Wedding 23-2-06

[tim]

From todays wedding, here's about ten that caught my eye. btw my feet hurt, i'm tired, i'm kinda hungry and I have to get up at 8am to work my regular job tomorrow morning!

http://www.mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/rg/RG1.jpg

http://www.mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/rg/RG2.jpg

http://www.mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/rg/RG2b.jpg

http://www.mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/rg/RG3.jpg

http://www.mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/rg/RG4.jpg

http://www.mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/rg/RG5.jpg

http://www.mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/rg/RG6.jpg

http://www.mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/rg/RG7.jpg

http://www.mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/rg/RG8.jpg

[spencer87]

amazing job Tim, I'm sure they'll be very pleased with these. The rings photo turned out really well - looks like a product shot for a jeweler!

[cdifoto]

Good stuff Tim. My only nitpick is I think I'd prefer if the bride & father were in focus, rather than the groom. In that shot you see no faces.

[supplier]

Really love your stuff. Following your first posts about weddings I’m amazed with the progress in creativity and self-awareness you made. Best of luck in the future. :lol:

[tim]

Thanks guys :) cdi, that photo looks how I meant it to - I find the thing that first draws your eye in a picture should be in focus, otherwise I don't like the picture.

[MALI]

Nice....
One little c&c: numbers 2&4 have too much flash for my taste.

MALI

[cdifoto]

Thanks guys :) cdi, that photo looks how I meant it to - I find the thing that first draws your eye in a picture should be in focus, otherwise I don't like the picture.

That's cool since you intended it that way. I just like to see faces. Of course, if you had shot it the way I think I would prefer it, I probably would say I'd rather see it the other way. :eek:

[tim]

Nice....
One little c&c: numbers 2&4 have too much flash for my taste.

MALI

I agree - the groom in #4 was horribly overexposed by the flash actually, I rescued it in RAW and did a blended exposure to get it ok. #2 i'm not sure if it was flash or just overexposure from overhead lights.

That's cool since you intended it that way. I just like to see faces. Of course, if you had shot it the way I think I would prefer it, I probably would say I'd rather see it the other way. :eek:

:p

[carl1645]

Tim don't you ever sleep?

Re the photo's, i think the only one that lets the set down is the bride and groom in the doorway. It's neither a silhouette or otherwise, try photoshopping it to make it useable. I'll have a mess with it and see if I can come up with anything.

The others are great.

My opinion only.

Carl

[tim]

Really Carl? That's one of my favorites! Just different tastes I guess. I have a half dozen variations on that photo, some with them visible (flash fill), some with them looking at each other, etc, etc.

[tim]

That's an interesting idea, personally I much prefer the one I posted. Thanks for the idea.

[carl1645]

Your the boss Tim, it's your photo. IMHO i just thought it was the weakest of the bunch. The others really have impact and excellence and that one just fell below par. But hey, keep up the good work. I like the effect on the one below that image, is that straight from the camera or have you tweaked it, and if so what have you done?
Carl

[tim]

What does everyone else think about the doorway pic? I really like it.

That other image is part of my secret processing ;)

[cdifoto]

What does everyone else think about the doorway pic? I really like it.

That other image is part of my secret processing ;)

Quite honestly it doesn't phase me one way or the other. It's a good addition to the series but I wouldn't miss it if you decided to drop it from the bunch.

Dunno if that makes any sense but that's how I feel about it.

[SuzyView]

Can't tell you how much I look forward to your work. The doorway one is great. I love your point of view. It inspires me for my next wedding job. :)

[MALI]

I agree - the groom in #4 was horribly overexposed by the flash actually,

I wonder, Tim, do you use a stofen or lightsphere with your flash?

Also, what is your best strategy to freeze action in low light especially when you fear that flash will destroy the mood? Cranking up ISO and a fast lens do help but I wonder if there is little dirty trick or those tricky situations.

One situation is when the groom walks the isle, which is relatively simple to handle. The other is the dance floor, where usually the light is incredibly low with too much action. A powerful flash will light up the subject but the background will be way too dark.

Thanks a bunch.

MALI

[tim]

I don't like either the stofen or lightsphere, I use an on-camera soft box, sometimes direct, sometimes bounced. In a church I can't usually bounce, because of the color and height of the ceiling.

I don't have any special tricks to free motion in low light. Wide apertures, fill flash, and dragging the shutter is one strategy for first dance shots in near darkness. Another in bouncing the flash with a little going direct, but keeping high ISO to get some ambient light too. It is tough. I've never had a groom walk down the aisle, but for the bride I use ISO400 or 800, around F5.6, and 1/125th or so.

[SuzyView]

What lenses do you use?

[tim]

I use every lens I own at a wedding, here's the list and approximate usages.

Tamron 28-75 F2.8 - 50%
Canon 50mm F1.4 - 20%
Tokina 12-24 F4 - 20%
Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS - 9%
Canon 100mm macro - 1%

For this wedding I also used studio lights in the church (which didn't work well) and outside to overpower the sun (which worked well).

[MALI]

I don't like either the stofen or lightsphere, I use an on-camera soft box, sometimes direct, sometimes bounced.

Which soft box do you use? Any link, images, etc.?

Thanks for the info.

MALI

[tim]

This softbox (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=32690&is=REG&addedTroughType=search). No pics of it mounted sorry.

[md_129]

nice shots, the rings are great!

[tim]

There's a reflection in the rings that I don't really like, I could fix it but it's not important enough. You can't see it when you're taking the photo, it's too small. I'll be on the lookout next time though :)

[SR071]

Tim, re the shot in the doorway, I think the detail in the background distracts, and that's what I don't like about it. Compositionally it's very pleasing. Perhaps one at f2.8 would give you a bit more blur on the wall. As it stands, it's focused and this is a distraction.

Just my opinion, and no I'm not a pro, and wouldn't dare do a wedding myself.

[tim]

That shot's at F3.2, no difference from F2.8 really. Here it is with fill flash. I could fix the top bit but not bothered for proofs.

http://www.mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/rg/RG4b.jpg

[CyberPet]

Looks good Tim! Only one thing I don't like, image 4 I think, the lower right corner, something white (a shoulder?) clone it away!!! :D

I think the doorway picture is nice... it works just like it is, soft and romantic!

My favorite is the dock picture (well maybe it's a bridge) when they are walking away from you - towards the future.

[tim]

Thanks Petra, and yeah i'll get rid of that white corner :)

[dsze]

#6 & 7 are great. I like the rings too. Nice job Tim. It looks like you use your lenses similarly to me. My Tamron 28-75 is great and probably sees about 50% of the time as well. I also tend to use my 85 alot too, especially for PJ types. I've also been considering a soft-box like that for awhile now. I usually like my stoffen, but I don't like how much output I lose, especially in bright areas. I've also got several mid-day weddings coming this summer that won't work well with the stoffen. Anyway, Nice work !