

do you want constructive criticism? Or destructive

[tabs]

I thought you were going to say you went Postal at a wedding?

[berettafan]

well just sharing really. i can certainly take all the harsh comments you two care to dish out (i've certainly been critical of others more than my share of times )

these aren't really final cuts either. have some photoshopping to do but that is such miserably difficult software. recently downloaded a trial of Adobe Lightroom and really like it. very intuitive and the adjustments are niiiiice. saved quite a few shots that were too dark.

and, like i said, i learned an AWFUL lot doing this. you gotta start somewhere and this was it for me. i will start seeking work as a 2nd shooter (one of my favorite seinfeld episodes!) for a real pro if i can.

it was FUN and a lot of work.

[nostatic]

ok, keep in mind that I am *not* a wedding photographer. That biz has its own style and language. My comments are strictly from my bias and what I see wrt composition and form. I never use flash so I can't comment on how that helped/hurt you. I always use available light.

1st image is too dark on her face, and the stained glass window is distracting. You might be able to dodge and burn this to fix it (I assume you shot raw?).

2nd image is blown out on the background (through the window). Again you might be able to d&b but the lighting is off on their faces. Plus the yellow single light is a distraction.

3rd image is good but I'd crop the top 1/4 of the picture - that would also get rid of the flash reflection. You might lose a little drama though.

4th image I like a lot. Best of the series I think. You might want to photoshop her hair out on the right side of her face if your'e so inclined.

5th image I don't like her "look" and the single yellow light is a distraction. Plus the vertical shapes in the background detract from her in the foreground. Maybe a lot shorter DOF.

From the second post:

1st image - blown out background. I'm wishing you were another 2 steps to the right and framed it about a foot more to the left.

2nd image. I think I know what you were going for, but it sends an odd vibe from the look on her face.

3rd - the windows int he background are killer. Again, if you had it to do again I'd go for a narrower DOF and try and meter on the foreground.

4th - odd white balance. I like the composition though, although there are a couple of details that throw me (like underneath her nose and the part of the guy's face in the upper right). I'd rather see more of the guy upper right (though that is a "street shot") or none.

5th - soft focus and the stained glass again is a pita. Do you know what fstop you were shooting mostly?

[berettafan]

THANK YOU!!!

A telephoto would fix a lot of the background issues w/ a shallower dof. No question there. The 18-200 is supposed to be great but i'd almost rather use 2 bodies and have a 17-50 on one and the 70-200 2.8 on the other. pics should improve greatly.

i will blur the windows where necessary as well.
having shot the pics myself i tend to see what i want vs. a third party looking at them and seeing what is really there.

[nostatic]

no worries. It is actually good for me as well. Sunday I was having lunch with the artist g/f and I didn't care for the photos on the wall. She asked me to explain why, so I had to tell her (she keeps me honest). It wasn't to be mean (though sometimes criticism is just that), but rather if I can't explain why I don't like someone else's work, then I probably don't really understand my own work.

Actually I wouldn't depend on the lens to improve the pics. Most of the issues I see are exposure and composition related. It depends on the room though as you're often pretty limited in position. I personally hated the 18-200 lens when I had my Nikon, but I'm somewhat in the minority. A zoom is useful for a situation like a wedding but I prefer primes. That said I've gotten some great shots with zooms and with my p&s. Just depends on the light.

Do you have the exposure data? And is that the 18-55 or 18-70 kit lens? I would think you'd probably be shooting wide open and be getting as narrow a DOF as the lens will give you but maybe the flash stops it down? Or if you are a long ways away you'll lose the nice bokeh as well. That is where a bit longer lens helps. For "portraits" I shoot a 77mm prime that just kills. *But*, indoors I can often run out of room and need a wider lens. If you're going for fly on the wall and trying to stay out of the action, then zooms are pretty much required. With my setup, I'd probably swap between 16-45 and 50-135.

[berettafan]

[berettafan]

nostatic wrg to background/composition i was thinking a longer lense would help to blur the background more. it was a reasonably tight space at the reception and the ceremony was a lighting nightmare for a slow lense. Lense is the 18-70.

faster lenses would allow me to use much less flash so i'm looking forward to that.

[jorian]

Candid shots are always my favourites. The staged ones usually seem to contrived.

Good for you trying to earn some $ doing something you enjoy

[vash]

wedding shots...best to put them on a disc and just fork them over to the client. no sense posting up here on pelican.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by berettafan

nostatic wrg to background/composition i was thinking a longer lense would help to blur the background more. it was a reasonably tight space at the reception and the ceremony was a lighting nightmare for a slow lense. Lense is the 18-70.

faster lenses would allow me to use much less flash so i'm looking forward to that.

The 18-70 is a really good lens actually, but it isn't the fastest one around. That's one reason I like primes but there are some reasonably fast zooms out there. My 77mm is f1.9, while my 50-135 is f2.8. I also have shake reduction in the body which helps with low light quite a bit.

I don't own a flash and almost never use the onboard one so I can't help you with that. I do drop the output quite a bit on the rare occasions I use it. I like things as diffuse as possible.

