File :-(, x, )
Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
So this weekend I shot my cousin's wedding. Anybody else do weddings for friends/relatives.

(PS-they had a professional do the actual ceremony, so it wasn't just me shooting. I wouldn't risk fucking up their shots)

Pic related, it's a candid I took of my sister at the reception.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:15 00:01:43Exposure Time1/350 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width800Image Height533
>> Anonymous
long nose is long

that being said, I wanna bone your sister
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>205741
oops. Meant that to read: "Anybody else do weddings for friends/relatives?"
>> Bunny !4geHgd7wog
>>205756
It does say that.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>205763
Minus the question mark.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>205765
This is the internet. That's the kind of typo everybody auto corrects.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>205767
Touché.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
I hate weddings. I wouldn't do them, ever.
>> Anonymous
>>205777
You're real annoying, aren't you
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>205777
Hate is a pretty strong word Cheesecake. Do you wanna talk about it? It's ok, I'm here for you.
>> Anonymous
>>205778
You must be new here.
>> Anonymous
>>205784
oh I'd say I'm about a month old.
I knew of the annoying-ness, but not of the extent.
>> Rad !!IpQSryGvPPO
I never understood the big deal behind wedding photography; is it really that difficult? I've seen a lot of the shots that come out from big wedding photography companies and they looked like crap.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>205782
Hold me.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>205788
It's difficult. And that's the reason most of those pictures seem like crap.

Honestly the only pictures that the photographer can really control are the pre-nup and the pre-ceremony shots. During the even basically it's a scramble, thus the requirement for fast lenses. You probably won't get enough available light and all sorts of problems are stacked against you. so yeah, I'd say it's difficult.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
It's not a zombie wedding, so there's a good start! Roll out the photos then. I like the first one, let's see more. I've done the same thing as you did before in the past.
>> Anonymous
>>205788
Not a wedding photographer, but I know a few.

It is difficult in that:

1. One is working on his feet from the morning (dress-up) to the early morning of the next day (reception), carrying a big SLR, flash, bracket, and professional f/2.8 zoom, for most of them.

2. There are certain shots one *has* to get or it's totally botched, for reason #3. (No one cares how well a portrait shows the bride's personality if the album doesn't have a picture of them cutting the stupid rococo cake.)

3. One has to make photographs that both are palatable to random people who don't have a taste for fine art documentary photography and that say something (positive, of course) about the couple, the family and friends, and the day.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
It isn't the photos themselves, it's the insanely stressed people and the psycho brides/brides moms.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>205794
I'll be posting more this next week. Right now though I'm kinda exhausted from doing so much stuff for the wedding the past couple days.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>205797
This. I remember feeling sorry for the photog at my sister's wedding; his shots were pretty terrible and he really shouldn't have been working as the photographer, but my mom and sister were totalll bitches to him the whole time.
>> Anonymous
worst part with weddings is you don't get to choose the subjects so you've got to take pictures of some fat old sow of a bride or the family and make it look good and ignore the bitching and family in fighting. a pain in the ass
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>205795
What's really funny is that the photographer my cousin hired was using a Rebel XT with a 28-105mm f/4.5-5.6. To combat the low light he was using a speedlite pointed directly at his subject...without any diffusion.

I got a glance at his pics, they're ALL washed out.
>> Anonymous
>>205810
Damn. That's just plain incompetent. An $80 50/1.8 with some tissue paper held over the flash would've gotten better results.

The ones I know typically come with something like a 5D, 24-70/2.8L, 16-35/2.8L, and 70-200/2.8L (for shooting the ceremony, since they can't be close), and diffused flashes.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>205824
these lenses. I need them. the 16 and the 24 kinda overlap though.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>205824
Actually the wife of one of the people in the wedding was using a 40D with the 24-70 f/2.8 and a flash diffuser and was getting infinitely better shots than the photographer.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>205830
lol photog got owned. But seriously though, not even a diffuser? not even a china knockoff diffuser? I mean even Soccer moms with d40s buy flash diffusers.
>> Anonymous
>>205830
Two good photographers there and this was shooting like that?

Someone's not getting any print orders.

