| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/09/2004 04:41:04 PM · #1 |
Back in August I helped some friends by taking photos of their wedding. They already had one photographer, so I was to be the second. I did my best to get the shots that he couldn̢۪t, and ended up taking 184 photos that day. When I had my 1GB card filled up I dumped it onto a laptop that he brought for the purpose, then I wiped the card and shot a few more. He told me that he would send me the photos on a DVD, but there was some disagreement over how much money he was to get paid for his work so I didn̢۪t get the photos until yesterday. So, now I need to pick out the best shots and get them ready for printing.
I learned a lot while doing this little favor. To name just a fewâ€Â¦
1. The lighting in that chapel was horrible! It was tungsten and way too dim.
2. The dark red carpeting and stained glass windows caused strange colors.
3. There wasn̢۪t a good background anywhere, either in the building or outside.
4. A huge white dress is very difficult to photograph.
5. Little kids in the wedding party are impossible!
6. I need a good wide-angle lens.
7. The lighting in that chapel was horrible!
8. I don̢۪t like shooting weddings.
9. People that shoot weddings can̢۪t possibly get paid enough.
10. I need to stop agreeing to do these little favors for friends.
Anyway, I̢۪m wondering if any of you would offer me some editing suggestions. For instance, how would you improve this photo? This isn̢۪t one of the better shots, and it has lots of problems, but I didn̢۪t get to take many setup shots prior to the ceremony and I̢۪d like to get something out this one if I can. It̢۪s pretty noisy because I took it at ISO 800. Should I use NeatImage to remove most of the noise? How would you crop it? Would you do anything else with it? (I mean other than toss it) Any suggestions will be much appreciated.
How about this photo? Is it over-NeatImaged?
Message edited by author 2004-10-09 16:41:52. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 07:17:03 PM · #2 |
You're freakin' me out, man! I've been asked to do a wedding next year for a friend's daughter, and no, I've never done a wedding before. Now, reading your post, I'M SCARED!!
In your first photo, the first thing I would do is crop out those stained glass windows! They seriously drag my eyes away from the bride.
Good Luck with your editing!
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 08:14:04 PM · #3 |
Here's a couple of quick examples. First thing, I use photoshop elements. I cropped the image. I went to the layers pallett and draged the image to creat new layer (it's the little box at the bottom of the pallett). I clicked on the styles box in the upper left hand corner and selected screen I then set the opicity at around 35%. This lightens the whole image and is a great technique. I then flattened the layers. I selected the blure tool and blured the background. Then I selected the burn tool and burned the background at around 30% until it looked cool.
On the second picture I basically did the same steps. Just some quick ideas. Kevin
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=111502
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=111503
Message edited by author 2004-10-09 20:30:09. |
|
|
|
10/09/2004 08:27:45 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by lhall:
You're freakin' me out, man! I've been asked to do a wedding next year for a friend's daughter, and no, I've never done a wedding before. Now, reading your post, I'M SCARED!!
In your first photo, the first thing I would do is crop out those stained glass windows! They seriously drag my eyes away from the bride.
Good Luck with your editing! |
Okay, here's the photo after the following:
1. Auto-contrast
2. Auto-levels
3. Curves (set black point only)
4. Cropped
5. NeatImage
6. Resized to 427x640 for uploading
7. USM (50%, 1.5, 2)
I think it's much better, but I'm not sure about the NeatImage and the crop.
Sorry I freaked you out about shooting weddings. I'm sure that it's not always as difficult as it was for us this time. No doubt some churches have much better lighting conditions than this place had. In fact, a few years ago I did the photos for one of my nieces, and that chapel had pretty good lighting. My suggestion to you would be to go scope the place out well in advance of the wedding--take test shots, etc. I got pulled into this shoot at the last minute and didn't have time. If I had, then things might have worked out much better.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2004 08:42:23 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by kevinswope:
Here's a couple of quick examples. First thing, I use photoshop elements. I cropped the image. I went to the layers pallett and draged the image to creat new layer (it's the little box at the bottom of the pallett). I clicked on the styles box in the upper left hand corner and selected screen I then set the opicity at around 35%. This lightens the whole image and is a great technique. I then flattened the layers. I selected the blure tool and blured the background. Then I selected the burn tool and burned the background at around 30% until it looked cool.
