Re: correct exposure
And for the fact that you treated grade school teachers unkindly. And for the state of your toenails, most days. And for Frankencameras and all they will let loose upon the world. Cotty the Sinner. Let us all pray. grin. Cotty wrote: Don't apologise! I should be apologising for my demented sense of humour.
Re: correct exposure
On 20/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Cotty the Sinner. The name of my next album. How did you know! Never mind, Redemption is my middle name. 666, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: correct exposure (how to shoot weddings, etc.)
The first wedding photography book I read dealt with exposure. The photog pre-focused his lenses to about 6 feet and set ISO to 1 stop over while packing his gear. Me, I'd rather shoot toilet bowel product shots than weddings. Grin. -Lon Ann Sanfedele wrote: The trouble with the every wedding photog I know does this argument is that everyone's wedding pictures end up looking everyone else's. (From what I've seen of Tom V's, however, his are clearly above the cut.) Fortunately, I've only shot weddings when the people involved wanted to avoid the stilted plastic look that so many posed wedding photos have and who want the photographer to be inconspicuous for most of the day. I have to disagree that the most important thing in the wedding is the wedding dress... what sort of shallow clients do you guys have? The most important thing is to capture the loving expressions on the bride and groom and the joy of the event reflected in those who have come to the event. That being said, I'll lend my full support to one stop over for neg film most of the time :) I'm a bit scrappy this morning annsan
Re: correct exposure
On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Sorry Cotty, I meant to say his still using a medium format camera...he thinks 35mm are toys. Granted his viewing screen is bigger than my neg, so I kept my big mouth wisely shut... Don't apologise! I should be apologising for my demented sense of humour. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: correct exposure
never let it be said I dont think your funny - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:54 AM Subject: Re: correct exposure On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Sorry Cotty, I meant to say his still using a medium format camera...he thinks 35mm are toys. Granted his viewing screen is bigger than my neg, so I kept my big mouth wisely shut... Don't apologise! I should be apologising for my demented sense of humour. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: correct exposure
When I first worked in a studio 27 years ago my boss was doing just what is claimed isn't done! And he had been doing so for several years if the condition of his gear was any guide. When my parents married over 55 years ago the SOP was to visit the photographer's high street studio between service and reception, for the wedding party set-ups. Studio lighting has been associated with weddings for a very long time. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. -- -- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -- --
RE: correct exposure
Real professional wedding photographers do lots of metering with and use studio strobes. For all but the receptions shots we meter just about everything. During the reception we check flash exposures periodically. We also probably charge 10x what you do. You get what you pay for. BR From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks.
Re: correct exposure
Sure, but you're not selling a baggie of exposed film like JCO does. BR From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] I use my studio strobes (alien Bees) for formals at all the weddings I shoot. I wouldn't want to use a little flash on a bracket for that kind of stuff. -- Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 1212 Today's Topics: RE: correct exposure [ J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel [ Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel [ Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: CF tripods[ Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: correct exposure [ J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Old lenses and *ist D [ Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: correct exposure [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] pentax optio 550 [ Sean Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: pentax optio 550 [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Has Pentax missed again? [ Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Puzzled over lack of comments [ Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Has Pentax missed again? [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Has Pentax missed again? [ J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: correct exposure [ J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: correct exposure [ tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: correct exposure [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re[2]: correct exposure [ Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: correct exposure [ Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Has Pentax missed again? [ Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Hand-holding 300/2.8 [ John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] SMCP FA 28-80 3.5-4.7 Power Zoom len [ Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *istD image flaws?[ Bucky [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: correct exposure [ John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Gretag Macbeth colo(u)r checker [ John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: *istD image flaws?[ Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] -- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:25:48 -0400 From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: correct exposure Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, with TTL, you are going to change the ISO, not the stop. But the problem will be the same if you dont change the ISO. A predominately white gown shot will tend to underexpose with TTL as it gets tricked by high reflectance.. BAD! JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: correct exposure If you use TTL, and it works properly, the exposure will not change when you change the stop. Regards, Bob... Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? -Martin Luther From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] That would only happen if you are using manual (fixed power) flash flash meter. If you use TTL or Non-TTl auto flash, the brides dress is not going to overexpose. Much more likely, it will underexpose due to reflectance being high. Thus opening up a stop gives some insurance against that problem. From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: correct exposure What planet are you guys from?? Mars. Everybody knows that CN film has about 4 stops overexposure latitude and only about 1 under. Always overexpose to be safe. 1 stop over sounds perfect to me and that is what I did routinely for my weddings. Results were beautiful. You have to watch the overexposure thing with white dresses. If the global exposure for the scene is correct, the white dress will likely be pushing Zone VIII, which is 3 stops of overexposure latitude gone already. -- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:38:32 -0400 From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit the Mini is carryable. Herb - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: correct exposure