>>205826
In focal lengths, but not in purpose. 24-70 = standard zoom, used for pretty much everything. Wide zoom = taking pictures of people close up, semi-candid portraits in cramped spaces, some of the reception, especially people wildly dancing on the reception's dance floor. Apparently, open bar = good photographs, from what I've seen of their stuff.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>205837
ahhh i see.
so my purchase list for this year:
sigma 30/1.4
Canon 28-200/3.5-5.6 (still not convinced on getting this)
then what?
the 24-70? or the 16-35? I'm pretty sure I'm buying the 70-200 after either the 24 or the 16 and then buy the other lens after the 70-200
>> Anonymous
If you are using crop bodies then you can get a 17-55 lens instead of the 24-70 and so on.

Consider some primes. A wide, a normal and a long.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>205842
forgot to mention im using a 350D
yeah first a normal prime.
and I forgot about the 17-55.

thanks for the suggestions.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>205843
ahh hell. the 17-55 is an EF-S lens.

EF-S is for crop sensor bodies only right?
>> Anonymous
>>205840
>Canon 28-200/3.5-5.6 (still not convinced on getting this)
Don't.
>> Anonymous
>(PS-they had a professional do the actual ceremony, so it wasn't just me shooting.)

Well guess what, then you weren't shooting your cousin's wedding. You were a guest taking pictures.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>205857
give justifications pls? so many conflicting reviews on this sucker.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>205862
0/10, "shooting" doesn't necessarily mean "getting paid to take pictures at"
>> Anonymous
>>205863
Well, for the range the IQ is nice, but I've owned super-zooms and I just can't get behind the 3.5 max aperture that very quickly shoots up to 5.6. Just imagine having a 28/3.5 prime, and how useless it would be. Keep a good, fast prime for the wide end, and get the 70-200 to make up the long zoom end.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>205847
Yes you are right.

On a side note, where are all the trolls tonight?
>> Anonymous
>>205847

EF-S is for crop only, but a lot of event and wedding photographers are using 40Ds and other crop bodies now.
>> Anonymous
>>205868
And he took very nice pictures. But when my dad shows up with his kodak p&s during my wedding this summer, I wouldn't call that "shooting" my wedding.
>> Anonymous
>>205877

FUCK YOU JEW BOY NIGGER BURN IN HELL I HOPE YOUR FAGGOT FAMILY GET CANCER AND AIDS AND ARE ALL RAPED TO DEATH IN FRONT OF YOU AS YOU ARE SLOWLY DIPPED INTO ACID AND YOUR LAST MOMENTS OF AGONY LAST AN ETERNITY WITH THE WHOLE THING RECORDED ONTO FILM SO THE WORLD CAN WATCH AND LAUGH AS YOU DIE TIME AND AGAIN AS THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS THAT A MORON AND SHITTY COCKSUCKER PHOTOGRAPHER LIKE YOU DESERVES TO DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE

NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

...something like that? Got to make up for the lack of trolls. It it isn't the same somehow. ;___;
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>205879
you're acting like the word "shooting" means something it doesn't. It's not an exclusive term, if you went somewhere and you had a specific intent to take pictures then I would say you were "shooting"

TLDR; SEMANTICS ARE BORING
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>205878
yeah but I plan to have a lens lineup where my "event" or moneylenses are EF mount. So that when I get to my 1Ds I can still use them. And anyway the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 might be hellishly expensive at least those are some of the best quality lenses around.

>>205873
good suggestion here. I might just do it.

Right now I have a sigma 18-200 DC OS, though it is a slow zoom lens like the 28-200 of Canon, It doesn't have as much IQ problem. The only thing that stopping me from getting another 18-200 is that it is a DC lens.
>> Anonymous
>>205886

Me (in the hall outside the student paper's press office): "Yeah, I'm a little on edge because I'm planning out how to shoot Chelsey Clinton and PA Gov. Ed Rendell this weekend. Me and a buddy are going in during the rally with all of our gear and are really going to be professional about it."

Yeah, two hours later I was having a good time explaining who I was working for as an assassin... :(
>> Anonymous
>>205840
Depends on what you shoot, of course. But the superzoom is a bad idea. Quoting Mike Johnston's "Uses and Applications of 35mm Lenses:"

"All-purpose 28-200mm zoom lenses:

Bad snapshots. Also great for making five rolls of film last a whole year. All-purpose = no purpose."

