Peter's done it again, with ring reflection photos

Story here.

Last time it was reflections in eyes, now it's reflections in rings. Peter of memories of tomorrow row really likes his reflections, and finds them places most would never think of! Nice going

@memoriesoftomorrow

One comment on your website Peter. I use a lot of tabs, so I want to open your blog, your galleries, and your prices in tabs. When I right clicked it said something about theft and suing. I think you've gone overboard there. Sure prevent right click on images, but don't mention suing people just for trying to open multiple tabs on your website.

I love pete. Great photographer. Can never remember to look for this.

you da man pete. Good job buddy.

I am in awe of those ring shots. I try to be creative with mine, but most of the time I just find a clean background and shoot them laying flat. I've never tried any reflections though - I think that would take quite some effort and practice to get a great result.

Peter - any tips for us?

tim wrote in post #17989110
Story here.

Last time it was reflections in eyes, now it's reflections in rings. Peter of memories of tomorrow row really likes his reflections, and finds them places most would never think of! Nice going

Cheers.

A shame that is one of the articles that used them without permission. It has gone as just as viral as the "Eyescapes" did at the back end of last year. Made the Huffington Post this time around. Been having interviews again from media all around the world.

One slightly amusing part of some of the articles like the one you linked to is the three non-watermarked ring shots are SOOC RAW screenshots from Bridge. The people ripping the content are clueless of that though since they never actually speak to me.

Whilst going viral has it's benefits (a tangible one being SEO) you don't want to know how much my work has been ripped... it is well into the hundreds of thousands.

umphotography wrote in post #17989351
I love pete. Great photographer. Can never remember to look for this.

you da man pete. Good job buddy.

Thanks.

frugivore wrote in post #17990604
I think that would take quite some effort and practice to get a great result.

Peter - any tips for us?

Ring reflections take me 2-3 minutes (eyes take about a minute). Rings only take longer as I have to balance the rings.

There is really nothing super special to it. Balance the rings > Position the couple (or whatever) in the reflection > Take the shot.

If you can see it, you can shoot it.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17990629
Ring reflections take me 2-3 minutes (eyes take about a minute). Rings only take longer as I have to balance the rings.

There is really nothing super special to it. Balance the rings > Position the couple (or whatever) in the reflection > Take the shot.

If you can see it, you can shoot it.

It occurred to me, while getting a ring shot in this past wedding, that I'm missing a very important tool to get a visible reflection: a macro lens!

I've been using the 24-70mm which is about 0.3x magnification. Should I really get a macro just for ring shots? What else in a wedding needs a true macro?

Here's my uninspiring attempt (balancing took a while):

Macro lens or extension tubes. I used to use a dedicated lens, which is easier, but tubes are much much cheaper. I got the set of three but only really use the medium one.

I use the 100 for all sorts of shots on a wedding day. It is a great portrait lens and good for other details too.

It also acts as a nice inbetween backup for both my 85 and 135.

We used to use Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR, because, as well as being a great macro lens, it was also a great telephoto/portrait lens with image stabilizer and wide aperture.

Rob