File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I am t3h master of shooping. Everyone wishes they could shoop like me!

Post photos you want me to shoop and i will make them 10000x better!
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:18 01:18:18Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width593Image Height902
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
needs more squid
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
If you're as good as you say, then shoop this into summer.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEastman Kodak CompanyCamera ModelKODAK DIGITAL SCIENCE DC260 (V01.00)Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiExposure Time739/100000 secF-Numberf/3.0Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVSubject DistanceInfinityMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFocal Length8.96 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1536Image Height1024
>> Anonymous
i see what you trolled there
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>142901
Done
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>142901
Op here, i have succeeded.
>> Anonymous
What's really, really sad is there are wedding albums actually shooped this way.

Poor couples.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>143005
It is the master the prophecies foretold!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>143006
Lol @ "sheena studios"
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
     File :-(, x)
this thread is now about bad wedding photography

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeApplied Graphics TechnologiesCamera ModelDigital LinkCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:12:02 20:48:46Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width288Image Height432
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
>>143087
Yea bad wedding photography!

One wedding I shot as a backup had these pictures taken by the pro (who charged $2300 lol) I didn't just choose their bad ones, this is a good variety of shots they had.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
beethy you gotta help me out identifying what photoshop shenanigans were pulled in some of these pics.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
It amazes me some of the shots they gave the bride and groom...

their equipment was an Xti, and a 20D, with a few lenses I didn't really recognize (all zooms though)
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
I can't help but feel that their decent shots were just a matter of being around photogenic people. And their bad shots were just what they normally would have taken..
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
Ok i'm done.
>> Anonymous
i don't see anything inherently wrong with them

they're not amazing or well taken but it's far from bad

dont' be hating
>> Anonymous
>>143127(all zooms though)

versatility is the keyword

prime is just asking for suicide
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>143130
lol they missed that shot

i feel pretty comfortable going into wedding photography... because there's so many people out there who charge 1000+ aus dollars, and are much much shitter than i am.
i'm planning to do it on weekends now and then, starting out at 500 dollars. (max of 8 hour work, includes shoopan on request, prints .. and anything else they want)
i'll only really start marketing myself once i own: 50mm 1.8, 70-200mm 4, 580ex II, diffuser, remote (for slave flash)
what do you think?
>> Anonymous
>>143164

I think you'd be perfect at wedding photography, unfortunately that isn't a compliment.
>> Anonymous
TROUNCED!
>> Anonymous
>>143145
Because Cartier-Bresson shoved his 50/3.5 Elmar into his brain stem, amirite?

>>143124
>>143126
>>143133
>>143136

Should I get my head checked for liking these?
>> Anonymous
>>143164
You'll want both shorter fast lenses and the 70-200/2.8. Either a normal or a wide prime or something like those third party 17-50/2.8 zooms. The 70-200 is for the ceremonies, where many places won't let you use flash or stand close to the altar, and you'll need the reach and the f/2.8.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>143164
500 seems too cheap for 8 hours
I just charge $80 CAD an hour, Editing time is included (usually works out to around 200$ an hour on location)
And that still doesn't directly compete with the pro's in the area.
Most weddings last around 3.5-4 hours + 1-2 for a photo shoot. (not counting reception after the cake cutting ceremony + first dance)

Also these shots are just that, mediocre to bad, They could have been taken by anyone with a DSLR and decent aperture lens (there was great lighting for everything at the wedding)
>> Anonymous
>>143171

lol lets not use computers and use pen and papers

flawed analogy is flawed
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>143171
Yes, The first and last ones you liked are either out of focus, horribly framed, filled with distracting crap, or all of the above.

Middle 2 weren't bad, just the photoshop filters layered over them afterwards made them look horrible.

>>143145
Don't listen to this guy, 2 bodies and 2 primes is a great solution for crappy lit venues, and is more than "versatile" enough to get good shots when you can't change lenses in a pinch.
>> Anonymous
>>143176
No, it's not. Many people stuck and stick with primes even after high-quality, fast(er) zooms became available.
>> Anonymous
rofl, fucking newbies

yeah, use your primes and be artistic faggots

the rest of us can enjoy 200x focal rangr
>> Anonymous
>>143174

All of them seem to be terribly framed though.
>> lrf !xi8/JKFwzo
>>143198

True.
>> $19.99
>>143171
He didn't shoot weddings.

Weddings need fast zooms, you have to take certain shots in many different lighting conditions and you can't be running around with your prime disrupting the ceremony.
>> Anonymous
>>143209
He did shoot different events, though. Same thing.

The point is he was skilled enough to use exactly the focal length he wanted (50mm) while running around and everything without disrupting anything. Anyone bitching about primes being hard to use needs to practice more. That skill isn't too hard to get down, although HCB was probably better at it than any of us ever will be.
>> Anonymous
>>143211

rofl
>> Anonymous
>>143211
Anyone bitching about zooms being hard to use needs to practice more.
>> $19.99
>>143211
You know how close you have to be to get a close up of a ring exchange with a 50mm on a 35mm camera? How wouldn't you disrupt a ceremony like that?
>> Anonymous
>>143264
I'm not arguing for 50mm lenses. That's just what Cartier-Bresson used. I'm arguing for primes.

I'm also>>143173. I'm not dogmatic on this, but I do believe working at a small set of focal lengths leads in most cases to better photographs, simply because the photographer will know those focal lengths, know how to use them perfectly, and so on. It's the same way Picasso stuck to using mostly blue colors in his paintings for several years: he wanted to discipline himself into working those blues exactly right.

(And it wouldn't be too hard to have the photographer sitting on the nearest pew to the altar, by the way. Not what I would want to do personally, if I was shooting a wedding, but certainly possible.)
>> Anonymous
be a master ninja level 94 at knowing your primes all you want

the rest of us will use zooms and make sure we have a shot instead of dicking around