(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-august-04.shtml)

Even worse on a crop, 44.8-480? My word, what sort of weird range is that?

On a crop, for most people, I'd say the 16-35 is better than the 24-70. 16-35 = a just-ultrawide to long normal. 24-70 = very moderate wide to a longer and shorter tele than is often useful.

>>205879
Someone writes a note to themselves versus someone writes a novel or short story.

Someone comes with a point and shoot and takes a few snaps to remember it versus someone tries to take genuinely good photographs and later shares them with people concerned with photography as an art form.
>> Anonymous
>>205897
Hahaha.

>>205895
I also second the prime suggestion. Primes > zooms, although it's personal taste, let me repeat mine, primes > zooms.

But I figured you liked zooms since they were all you were talking about.

24/1.4 and 50/1.4 would pair nicely together, on both crop and full-frame:

24 on full-frame and 50 on crop: ultrawide and medium tele.
24 on full-frame and 50 on full-frame: ultrawide and normal.
24 on crop and 50 on crop: wide and medium tele.
24 on crop and 50 on full frame: kinda too close for dual wielding, but you get all the others.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
oh dear, seems we have hijacked this thread. oh well.

>>205903
good points. guess I'm holding off on the 70-200 and getting those two then. the 70 is just way too expensive. and I already have a 75-300 anyway. also, as someone here on /p/ once pointed out, you can almost always take a step closer to the subject, but can never take a step back into a wall.

>>205912
I like primes. I want to get a lot of primes. but my father (who also happens to be my partner in photography) doesn't like the idea of a fixed lens. He feels it's sole place is in the studio. I am buying the Sigma 30/1.4 soon though and I have another body coming in in 2 weeks so I'm probably gonna get a 50/1.8 for that and double wield most events.
>> Anonymous
>>205895I plan to have a lens lineup where my lenses are EF mount. So that when I get to my 1Ds I can still use them.
>>205917I am buying the Sigma 30/1.4

lulz the sigma is crop only
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>205929
yeah. I know. Still not gonna stop me from getting it. Even when I'm gonna be using full-frames for work. The crop-bodies are still gonna be around.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
     File :-(, x)
Here's another shot from the reception.

Inb4insta-art.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:15 17:16:06Exposure Time1/350 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width800Image Height534
>> Anonymous
>>206330
shes cute....is she available?
>> Anonymous
You want nice wedding photography? Look at fucking Paul Johnson's work. That is like the best of the best.

Focus is a little too weird in that picture. You didn't take any more?
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>206345
I've taken upwards of 2000 pictures. These are just the only couple I've edited.
>> Anonymous
>>206337
/facepalm.jpg
>> Anonymous
>>206330looks nice, but>>205741is freaking awful.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
So /p/ since this is a wedding thread...

I'm shooting a wedding for a friend of a friend, small wedding. Here's my equipment:
D80
50mm f/1.8
85mm f/1.8
18-135 f/3.5-5.6
90mm f/2.8(macro)
SB 600 WITH Diffuser (lol)

been shooting for about a year, major equipmentfag, trying to tone it down. Which lenses would best serve at a wedding. I was thinking about buying the 35mm f/2, but I'm low on cash right now. Any tips /p/? I was gonna go w/ the zoom and my 85mm prime

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:03:15 19:20:58Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1680Image Height1050
>> Anonymous
>>206415
a 17-50 f/2.8 would be perfect along with the 85mm
>> Anonymous
>>206415
ideally a 2nd body too...so you dont have to swap lenses and can reduce chances of missing "that moment"
>> Anonymous
>>206420

my friend's loaning me his d50 so i'm all set in that area :-D
>> Anonymous
>>206415
>Which lenses would best serve at a wedding. I was thinking about buying the 35mm f/2, but I'm low on cash right now. Any tips /p/? I was gonna go w/ the zoom and my 85mm prime

DO NOT GO WITH THAT ZOOM. You're going to be thrashed to death with flowers, choked by the veil, and have your eyes gouged out if you shoot a wedding with your main lens being slower than f/2.8.

>major equipmentfag, trying to tone it down

Shoot however you're used to. A wedding is not the time to be doing any experiments.

See if you can rent a wide, fast prime; you could manage with a normal shooting people at the reception- that's what I would do, I don't really like wides- but most people for some reason really dig wides for shooting people informally at weddings.