I think your candid "crowd" shots are nice - that seems to be where your eye works well. The more portrait ones are tough because of lighting and position. Plus I personally have a really tough time with them...just isn't my thing.

[Cdnone1]

Hi
If you can cut the top !/3 of the frame off most of your pictures that should give you an idea of your composition. We call it giving them a hair cut.
Though I don't shoot weddings or even stills for a living I have been shooting images (motion) for a living for the last 22 years. Images with humanity (people) in them are all about the people. Period. Your candid shots are great because they are showing the emotions and experiences of the moment. Concentrate on that. People love to see themselves and friends in shots, not what's behind them. Let your eye find what you really want to show and focus the frame, lighting, composition and your energy on capturing that. Don't be afraid to ask people to move for you so you can get a better shot. The moment will end but people will re-live it through your images years from now.
Once you start capturing the energy of the moment through the peoples eyes and expressions you can start worrying about you technical skills.
Your just a little to far away to be part of the moment right now. Get closer, with both your lens and yourself. Once you establish (early) that your a part of the event people will not even notice you.
Keep it up though, just wanting to do this shows you have what it takes.
Steve

[stomachmonkey]

2nd post, third shot, photochop the porta potty out of the shot.

I agree with Todd.

The lighting issues are easier to deal with post than the composition.

Resist the urge to center the subjects in every frame.

Obviously sometimes, especially weddings, the subject should be the primary focus, but then you are better off having a neutral background.

Instead try to frame a shot so the environment becomes a part of the composition. You want to create a "scene"

When shooting subjects dead on suggest they look slightly above and off to the side, you don't want them looking directly into the lens all the time.

It's ok to take the time to pose them, get them to lean into each other, create intimacy.

[kqw]

The D70 is a great Camera. I recently (last month) bought a D300 and D80 for backup.

I got the 18-55 and 55-200VR lens. I would prefer a 70-300 or even a 18-135. Anyway....

I'm sure you know that once you are familiar with all the features on the Nikons, the pictures get better and better without enhancements from a computer.

DSLR's today a basically "Computers" with lens that just happen to take pictures.

[LeRoux Strydom]

One of Nikon's best portrait lenses is the 85 f1.4. It is rumoured that the current D-type lens is due to be updated to an AF-S type (in-lens focusing motor) with VR. I know someone who shot an entire wedding with the 85/1.4. Another good option for portraits is the 105VR/f2.8, which is actually a macro lens as well.

A good kit lens is the 18-135, it tested sharper than the 18-200 which has unacceptable distortion and zoom barrel creep.

I have a D80 and D300, with 12-24/f4, 24-70/f2.8 and 70-200/f2.8 and a couple of primes in the mix too. The autofocus on the D300 is awe-inspiring, not to mention that you can fire away at 8 fps (requires the optional battery grip attached) for action shots. You won't believe the 51-point 3D AF tracking until you see it happen before your eyes.

[speeder]

There are some really nice shots in those groups, and a few not so great. Other, more qualified voices have already given constructive criticism here and the only thing I can add is that I generally can't stand posed pictures but love shots where people are doing something and are not really aware of the camera. Especially at something like a wedding and reception; so much is going on in terms of animated conversations, people laughing together at happy/funny stories, children having fun, etc...

I love photography even though I've never studied it formally, my own picture-taking has improved markedly since the advent of digital photography since one can now snap away like crazy and then cherry-pick the best shots, studying them for what is good about them. Keep it up, man! You have a good attitude about starting somewhere and an open mind, those things are indispensable to getting good at a craft.

[911Rob]

Good Job! Thanks for posting.
You did this for a friend or its a business?
I have friends that do weddings; very stressful.
Something about..... bride Bitc*es? Ha, ha.

I love photography too, but I'm definately no expert. However, I probably am the most highly paid photographer than anyone that does it for a living!!! I like photographing houses too, they don't talk back and they don't move around!!!

I love the third photo that shows how formal the dinner setting was through the windows!
I'd be happy that your images were clear and sharp and no fuzziness; very good from what I can see.

The brides dress poses a bit of a challenge too; I'd pick the photos where the bust is showing otherwise it messes with the 'read' of the photo. Not the most flattering dress for that particular women? imo.

the bottom line is that I hope the client is happy. people generally hate photos of themselves unless you can make them look younger than they actually are or better? ha, ha. Maybe some photoshop will help.

Good looking bunch though and I'd say you done well.
Cheers!

[djmcmath]

Nice work. Weddings are hard to get right, especially with the stress of knowing that you'll never get a second shot at these pictures. It's not like shooting, say, Venice. You can go back to Venice if you didn't get the pictures right. You can't re-do a wedding. I've shot just enough weddings to know that I wouldn't want to do it professionally. There's nothing worse than trying to get flattering pictures of an ugly bride (face it -- they're not all easy to shoot) in the "romantic" light that she's established in some church.

Blech. I usually have fun doing it, but I can't imagine shooting weddings full time. Good on ya, man.

Dan