On the second picture I basically did the same steps. Just some quick ideas. Kevin
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=111502
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=111503 |
Thanks Kevin! I really like the darker background, and I'll probably use it on a few of the shots. I'm also going to try the soft focus thing on a some of them. I've been wanting to try the High Pass layer technique that EddyG posted a while back.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 09:36:18 AM · #6 |
I like Kevin's crop on the top image; it's nice that you can still see most of the train on the dress.
Thank you for the suggestion to check the church out way in advance. I will most certainly take this advice.
If you could only use ONE lens for the entire event, what would it be? I am looking at the 28-300L lens as a possibility, but am concerned about using it in low light levels without flash. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 09:40:54 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by lhall:
You're freakin' me out, man! I've been asked to do a wedding next year for a friend's daughter, and no, I've never done a wedding before. Now, reading your post, I'M SCARED!!
|
From a little bit of experience shooting weddings, I'd say that if you aren't scared, you are going to be in a lot of trouble. It is hard to shoot a wedding. There is a lot of pressure on you to do it well. It is often very difficult, not just from a technical perspective given the lighting, or from a subject matter perspective (black and white are hard to capture and keep details in both) and also the general chaos of your typical wedding. Working a crowd can be a challenge if you aren't used to it either. Experience helps.
You need to be organised. You need to know what you are doing. You need if at all possible to get some practice. Find a wedding photographer and offer to be an assistant maybe. Or a second shooter. Get some experience of the trials and tribulations before you are doing it with someone's memories.
A tripod is very useful for many of the shots, even if they want a more 'reportage' style. Fast lenses certainly help, but you'll often want more depth of field. Lighting is a challenge, with mixed sources competing with your flash if you are using one - B&W is a great boon here ;)
Message edited by author 2004-10-10 09:43:49. |
|
|
|
10/10/2004 09:41:12 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by lhall:
If you could only use ONE lens for the entire event, what would it be? I am looking at the 28-300L lens as a possibility, but am concerned about using it in low light levels without flash. Any thoughts? |
I'm seriously thinking of entering the wedding photography market, and I just got a lens that I think will be very helpful. I got a Tamron 17-35, 2.8, and after playing with it these last few days I don't know how I lived without it. The wide angle is infinitely better than my 28-70 can offer.
I think that the 17mm aspect of it is going to come in TREMENDOUSLY helpful for group shots, shots of the church interior, etc. And at 2.8, I'll be able to operate a bit better under the poor light conditions. Just my .02... |
|
|
|
10/10/2004 09:44:38 AM · #9 |
If I could only have ONE lens to do my weddings?
28-105mm f2.8 would be the one. Wide enough, zoom enough, light enough. I wouldn't want just one though.
M
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 09:45:45 AM · #10 |
Oh and your neat imaged second photo is a bit too cleaned up, but if you apply a nice diffuse filter, it may work. :)
M
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 09:51:10 AM · #11 |
| I don't think the average joe would realize you used neatimage. I think they both look great, but I do like the cropped one better because part of the train of the dress is chopped off. |
|
|
|
10/10/2004 09:58:32 AM · #12 |
I have been viewing a lot of photos lately of friends wedding photos.. Lights in churches, carpet and those windows do make it hard. Some I have seen just way too much yellow. Try to get the wedding party days early or if the ceromony day ends up a nice day go to a local park or just outdoor photos in general....
I like the photos much better after photoshopping really helped them lots..
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 12:04:45 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by lhall:
If you could only use ONE lens for the entire event, what would it be? I am looking at the 28-300L lens as a possibility, but am concerned about using it in low light levels without flash. Any thoughts? |
I used my 35-350L lens for all of my shots. Most of the time near the 35mm end, but a few times at longer focal lengths. The longest shot that I took was at the 150mm focal length--shooting from the back of the room during the ceremony. Several times I wished for a wider lens, or better yet, a full size sensor.
Brian, the other photographer, was using a Canon 300D body with 17-35mm 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L lenses that he rented. He offered me the use of those lenses, and even though I really wanted to try them out, I declined.