Hi Doug, What was the subject to background distance? About a metre What was the camera to background distance? About 2.5 metres Where were the lights set? She was seated. One large softbox to my right,about 2.5m away from her, one hair light about 2.5 metres above her and one with a snoot facing the background aligned with her head, pretty close to the background, about .75m What was the light to background distance? Was the camera stationary? On a tripod, he believes that you cannot take a good portrait from behind the camera, so he composes the shot, focuses, then he stands next to it with the cable release in his hand talking to her, gets her to smile by saying sex or money and shoots it. His very methodical about it, I think theres only 12-16 shots in his camera and all of them are keepers by the time he is done. Regards Feroze Doug
RE: correct exposure
Look, I am only going by MY experience ( which I will admit is somewhat limited, I only did weddings for a few years before retiring ). None of my clients ever wanted to dedicate enuff time to the formal group shots. They always seemed rushed and got upset when I usually asked for 2-3 shots of same pose to insure no blinking etc. Speed is/was of the essence for me. Time to set up /take flash meter readings on every shot was not possible and while strobes/umbrellas could improve the quality of light on the single/closeup shots, its not going to do that on group shots where the stobes are relatively small compared to the subject. I never ran out of flash power with my handheld Vivtar 285 which gives a a GN of 160 when using ISO200 and even then I had an additional stop of insurance. Even at 20 ft. I still had F8. There was no lack of power to necessite more powerful strobes for that reason. The only reason I would ever use them is to get the umbrellas/light quality for closeups. But there is no way I could or would attempt that then or now. Just not enuff time. Funny thing is after doing a few weddings, I bought two books on the subject back then and dont recall either one mentioning mandatory use of studio type strobes for doing weddings. I would have remembered that.BTW, the last few that I did came out so nice I had to turn down a lot of word of mouth refferals... JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: correct exposure Dear JC, Get your brains out of neutral, every high end wedding photographer around here has a studio session, either by having the bride come his studio or on bringing his studio lights and backdrops to the location. Some of these guys travel with a whole truck load of stuff, including little blocks for the bride to raise her feet on or for the groom to stand on if his shorter than the bride. From my rather limited viewing of about 30 wedding albums, every one had studio shots in it. My stupid jerk teacher is 85 by the way, has been doing this for 60 years, and still focuses a MF camera manually. The other one has an M.Tech and his B.Sc in photography and has written his masters thesis on wedding photography . He is currently the head lecturer at the Rand Afrikaans University and sometimes judges competions for Fuji - but I guess that isn't enough for you is it? Think outside the box for a change, being pedantic will only limit you in the end. Feroze - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:00 AM Subject: RE: correct exposure I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. -- -- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -- -- -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: correct exposure - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: correct exposure I guess it's possible but VERY unlikely that many people would be working that way for a wedding/reception. In my experince, no matter how much I warn/persuede the bride/groom in advance, the wedding day is always hectic/fast paced and that type of slow deliberate photography is out of the question. I always used non-TTL autoflash, Fuji NPH, and one stop over (iso 200) and got nice results. To each his own I guess You stupid, bombastic jerk. Here is the original post that I was replying to. Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze Get it? He's talking about stdio lights. As in STUDIO LIGHTS Did your mother have any children that developed intelligence? William Robb
Re: correct exposure
High-end wedding photographers often do the formals with studio strobes, usually a pair of them with unbrellas quite often as outdoor fill. Yes, the candids are done with portable strobes in most cases, but that did not sound like what he original poster was asking about. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: correct exposure - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: correct exposure I guess it's possible but VERY unlikely that many people would be working that way for a wedding/reception. In my experince, no matter how much I warn/persuede the bride/groom in advance, the wedding day is always hectic/fast paced and that type of slow deliberate photography is out of the question. I always used non-TTL autoflash, Fuji NPH, and one stop over (iso 200) and got nice results. To each his own I guess You stupid, bombastic jerk. Here is the original post that I was replying to. Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze Get it? He's talking about stdio lights. As in STUDIO LIGHTS Did your mother have any children that developed intelligence? William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: correct exposure (how to shoot weddings, etc.)
The trouble with the every wedding photog I know does this argument is that everyone's wedding pictures end up looking everyone else's. (From what I've seen of Tom V's, however, his are clearly above the cut.) Fortunately, I've only shot weddings when the people involved wanted to avoid the stilted plastic look that so many posed wedding photos have and who want the photographer to be inconspicuous for most of the day. I have to disagree that the most important thing in the wedding is the wedding dress... what sort of shallow clients do you guys have? The most important thing is to capture the loving expressions on the bride and groom and the joy of the event reflected in those who have come to the event. That being said, I'll lend my full support to one stop over for neg film most of the time :) I'm a bit scrappy this morning annsan
RE: correct exposure
JCO posted: I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Don't some wedding photographers do bridal portraits (somtimes in the studio) ahead of time? Maybe that's what his teachers are up to with the studio lights component.
