First wedding *greg and ruth* << Pheww!(lots of pics)

[davo_robbo]

Hey all
i'm 17, been shooting for a whole grand total of four months and i shot my first wedding yesterday! i had a mate there as a backup shooter but these are some of my shots, i had about 3 metres grand total to move around in the church and i couldn't see the bridesmaids for the whole service,
there was literally no light in the church and i was shooting 400D iso1600 with the 85mm 1.8/50mm/10-22mm nearly wide open at the ceremony,
then at the reception i shot with the 70-200 F4L/85/50/17-70
More up at http://www.flickr.com/photos/davorobbo/sets/72157603878073199/
Cheers,
Dave

#1
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2173/2426952147_6c3828333a_b.jpg
#2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2096/2427767694_5eda38f9c1_b.jpg
#3
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2384/2427778850_9f568a713f_b.jpg
#4
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2201/2427775202_98a5fb19fc_b.jpg
#5
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2248/2426970707_b04e24fc7a_b.jpg
#6
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3078/2427782406_47b9f58566_b.jpg
#7
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/2427788164_9955ba2806_b.jpg
#8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2214/2426988875_9a9e980fbb_b.jpg

[davo_robbo]

#9
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2099/2427805648_c6ff12fd4a_b.jpg#10
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2258/2427809004_14052c06ab_b.jpg
#11
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3220/2426998737_eddfe05ac3_b.jpg
#12
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2393/2430884840_a8c1b061cf_b.jpg
#13
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2384/2430886942_38bca18c01_b.jpg
#14
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2399/2430077411_4597455f2b_b.jpg
#15
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2033/2430079095_275f3daec4_b.jpg
#16
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2289/2430898352_4567301083_b.jpg

[davo_robbo]

#17
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/2430900320_e980cdb713_b.jpg
#18
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2033/2430904148_ff770fd77f_b.jpg
#19
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/2431015162_ef25cbddb5_b.jpg
#20
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/2430204887_62c6c2e035_b.jpg
#21
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/2431030498_a35ec667ea_b.jpg
#22
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2430224827_023c45d2e7_b.jpg
#23
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3056/2430229609_6aec9c166c_b.jpg
#24
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2330/2430282169_8efd1e9ca3_b.jpg

[davo_robbo]

#25
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/2431025422_5bc2424c38_b.jpg
#26
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2330/2430282169_8efd1e9ca3_b.jpg
#27
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3139/2430284469_9dc26c1b0d_b.jpg
#28
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/2430289191_9fcda98d9b_b.jpg
#29
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2016/2430291913_95124cff5b_b.jpg
#30
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/2430294657_5e341484e9_b.jpg

[fordmondeo]

My hat is off to you.
I'm buggered if I would attempt a wedding with just one camera and a 400D at that.

[davo_robbo]

My hat is off to you.
I'm buggered if I would attempt a wedding with just one camera and a 400D at that.
thankyou :)
it was done as a favour for greg as he was my sunday school teacher a few years back, he needed someone to take photos for next to nothing and i needed experience :)
which felt i got.. along with a fair slice of stress!

[Eliza_Day]

Thank you for sharing your experience & also giving fellow 400D users a boost of confidence with regarding to their equipment!

Some great photos here! Well done!
PS.. No EXIF available though?

[Zansho]

Number 20 is probably your best one.

I'll have to say though, some of these look out of focus. The white balance looks off on quite a few of them indoors, which is usually problematic when you're shooting in a church with multiple lighting sources.

I'm curious about number 12, all I see is the flower and I can *barely* make out the bride and groom, it would benefit more from less bokeh, I suspect.

In number 9, I'd have put the bride in focus, not the flowers. Otherwise, great shot.

Number 17 and 5 are fantastic. Well done on those. I'd do a bit of post production work on the eyes and maybe a bit of her face to help smoothen her skin out, but otherwise, fine shots.

[ImagesByInku]

Not sure what it is... but it seems that your post processing style is bringing out every wrinkle and imperfection in everyone's appearance.

[BeccaJ]

Number 20 is probably your best one.

I'll have to say though, some of these look out of focus. The white balance looks off on quite a few of them indoors, which is usually problematic when you're shooting in a church with multiple lighting sources.

I'm curious about number 12, all I see is the flower and I can *barely* make out the bride and groom, it would benefit more from less bokeh, I suspect.

In number 9, I'd have put the bride in focus, not the flowers. Otherwise, great shot.

Number 17 and 5 are fantastic. Well done on those. I'd do a bit of post production work on the eyes and maybe a bit of her face to help smoothen her skin out, but otherwise, fine shots.

was gonna say 20 was my fave too! just get rid of that tree branch in the top left corner if you can. it'd be even better i think after that

[tombell]

Wish them the best

[Lelasmama05]

There are a few good ones in here... they do seem pretty dark and noisy to me though. the picture of the bouquet would be a great picture but the hair on the brides arms is really distracting. I would play around with them a little more in PP.

[davo_robbo]

Number 20 is probably your best one.

I'll have to say though, some of these look out of focus. The white balance looks off on quite a few of them indoors, which is usually problematic when you're shooting in a church with multiple lighting sources.

I'm curious about number 12, all I see is the flower and I can *barely* make out the bride and groom, it would benefit more from less bokeh, I suspect.

In number 9, I'd have put the bride in focus, not the flowers. Otherwise, great shot.

