John Whittingham wrote: >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 >
Boy I absolutely agree - Some really lovely images there and nicely presented - I'm sure the family will be delighted with these... ann > >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
