Last night's wedding - various Canon lenses

[cwphoto]

Bradley's Head, Sydney. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM @ 78mm, 1/320s @ f/5.6, ISO 400:

[cwphoto]

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM @ 200mm. 1/160s @ f/2.8, ISO 200.

[cwphoto]

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L USM. 1/80s @ f/2.2, ISO 1600.

[cwphoto]

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM @ 27mm. 1.3s @ f/5, ISO 400:

[cwphoto]

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM @ 70mm & Canon Extension Tube EF 25. 10s @ f/16, ISO 640.

[cwphoto]

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM @ 70mm. 1/100s @ f/3.2, ISO 800.

[24Peter]

Grrrreat shots Christian! I love the second one (on the beach). It has that "look 'n feel" we were all speculating about last night. What focal length were you using? Also, I see how you like to frame/compose your shots. Good work. :)

[cwphoto]

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM. 1/30s @ f/2.8, ISO 1600.

[cdifoto]

I gotta get me a freakin' 1 series.





Anyone wanna buy a soul?

[jamison55]

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM @ 27mm. 1.3s @ f/5, ISO 400:

I see you finally used a flash, but on the balcony shot it is firing from higher up and on your right. Are you slaving your 2nd 580 to your first on a stand, or do you bring along a "slave" to follow you around with the second flash on a stick?

[cwphoto]

Grrrreat shots Christian! I love the second one (on the beach). It has that "look 'n feel" we were all speculating about last night. What focal length were you using? Also, I see how you like to frame/compose your shots. Good work. :)

Thanks Peter, that one was at the full 200mm - have since updated all with "as shot" FL.

The first one is a bit of a DPP blue-tone experiment - I'm still iffy about it.

This wedding was not without it's challenges...

[jamison55]

I gotta get me a freakin' 1 series.

Yeah, 'cuz we all know that a better camera will magically make all of our pictures look like Christian's... Oh wait, maybe if I had a 70-200 IS L...

[cdifoto]

Thanks Peter, that one was at the full 200mm - have since updated all with "as shot" FL.

The first one is abit of a DPP blue-tone experiment - I'm still iffy about it.

This wedding was not without it's challenges...

I'm not to keen on that blue tone. I was going to comment about it but didn't know exactly what to say. Maybe it should be B&W or something. It's almost as if you had the incorrect WB for that shot.

[cdifoto]

Yeah, 'cuz we all know that a better camera will magically make all of our pictures look like Christian's...


Damn skippy! lol.



Actually in all seriousness....I'm not even remotely ready for a 1 series. I can barely handle my little XT.

[cwphoto]

I see you finally used a flash, but on the balcony shot it is firing from higher up and on your right. Are you slaving your 2nd 550 to your first on a stand, or do you bring along a "slave" to follow you around with the second flash on a stick?

No such luck Jamie:p

It was a spot light immediately outside the door, and if I could go back in time I would move them further along the rail away from this light to create more mood/shadow on them. My critique is that that lighting looks a little out of place with the rest of the mood in the image.

But that's what weddings are all about; creating art in an instant and moving on - I don't always get it right but I usually get it good enough in the client's eyes!

[jamison55]

Damn skippy! lol.
Actually in all seriousness....I'm not even remotely ready for a 1 series. I can barely handle my little XT.

Sorry Don, LOL!

I spend a lot of time on a professional wedding photographer's forum, and these guys constantly make me feel like an over eager Uncle Bob. Thing is, a lot of them shoot with 20D's. Makes me want to send mine back to Canon to see if there is something wrong with it!

If only there was a purchasable substitute for years of experience! Christian has a few secrets he's not sharing about how he meters, how he sets up his lights, how he post processes, etc...

[cwphoto]

I'm not to keen on that blue tone. I was going to comment about it but didn't know exactly what to say. Maybe it should be B&W or something. It's almost as if you had the incorrect WB for that shot.

Yeah I don't think I'll give it to them like that - I'll turn it back to colour and maybe do some cropping - hey it's 3:30AM here!

[cdifoto]

Sorry Don, LOL!

I spend a lot of time on a professional wedding photographer's forum, and these guys constantly make me feel like an over eager Uncle Bob. Thing is, a lot of them shoot with 20D's. Makes me want to send mine back to Canon to see if there is something wrong with it!

If only there was a purchasable substitute for years of experience! Christian has a few secrets he's not sharing about how he mwters, how he sets up his lights, how he post processes, etc...


lol I hear that. But hey even if there was a purchasable substitute...I couldn't afford it!

[cwphoto]

Sorry Don, LOL!

I spend a lot of time on a professional wedding photographer's forum, and these guys constantly make me feel like an over eager Uncle Bob. Thing is, a lot of them shoot with 20D's. Makes me want to send mine back to Canon to see if there is something wrong with it!

If only there was a purchasable substitute for years of experience! Christian has a few secrets he's not sharing about how he mwters, how he sets up his lights, how he post processes, etc...

Jamie I've seen some of your work and you are selling yourself way too short Man.

I don't use any lights. I use on camera flash (bouce when I can) only for the "event" type images (you know: table shots et al) and some fill when needed. This particular gig had some strong backlighting during the service (it was held at Taronga Zoo) and I had no choice.