Number 17 and 5 are fantastic. Well done on those. I'd do a bit of post production work on the eyes and maybe a bit of her face to help smoothen her skin out, but otherwise, fine shots.

they just look OOF because of the 400D 1600 ISO.. its almost unusable..
and yes looking back a few of them arent really set right with the WB,
thankyou everyone for your comments, i'll go over those shots and repost,
dave

[lil_miss]

I dont think you did too badly :) I like number #22 and the emotion that's in it... i agree on the WB though for the indoor ones..

Perhaps add some slight softening to the close up ones - might fix the "bringing out imperfections" :)

[JustinLawrence]

I think clever use of flash and lower ISO and or Larger apertures would have improved the indoor shots.
Nice job with what you were working with though, def better using high ISO then have blur.
Love the last shot

[davo_robbo]

I think clever use of flash and lower ISO and or Larger apertures would have improved the indoor shots.
Nice job with what you were working with though, def better using high ISO then have blur.
Love the last shot

yeah i didn't have a flash, i could have gotten a 580ex a week before the wedding, but i felt it would have ruined half the photos because i wouldn't have sufficient knowledge of it, so i got an 85 1.8 instead which was the better option.. imo, but yes, most of the indoor shots should have been much better, its my first wedding and they weren't paying so i think they'll be relatively happy with the shots once i go through and photoshop them, the ones above only have light room levels

[Zansho]

they just look OOF because of the 400D 1600 ISO.. its almost unusable..
and yes looking back a few of them arent really set right with the WB,
thankyou everyone for your comments, i'll go over those shots and repost,
dave

ISO has nothing to do with how you focus. Depth of field, aperture, and your autofocus selection points do. Shutter speed also has a role, but again, ISO has no bearing on focus. It has an effect on sensor light sensitivity.

You can get in focus shots at 1600 ISO.

For white balance, I'd either shoot in RAW full time, or set your white balance points by using either an expodisc or a grey card to set your white balance.

[davo_robbo]

ISO has nothing to do with how you focus. Depth of field, aperture, and your autofocus selection points do. Shutter speed also has a role, but again, ISO has no bearing on focus. It has an effect on sensor light sensitivity.

You can get in focus shots at 1600 ISO.

For white balance, I'd either shoot in RAW full time, or set your white balance points by using either an expodisc or a grey card to set your white balance.
i'm aware with how iso has nothing to do with the focus, i was shooting manual selection focus on one shot AF, what i meant is because of the very high iso the photos appear somewhat OOF because they are so soft and without detail because of the 400D's 1600 iso inability, some might appear OOF because i focused then the subject moved closer or further

i shot all the photos in raw, and then used lightrooms automatic WB conversion so i can easily go back and edit

dave

[plattepro]

Great job - especially for as little experience as you have! It shows a lot of promise just by looking at the creativity of the shots and how you are thinking. The technical stuff can and will be learned - it is much harder to think and frame artistically and you do imo.

[davo_robbo]

Thankyou plattepro, i feel i have the technicals down, just need to watch my focusing on moving subjects and get a flash/40D/something that handles the low light better
just run a few of the betters through photoshop,
much better results.. imo

#1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/2433514918_725684ca51_b.jpg#2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2203/2432693903_53d36d7133_b.jpg
#3
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3023/2433507648_f82850dfae_b.jpg
#4
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3222/2433505072_49a42b84b6_b.jpg
#5
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2432686157_d9949e2f20_b.jpg
#6
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2003/2432684625_60d1b42622_b.jpg
#7
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2194/2432682195_7c8f61e449_b.jpg
#8
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/2432680227_a06a3a63dd_b.jpg

[csm328]

Firstly, get a better camera. You did a great job with what you had available and you definitely should follow-up on your success. IMHO, I didn't like #23. Just didnt work for me (darkness, bokeh etc). #8 above; the PP is too obvious. Did you use the new LR for this? If you want to get a bit more serious, have a look at the Kubota PS CS3 actions. They can really help when you're beginning. There's also a great 'digi fill flash' action that you should never be without...ALTHOUGH, the new LR 1.4 has a great fill flash capability.
Well done and keep at it.

[davo_robbo]

Firstly, get a better camera. You did a great job with what you had available and you definitely should follow-up on your success. IMHO, I didn't like #23. Just didnt work for me (darkness, bokeh etc). #8 above; the PP is too obvious. Did you use the new LR for this? If you want to get a bit more serious, have a look at the Kubota PS CS3 actions. They can really help when you're beginning. There's also a great 'digi fill flash' action that you should never be without...ALTHOUGH, the new LR 1.4 has a great fill flash capability.
Well done and keep at it.

i use lightroom 1.41 and photoshop cs3
im looking at upgrading to an alienbee lighting setup(about 1K), though it may be more useful to me if i save for a 5D instead, which i planned on doing first, maybe its just more useful if i get a decent flash for it so i can use it in lower light situations,
im going to go over all the images in the thread and do them all properly in a few days, redoing the WB and all that jazz, thankyou for your input though, its really appreciated, i will take this further as i really think its the tip of the iceberg.. got a lot more experience to gain over the next few years and i'll be going hard at it :)
dave

[Alexajlex]

Nice stuff.

The 400D is more than capable of getting the job done.

Anyone who question it's great abilities for weddings is basically saying that the 30D is junk as well. This is because aside for some differences that would not really come into play at weddings internally they are the same camera.