RE: correct exposure
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JCO posted: I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Don't some wedding photographers do bridal portraits (somtimes in the studio) ahead of time? Maybe that's what his teachers are up to with the studio lights component. Normally you have to use a big light or 2 for formals at the altar. JCO's vast experience notwithstanding, a 400 or 800 WS strobe and a 5 foot umbrella makes a *vast* improvement over anything you could do with a small ttl flash. For a while I just used a 500FTZ and told myself they didn't hire me for formals, but after a while I realized it just wasn't cutting it. Strobes are also used at the reception. Normally I like to bounce ttl off the ceiling, but if the ceiling is taller than about 30 feet, or has a weird color, I'll set up a strobe or 2 and direct them at the dance floor. These are not unusual practices. tv
Re: correct exposure
On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: My stupid jerk teacher is 85 by the way, has been doing this for 60 years, and still focuses a MF camera manually. Hey, did you know that I can focus my manual focus lenses automatically? Sure, I pick up the lens, put my hand on it and I just automatically turn it with my fingers until it's nice and crisp in the viewfinder! Works every time. *~* Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: correct exposure
Previously written: Actually, a stupid jerk is someone who does all his formals with a little ttl flash on camera. You really can, and many really do, use big strobes at weddings, myself included. Back when I was working weddings we would use 400ws Lumedynes. You can do a lot with 2 lights. I have heard of photographers using monolights and bringing a background. Better them then me although we used to do environmental portraits between the wedding and the reception. I suppose it would be no harder to set up a background and a couple of monolights in a spare room at the reception hall. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: correct exposure
On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 04:35 America/New_York, Anthony Farr wrote: Studio lighting has been associated with weddings for a very long time. When I shoot a wedding, I lug my Speedotrons along, wishing they weren't so heavy and bulky. :-) --jc
Re: correct exposure (how to shoot weddings, etc.)
Hi Ann, I have to disagree that the most important thing in the wedding is the wedding dress... Average price for a white wedding dress starts at about ZAR15 000 (about U$D2500) for a christian/muslim wedding, a hindu wedding sarie can costs as little as that to about 3 times as much. An Indian wedding takes place over 3 days, during which she might change up to 7 times, some of those garments are sponsored by a family member. If she's a rich old bat and that particular garment dosn't show they wont pay for those shots...its not the most important thing but it does pay to ensure that the bride and her clothing gets a bit of special attention. Feroze
Re: correct exposure
I'm not degrading your technique or OP, but you have to admit that there is no technique that cannot stand a bit of improvement or approaching things from a different point of view. Your wedding clients need training and guidance, because in most cases this is there first time. It is up to you as the person who will record forever this one moment in time to make sure they get the best package possible. You need to remind her that she might never fit in that dress again, the food will be consumed before the night is over, there will be nothing left of the table decorations by the time the speeches commence (we shoot the table decorations, main table, hall etc at least 3 hours before anybodies arrived) the only thing she will have to remind her of that day is her wedding album. There's always enough time to do this. So many people dont have enough time to do it right the first time, but you will never get enough time to redo a wedding. I found that if you make your position clear at the time of booking as to how you shoot a wedding, and give them time to check other photographers styles before they confirm they will pretty much do it your way. Especially if you appear confident and have a decent portfolio to show them why you have these rules. You cannot shoot a wedding as a bystander, you have to be right there in the thick of things, directing it to a major extent I haven't found a pentax flash that gives the power or coverage of the metz MZ5. Its a brilliant flash, only thing is that it uses these rechargeable batteries and you have to have at least 2 on hand to last the night. It fits on a bracket and is more than sufficient for the group shots. Pity, I love my Pentax gear, but the flashes available is a real disappointment. Feroze - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:41 PM Subject: RE: correct exposure Look, I am only going by MY experience ( which I will admit is somewhat limited, I only did weddings for a few years before retiring ). None of my clients ever wanted to dedicate enuff time to the formal group shots. They always seemed rushed and got upset when I usually asked for 2-3 shots of same pose to insure no blinking etc. Speed is/was of the essence for me. Time to set up /take flash meter readings on every shot was not possible and while strobes/umbrellas could improve the quality of light on the single/closeup shots, its not going to do that on group shots where the stobes are relatively small compared to the subject. I never ran out of flash power with my handheld Vivtar 285 which gives a a GN of 160 when using ISO200 and even then I had an additional stop of insurance. Even at 20 ft. I still had F8. There was no lack of power to necessite more powerful strobes for that reason. The only reason I would ever use them is to get the umbrellas/light quality for closeups. But there is no way I could or would attempt that then or now. Just not enuff time. Funny thing is after doing a few weddings, I bought two books on the subject back then and dont recall either one mentioning mandatory use of studio type strobes for doing weddings. I would have remembered that.BTW, the last few that I did came out so nice I had to turn down a lot of word of mouth refferals... JCO -- -- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -- --
Re: correct exposure
Not too far ahead of time, I usually start at the brides house while she's getting dressed, they always late so I have enough time to set up a backdrop and a few lights. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:51 PM Subject: RE: correct exposure JCO posted: I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Don't some wedding photographers do bridal portraits (somtimes in the studio) ahead of time? Maybe that's what his teachers are up to with the studio lights component.
