Hi Jerome I think you're being over critical of yourself, I really can't find fault with the images shown. As others have said shooting RAW would allow you to adjust exposure and white balance in processing, I'm relatively new to RAW conversion but I'd never use anything else now. Great, very natural looking set of captures all the same.
Regards, John On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 09:45:59 -0400 (EDT), Jerome wrote > [impatient? scroll down for the link] > > I shot my first wedding this past Saturday. Luckily, I was *not* the > paid wedding photographer. Instead, some friends of mine who have a videography > company let me tag along under the guise of their "still-shot assistant". > In any event, I thought I'd share my experience in hopes of any helpful > comments, criticisms, etc. Long story short, I learned that I am not > ready for "prime time" just yet. But the practice was invaluable. > > To state the obvious: shooting a real wedding was a whole lot different > than sitting around the house thinking about it! And getting > practice in a situation where there was almost no pressure was > great0, especially given the fact that I'm not all that thrilled > with the results. If I was getting paid as the main photographer, I > would definitely be stressing right now over the quality of the > pictures. But one thing I will say is that I LEARNED A LOT!! For example... > > 1. My autofocus is WAY too slow. FYI, I shot with 2 K10D's, a sigma > 70-200mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8, and the Pentax 12-24 lens. Granted Pentax > is known for having slower autofocus than Canon and Nikon (begin debate > here)... but I've never seen this become a huge factor until Saturday... > maybe because I mostly take pictures of waterfalls, landscapes, and > my son who can't walk or crawl yet. Anyway, I missed a lot of shots > while the camera hunted for something to focus on. And many of the > shots I did fire off were blurry beyond salvaging due to my shutter > speed being too slow. In the end, I ended up having to switch to > manual focus for almost everything just for insurance purposes. > > 2. My #1 objective was to not be seen or be a distraction to the other > photographer, and with that I thought I could get away with not using > flash for the entire ceremony. Big mistake. This particular church > is on television almost every day, and so they have great tv > lighting. I did some test shots the night before and the light temp > seemed perfect w/o a flash. Well, I don't know what happened from > one day to the next, but all of my photos in the sanctuary came out > with the worst reddish yellow hue. Example here: > > http://exposedfilm.net/wwsmith/yellow.jpg > > I haven't a clue how I didn't pick it up during the ceremony, but I > didn't. So of course it was a fight to neutralize everything in Photoshop. > > 3. Probably the most important thing I messed up... I blew the exposure > on all of the brides dress photos (d'oh!!). I think this is the one I > would've got murdered for if I was the "real photographer". > Absolutely no detail in her dress. Just a big white mass. My guess > is that I should have exposed for the dress and let everything else > fall into place. If the tuxedos ended up pitch black, I think that > would've been better. But a bride expects to see every trim line, > lace, and bead on her dress in the photos. So I messed up big time > on this one. According to all of my photos, the bride just had on a > big bright white sheet. > > But the tuxedos look sharp! (ha) > > 4. This is the only one that I couldn't do anything about. Being 5th > in line behind 3 videographers and a paid photographer, I didn't > want to move around too much, so my angles were limited. To be > honest, even the paid photographer was in a number of spots that I > don't think I would've been comfortable in (seemed a little > intrusive). The funny part is, I've got about 5 shots that would've > been great... but they've all got some body part of the other > photographer in them (head, arm, shoulder, etc.) It's actually kinda > funny. But hey, at least I know I stayed out of his way. > > 5. My flash recycle time was unbearable. I used the AF 540FGZ on both > bodies, and switched batteries on each one during the wedding. I > missed SO MANY shots because the flash was recharging. The first > thing I did on Sunday was to order the Power Pack III from B&H. > Hopefully that will make a huge difference the next time around > (which is next Saturday, I think). Obviously I really need two, but > alas there *is* a budget. > > And without further ado, here are the wee bit of keepers I managed to > salvage from the shoot. As always comments and suggestions are welcomed > and encouraged. > > http://exposedfilm.net/wwsmith > > I'm looking forward to my next opportunity to see if I improve. > > Thanks for reading. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