I think mavrik̢۪s suggestion of the 28-105mm f2.8 makes sense. Although I̢۪ve never used one, the focal range and max aperture are about right.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 12:13:04 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
If I could only have ONE lens to do my weddings?
28-105mm f2.8 would be the one. Wide enough, zoom enough, light enough. I wouldn't want just one though.
M |
Something fast and wide, but again wouldn't just take one, (actully I did just shoot a wedding with almost one, 24-70 added a 1.4 teleconverter on and off to change the dept, but my camera has a 1.6 cropping effect and I could have used a still wider lens. My 70-200 is just way to big to handle in tight inside quarters). I also wasn't being a "Wedding photographer" just a friend with a (granted expensive) camera.
Message edited by author 2004-10-10 12:16:45. |
|
|
|
10/10/2004 12:44:40 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
I think mavrik̢۪s suggestion of the 28-105mm f2.8 makes sense. Although I̢۪ve never used one, the focal range and max aperture are about right. |
I haven't used it either. It's the next lens I'm getting for my wedding photos, though. My 18-55 is a) too soft and b) not zoomed enough, and c) f3.5 on 18mm isn't enough at 55mm to be any good. So I think the 105mm will give me much better zoom power, the f2.8 is better than my 18mm f3.5 and it's a much higher quality glass. Unless you want a heavier lens, I'd say that's about the right, ya. :)
I wouldn't mind a longer lens if I could use a tripod - like up in the balconies. Then I wouldn't mind my 70-300mm or even a 400mm fixed f4 or something. :)
M
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 01:32:56 PM · #16 |
Michael,
I took your second edit and loaded it in Photoshop.
Here is a suggestion:
It is perhaps not really necessary, but I used Fred Miranda's Shadow Recovery Pro tool at setting 4 (no NR applied) to balance it to my preferences.
The more important part was to correct (the way I like it, not necessarily how you like it) the color. It seems there is a lot of blue/purple in it and I found that a Curves correction on the blue channel only, could be a solution.
So I set the Curves to Blue,
grabbed the middle point (128)
and dragged it a bit downwards in the direction of the lower right corner until it looked the way I wanted it.
Unfortunately I forgot to wrote down the setting I used.
It seems to give the image a much warmer feeling and skintones look better as well (imho).
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 01:58:11 PM · #17 |
Weddings are alot of work, I shot 20 this summer and am leaving for another one in a few hours..
You really can't go in there blind, even if it's a favor, you still need to do a great job. Michael's photos are good, just not my own personal style.
Be prepared be prepared! Bring a flash for that dark church which is almost GUARANTEED and a battery pack (or TONS of batteries). LOTS of cards. Have a game plan, I carry a few pages of "shots to remember" because weddings get crazy busy and it's easy to lose focus. Bring an assistant to carry your gear. Personally I turn a lot of the shots black and white, becuase color photos (esp. of the clothes) really date themselves in say..a year. But B&W is timeless.
100% of my clients don't want traditional photography. Be fun and creative but also don't forget the 'safe shots' that their parents are going to want: Full length portrait of the couple smiling their faces off. I hate it, they usually hate it, but everyone else loves it.
GOOD LUCK!
As a cheap plug, you can check out my own site as well as my cousin's (both need some serious updating however):
ME
HER
(if you go to her 'clients' page I shot Richelle & Shawn's wedding)
Message edited by author 2004-10-10 14:06:52. |
|
|
|
10/10/2004 05:34:51 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
It seems there is a lot of blue/purple in it and I found that a Curves correction on the blue channel only, could be a solution.
It seems to give the image a much warmer feeling and skintones look better as well (imho). |
When editing photos I usually spend a lot of time adjusting colors. It isn̢۪t often that I̢۪m satisfied with the colors of a photo straight from the camera. I can spend hours on a single photo, trying different settings for white, black, and gray points, levels, yada, yada. Sometimes a photo will have a color cast that wasn̢۪t in the scene, so I adjust the colors until they̢۪re the way they should have been, only to find that I like it better with the color cast. With some photos warmer is better, and sometimes I like a cooler look. Skin tones come in a gazillion different colors. I tend to prefer skin tones a bit on the warm side.