Re: correct exposure
Sorry Cotty, I meant to say his still using a medium format camera...he thinks 35mm are toys. Granted his viewing screen is bigger than my neg, so I kept my big mouth wisely shut... HTH :)) Feroze - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:29 PM Subject: Re: correct exposure On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: My stupid jerk teacher is 85 by the way, has been doing this for 60 years, and still focuses a MF camera manually. Hey, did you know that I can focus my manual focus lenses automatically? Sure, I pick up the lens, put my hand on it and I just automatically turn it with my fingers until it's nice and crisp in the viewfinder! Works every time. *~* Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: correct exposure (how to shoot weddings, etc.)
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele Subject: Re: correct exposure (how to shoot weddings, etc.) I have to disagree that the most important thing in the wedding is the wedding dress... Loving expressions are all very well and good, but if you don't get detail in the brides usually expensive (or worse, heirloom) dress, you never hear the end of it from the brides mother. William Robb I'm sure that is true, Bill... alas ann
Re: correct exposure
- Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan Subject: correct exposure Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? To make sure there is some detail in the grooms tuxedo, and to push the flesh tones a little higher up the exposure slope. Negative film works best when exposure is ample. William Robb
Re: correct exposure
I don't know. I usually set my meter to overexpose my print film that I use for a wedding. Underexposing is bad. Jim A. From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Angel Art Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:52:24 +0200 To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: correct exposure Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:11:29 -0400 Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze
Re: correct exposure
Thank You, Feroze - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:30 AM Subject: Re: correct exposure - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan Subject: correct exposure Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? To make sure there is some detail in the grooms tuxedo, and to push the flesh tones a little higher up the exposure slope. Negative film works best when exposure is ample. William Robb
Re: correct exposure
I've made very good friends with my lab owner, and since then my photos have come out much better. I meter expose for the shadows (for the highlights if I'm using trannies) and theres very little adjustments he has to do, sometimes he ups the density by a point or 2 and now and then a adds a bit of cyan. I've always shot according to the meter if not a low/high key shot so this is new to me. Am I doing this wrong? Feroze - Original Message - From: Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:00 AM Subject: Re: correct exposure I don't know. I usually set my meter to overexpose my print film that I use for a wedding. Underexposing is bad. Jim A. From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Angel Art Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:52:24 +0200 To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: correct exposure Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:11:29 -0400 Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze
Re: correct exposure
Because weddings have so much energy the over expose everything by one stop? If the light meter says f11 shoot at f11. BR From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so?
RE: correct exposure
I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: correct exposure - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: correct exposure I guess it's possible but VERY unlikely that many people would be working that way for a wedding/reception. In my experince, no matter how much I warn/persuede the bride/groom in advance, the wedding day is always hectic/fast paced and that type of slow deliberate photography is out of the question. I always used non-TTL autoflash, Fuji NPH, and one stop over (iso 200) and got nice results. To each his own I guess You stupid, bombastic jerk. Here is the original post that I was replying to. Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze Get it? He's talking about stdio lights. As in STUDIO LIGHTS Did your mother have any children that developed intelligence? William Robb
RE: correct exposure
-Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Actually, a stupid jerk is someone who does all his formals with a little ttl flash on camera. You really can, and many really do, use big strobes at weddings, myself included. tv
Re: correct exposure
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: correct exposure I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Geeze, you've just told every wedding photographer over the past 50 years that they don't know what they are doing. Every wedding that I did over a 3 decade career wanted formals. My street value went way up after I was able to provide real studio services rather than the flash on camera, posed in front of a bush type of pictures. Perhaps things are just different where you live. Up here, we still try to have some class. William Robb
Re: correct exposure
On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 05:52 PM, Feroze Kistan wrote: Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze What was the subject to background distance? What was the camera to background distance? Where were the lights set? What was the light to background distance? Was the camera stationary? Doug
Re: correct exposure
-Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Actually, a stupid jerk is someone who does all his formals with a little ttl flash on camera. I'd suggest that a stupid jerk is one who believes, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented, that his own way of doing things is the only way that anyone with any intelligence could possible consider.