I just go after the good natural lighting wherever I can find it, the rest is usually Av with a little compensation depending on lighting direction etc, or incident hand-held meter if it's particularly high-key (like a close up of Bride's dress).

I've done a fair few of these now so they're kind of second nature. No secrets here - happy to share anything. Besides guys, they're not THAT good...:rolleyes: This was a tough wedding.

[cwphoto]

Post processing:

It's all RAW to start with. I use DPP by choice (dunno whether there are better ones out there but this works for me as I'm not into massive manipulation (ala layers etc) that PS provides).

I have a custom camera style based on modified Neutral (all I add in is sharpening of 3).

I just picked those images beacuse I have to be careful about spraying my clients images all overe the world - that's why there aren't many ones showing their faces.

Anyway, a little exposure adjustment in DPP along with maybe +1 contrast on some of the flatter ones, adjust WB (sometimes via eyedropper or one of the options) and away we go.

I think my post-processing is probably where I feel the least competent. But I'm getting used to it every day (first wedding I did digital was in July last year so I'm just a newby in many ways).

[cwphoto]

Anyway guys, I need to be at another wedding in eight hours so time for bed.

If you want I'll post some more from the next one tonight just for kicks.

[jamison55]

One of these days I'm gonna switch over to Raw, but I have been fighting it tooth and nail (especially now that I have started outsourcing all of my color/density correction)! I can see why people swear by it, but I have a hard time giving up all the disk space for the 2000 or so images that I shoot at the average wedding...

[cdifoto]

One of these days I'm gonna switch over to Raw, but I have been fighting it tooth and nail (especially now that I have started outsourcing all of my color/density correction)! I can see why people swear by it, but I have a hard time giving up all the disk space for the 2000 or so images that I shoot at the average wedding...


Hmmm I thought you did shoot RAW Jamie....


Anyway I can't get myself to switch over either. Same reasons. I have put my camera on RAW a couple times lately to see if I can get used to it, but seeing my image counter go from 999 to 512 without firing a shot makes me a little sick. The only thing I could/would use it for is white balance since I don't do heavy PP.

I'm thinking I'll just shoot a grey card most of the time...and just use RAW when the lighting varies (dance floor, etc).

[aparmley]

Jamie I've seen some of your work and you are selling yourself way too short Man.


Totally agree with that statement.

CW - Loved the photos - Good work - Would love to see more but understand about the "Plastering all of the world" situation. I don't have much authority on the matter, but, while the colored tone doesn't bother me in the first one, The couple is nearly a silhouette against the water - Which I think is the second strongest element in the photo, the first being the framing. I liked it - Doutone with a darker earthy tone color perhaps?

I really thought he balcony photo was excellent - seeing it now after knowing it was a flood light and I think the image is stronger knowing that. That crane though, bothers me - but what are you going to do!?

Again, nice photos. Thanks for sharing.

Sleep fast. Looking forward to tonights results.

Edit:

I find that you can loose a lot of time in RAW. I don't have a problem shooting in it other than the following reasons:

My process is not refined enough to produce consistent results.
I find that when I know I'm in RAW I use it as an excuse to not "care" as much about the images I am making. Can't say why, I guess its that whole "Its RAW, you can fix whatever." mentality. . . ? I'd rather have a good solid Jpeg at this point.

[cwphoto]

That crane was a disappointment - but weddings are like that, and there's very little you can do about some things (except maybe a huge PS session).:(

[coldrain]

The blue photo just looks very flat... You can do much better duplex photos in Photoshop. I'm not an expert, but this photo has a lot more punch to it, so I think you should try the same in photoshop:

[arigato]

Some nice photos there! Im not to crazy about the first shot either. Only other thing that I see that the clients may not like are the blemishes on the brides leg and back. Im sure the bride will be happy if you PS them out ;)

[jamison55]

The blue photo just looks very flat... You can do much better duplex photos in Photoshop. I'm not an expert, but this photo has a lot more punch to it, so I think you should try the same in photoshop:


Ummmmm, OK...!?

[24Peter]

I dont' shoot RAW either. Slight gain in DR isn't worth all the extra processing time to me and loss of space on my memory card.

Also FWIW, I know this is from another thread but I only use one CF card these days - 2GB Kingston 50X Elite Pro. $89.95 after rebate from Buy.com. Works fine and I don't worry about all my eggs in one basket either.

coldrain - Nice giraffe shot. Who'd he marry???:confused: ;)

[coldrain]

Ummmmm, OK...!?
Haha, I mean the blue photo from cwphoto looks flat, not a good duplex. I think it might be very nice if the duplex would be done in a better way. The only example I found quickly was this giraffe with bird, I know that the pic has nothing to do with cwphoto's subject.

[cwphoto]

Some nice photos there! Im not to crazy about the first shot either. Only other thing that I see that the clients may not like are the blemishes on the brides leg and back. Im sure the bride will be happy if you PS them out ;)

It's always good to have another pair of eyes - I never even noticed it , thanks for the heads up (hi-ho, hi-ho; a cloning we will go... sorry).

[cdifoto]

I noticed it and was going to say something but I held back. It happens a lot because I keep forgetting I'm not talking to the bride.