With this photo there was a lot of blue, purple, and red light in the room from the stained glass windows. I wanted to keep some of that color, but only in the background, and not on the subject or her dress. One of the things I liked about my version was the subtle red, white, and blue look. I really like the warm look of your version, and the dress looks better with less blue. I guess this is one of those shots that I̢۪ll have to play with for hours.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
BTW, would you have cropped the original differently?
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 06:07:33 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
BTW, would you have cropped the original differently? |
No, I think it is pretty good the way you've done it. The windows were quite distracting and the cropped version makes good use of the candles to suggest what kind of place this was shot in. The lines of the dress lead better this way as well.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 06:10:21 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Weddings are alot of work, I shot 20 this summer and am leaving for another one in a few hours.. |
Wow, you must be a masochist or something. :)
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
You really can't go in there blind, even if it's a favor, you still need to do a great job. |
I was asked to help out at the last minute. Actually, two days before the wedding, but I was too busy during that time to do any preparations. The other photographer called me the night before so we could compare notes and come up with a plan. He was a younger guy that actually had less experience shooting weddings than I did. He wanted to know if I had any suggestions, and I gave him a couple. I offered to bring my strobe lights, softboxes, etc, in case they had a place that we could set them up. He thought that was a good idea, so I brought the stuff, but we didn̢۪t have time to use them. His wife had once had a portrait studio, and she had him pretty well organized with a shot list, etc. And, even though she was in the wedding party as the maid of honor, she also helped him out a lot while we got the setup shots. I think he took all of my suggestions except the one where I told him to shoot in RAW mode. He shot most of his stuff in JPG, which I think was a big mistake. The white balance in most of his shots is pretty bad.
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Michael's photos are good, just not my own personal style. |
Thanks! I browsed your photos on those web sites. You do have a very different and very interesting style. To be honest, I like most of them, but some seem to be less about a wedding than simply two people out having fun. BTW, the photo of the car with the cow in the road (08-ext_9267.jpg) is great!
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 06:25:47 PM · #21 |
Here are a couple more that I've done some editing on...
 
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 06:32:08 PM · #22 |
Michael, love the crop with the windows cropped out, but have to say that I really do like Azrifel's "warm" version; I like the skin tones better.
Thanks for all the wedding suggestions/advice, I'll need it! Even though I am doing this more as a friend than a "photographer", I think that I will be the only photographer there, and I want so much for them to have some wonderful shots, and don't want to disappoint them.
Gordon, I WAS really scared before Michael posted, TERRIFIED after his post, and now am frightened silly!
@GoldBerry: 20 weddings this summer???? Can you come to Virginia next September?!!
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 07:03:37 PM · #23 |
Linda, I feel you for sure. I shot a wedding for some friends last night, and I almost died. Wedding photographers earn EVERY cent that they charge. I used a D70 and for the occasion rented a 70-200 f2.8 VR lense - extremely worthwhile. It was fast enough to take pics in the worst possible situation which was outside at night lit only by some Christmas lights and my SB-800 flash. If you can, I would suggest having two bodies though so that you can keep a wide angle lense on the other one for tight group shots, dancing, etc. I don't regret it though. I am going to end up with some great pics. Can't wait to get into the editing. Word of advice though...I would tell your friends that since you've never done any weddings, you can't guarantee any results. If they understand that and are cool with it, go for it. Good luck.
Brooks |
|
|
|
10/10/2004 08:17:19 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by lhall:
Michael, love the crop with the windows cropped out, but have to say that I really do like Azrifel's "warm" version; I like the skin tones better. |
Thanks Linda! I also like Azrifel's version. I̢۪m just not sure which one I like best.
Originally posted by lhall:
Gordon, I WAS really scared before Michael posted, TERRIFIED after his post, and now am frightened silly! |
Scared is okay. Just don̢۪t let them know that you̢۪re scared. Remember, heroes are scared people that do their job even though they̢۪re scared. Go be a hero. :)
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
10/10/2004 08:17:58 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Weddings are alot of work, I shot 20 this summer and am leaving for another one in a few hours.. |
Are you expensive? :) We have a wedding next summer, too.
M
|
|
