View Full Version : first go as a second shooter
tony fanning
10th of June 2006 (Sat), 18:30
My first day out as a second shooter. A fairly informal wedding, but very high class- helicopters and Rollers everywhere.
I was as prepared as I could be, but I forgot one thing. A spare pair of shoes! The one I had on looked OK when I put them on but after an hour at the church the bloody sole of one came right off! Oh! my god! Luckilly I only lived 2 minutes away and most of the church shots had been done.
Anyway, here`s a few from today. Please feel free to C&C.
I blew out quite a few highlights because of the extreme sun, so thank god for RAW!
tony fanning
10th of June 2006 (Sat), 18:32
some more
tony fanning
10th of June 2006 (Sat), 18:34
Still more
tony fanning
10th of June 2006 (Sat), 18:35
yet still more
tony fanning
10th of June 2006 (Sat), 18:36
you guessed it
tony fanning
10th of June 2006 (Sat), 18:37
more from today
tony fanning
10th of June 2006 (Sat), 18:38
last ones for now
tim
10th of June 2006 (Sat), 22:02
Exposure, exposure, exposure. Most of the shots aren't correctly exposed. Color temp is pretty random too. There are some seriously bad expressions in there, the 3rd last is expecially bad. The one of her sitting is ok.
Keep practicing, reading, and looking at pictures.
song4themoon
11th of June 2006 (Sun), 06:51
I like the idea of the one in the aisle (flower in focus bride in the back) and the one with the violine, however all of the shots are underexposed and unfortunately look more like snapshots. Keep practising with different settings until you get the exposure right. Also invest in a couple of books about wedding photography.. very helpful!
tony fanning
11th of June 2006 (Sun), 09:24
Thanks for your comments. Please remember these are only candids and not posed. The histograms on the shots show a full range of tones, so I don`t know how you can say they are underexposed. They havn`t yet had the full ps treatment. I`ll see if I can post a few "better" ones.
therosefairy
11th of June 2006 (Sun), 13:36
The colors look fine to me, some good candids, but I do agree on the expression on the 3rd from last.
jj1987
11th of June 2006 (Sun), 19:24
Thanks for your comments. Please remember these are only candids and not posed. The histograms on the shots show a full range of tones, so I don`t know how you can say they are underexposed. They havn`t yet had the full ps treatment. I`ll see if I can post a few "better" ones.
Underexposed means dark. If it looks dark on a callibrated monitor then its underexposed, ignore the histogram.
Also I would have avoided this bride smiling. Get more serious poses when you see teeth like that.
edit- the reason the histograms look normal is because you're metering for the background and the background is well exposed, making the people unpleasantly dark.
song4themoon
11th of June 2006 (Sun), 19:41
Thanks for your comments. Please remember these are only candids and not posed. The histograms on the shots show a full range of tones, so I don`t know how you can say they are underexposed. They havn`t yet had the full ps treatment. I`ll see if I can post a few "better" ones.
What I am about to see is not meant ot be rude, just to make a statement:
If you are shooting a wedding as or with a professional photographer then there cant be such a thing as "candids". Candids are what the guest are shooting... everything from the pro, thats not the fomal shots is wedding journalism. The shots have to look great, posed or not.
Now I am not very experienced myself and still have so much to learn, but I understand that every shot counts and that non of them can be simple candids. If I have clients come that might want me to shoot their wedding and they ask to see a full wedding shoot and they see that half of them are pics that their aunt could have taken, then they wont book me.
Like I said though, this is just a statement and not meant to come of rude. I think you had great ideas in some of the shots and practising some more with settings and angles will lead to some awesome pictures in the future I am sure!
mijbril
11th of June 2006 (Sun), 21:05
I guess it depends on how you define the role of "2nd photographer", if it's high res spontaneous candids then you've done your job (#6 is my favourite in your series btw). If it's offering a 2nd perspective on the posed shots by the 1st photographer, then we've not seen any yet.
So how did you see your role as "2nd banana" on the day??
tony fanning
12th of June 2006 (Mon), 03:01
My role was to get candids, that`s it. This photographer is a mate of mine and said I could come with him to get experience and see if I wanted to, or felt comfortable doing more in the future on my own (gulp). Overall I felt fairly comfortable during the day and I realise it`s not going to happen without a lot more pracise. The conditions on Saturday were really tough- ultra sunny,max contrast.
To be fair, due to my lack of experience I posted the shots which looked fun instead of the cool looking shots, but hey!
Thanks for you C&C , I am trying to learn and I appreciate the comments.
mijbril
12th of June 2006 (Mon), 07:03
My role was to get candids, that`s it.
In which case you've done what you set out to do :)
Next time I'd be looking to take on a little more responsibility, especially if you've the invite from your friend. Stand to the right or left of the first photographer for the set shots, looking to get different perspectives, then, while the first photographer is having a small rest, then go take the candids between set shots. Means more work for you, but there's your experience :)
Keep at it :)
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.