I've labelled the proofs from the wedding at the start of the
month, and made my first pass through the stack, cutting it into
four piles: "they don't need to see these", "huh, maybe, let me
look at them again with rested eyes", "composition is good and
subject is mandatory so check more closely for technical
problems later", and "oh yeah, I'm proud of these and can't wait
to see the newlyweds' reactions".
I was hired mainly for the posed shots -- wedding party, family,
y'all know the drill -- but at nearly the last minute I got word
that the priest had no objection to non-flash photography during
the ceremony, so that got added. I wasn't paid to shoot the
reception, but I emptied my cameras there anyhow since I was
already there and still had frames left over on the rolls
already loaded in a couple of cameras. (One K1000 had rather a
lot of frames left in it, as its flash shoe stopped working
during the posed shots, so I loaded a spare body and kept going,
ignoring the one that failed until I got to the reception.)
All the shots _I_ really like are from the ceremony, shot on TMZ
metered at 3200 in the K2. No surprise, given that I think my
strength is in shooting candids, not posed. But still, I am
moved to exclaim yet again, "Dayum, TMZ is _my_friend_!" :-)
(The conditions for shooting the ceremony included, "don't be
distracting," so I was shooting from the corners of the church,
behind everybody who was sitting in the pews. Fortunately the
layout of this church meant I could still get an angle to shoot
the exchange of rings, using a 100-300 f/4 zoom. I worried that
my moving around in the margins would be a distraction anyhow,
and similarly worried about the mirror slap / shutter noise, but
afterward the priest said he hadn't even noticed I was there and
a couple of folks in the pews concurred, so: yay!)
One frame from the reception, shot on Tri-X, includes two women
wearing patterned dresses (a zebra print and a zigzaggy
geometric), and when I got to that print I saw _green_ in the
dresses while the whole rest of the frame looks like normal
black-and-white. Through a loupe, the green tint goes away.
The paper says "Kodak Royal Digital Paper" on the back, so I'm
guessing that the lab uses the same paper for colour and B/W
prints, but I'm still not entirely certain whether the effect is
a purely optical illusion based solely on the patterns and size,
or has to do with the patterns' having been printed on colour
paper -- some sort of interaction between the spacing in the
patterns and the resolution of either the paper or the printing
device. It's kind of startling. I guess I should mix up a
batch of chemicals and try to print it myself in the basement to
see what happens on regular BW paper. Is this an effect other
here have noticed before?
In addition to the TMZ and Tri-X, I used Portra 800 and Portra
400NC. No HIE because neither the grounds of the church nor the
reception site provided the sort of backdrop that makes IR so
much fun.
For me the worst part of shooting weddings is the time between
shooting and getting the proofs back, when I have way too much
time to think, "Did I do as well as I thought I was doing while
I was shooting, or am I going to be embarassed and the couple
disappointed when the proofs come back?" The weddings I've shot
so far, I've felt really confident while shooting, and had a lot
of fun, but the doubts creep in afterward. Fortunately that
phase is now past, for this gig, as I have the proofs in hand to
go through. (I also stress _before_ a wedding, but not quite as
badly as I do afterward.)
-- Glenn
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
