 Roland Towey |
Wedding Photography Hi, I have been volunteered to photograph a friend's wedding. I have a Nikon F70 and a range of lenses (Nikon 28-80mm D, Sigma 28-200 D). I have also just purchased a 70-300mm manual Clubman and I have a 135mm Carl Zeiss Jena manual. When taking wide angle photos, the Sigma 28-200 distorts the image on the right hand side of the photo. Is this common with lenses? Can you please give me any advice on which of these lenses will be best on the wedding day? Is the 135mm Carl Zeiss a particularily good lens for portraits or should I use the other lenses at the 135mm setting? Because these two lenses are manual, are they at a disadvantage in this situation compared to autofocus lenses? If so, which lenses would you recommend. Which filters are best for the occasion? I have a warm up lens to fit the 135mm and a cross screen to fit the 70-300. Is this a portrait enhancing filter? I will be taking some indoor photos using flash (Cobra 700AF Nikon dedicated). What is your advice on diffusers, etc.? Regards, Roland Towey.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Roland, Doing weddings is not easy, nor is it for the timid, meek or "faint of heart." Been there; done them. The most important aspect of shooting a wedding is planning . . . which it looks like you've started to do . . . but there's more to it than you might think. Second most important, but not by much, is the KISS principle (Keep it Simple!). I used a single 50mm lens on a manual focus camera body for all but the formal portraiture which was done using an 80mm lens on an M645 medium format (standard focal length for MF). There's no reason you cannot use a manual focus camera. There's also no reason you cannot do everything with 35mm film format. I just happen to have medium format gear. Third, and part of your question asks about this, is lighting (flash). In most churches, synogogues, and reception halls you need a lot of it; shooting distances will be farther and the light must fill a larger space than the average amateur is accustomed to. This topic is enough to fill a book. After doing a cousin's wedding I started writing a tutorial for the amateur who, for one reason or another, will be shooting a wedding. If Jim will forgive me for posting it, here is a link to the 80% completed tutorial. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
BetterPhotoJim.com - Jim Miotke  Contact Jim Miotke Jim Miotke's Gallery |
Of course I don't mind - I think you have earned a link or two :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roland Towey |
Thanks John. I am in process of printing off your tutorial. You have a knack of answering the questions I have even before you knew what I was going to ask them. Anyone reading this should click on to John's tutorial. Nothing else to read except good (but incomplete) pages. (Hurry up & finish them before my assingment. PLEASE.) Seriously John, GREAT PAGE. THANKS. Roland Towey
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robert Torrence |
Hey Roland. John is right - K.I.S. (keep it simple). I would only take the Nikon 28-80mm lens and the 135mm just in case you should be able to shoot the entire wedding with the Nikon. Looks like the best glass you have. It will give you wide shots (for group), and almost portrait. The secret to doing a good wedding is the light and film. Get the best light you can rent or have to go along with auto focus. Now for film use the Kodak 160 Portra; it has a 4 stop latitude over or under so you will get a photo no matter what. Good Shooting Mr.T
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gail Hammer |
Finally some down to earth advice about shooting weddings! I have done about 12 weddings in the past couple of years. Luckily I have not done anything terrible while learning on the job. I bought lots of books on the subject, took a course and then proceeded to photograph weddings in a very natural way - using black & white film as well as colour. I liked to capture all the moments of the day but kept in mind that family group type shots are still popular. My cameras are not medium format nor top of the line auto focus but they are kept well maintained on a regular basis. Many wedding photographers would have you believe that you cannot be a wedding photographer unless you are using a Haselblad. I have learned that if the photographs are well focussed, colour (if using colour) is vibrant, and you capture as much of the wedding photographically as you can manage you will have very happy customers. They can relive their wedding (having missed about 80% of what went on that day!). I have always believed that it's not the camera, it's the creative vision of the photographer. I have added the tutorial to my bookmarks because it doesn't make me feel inadequate equipment-wise! Gail
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roland Towey |
Hi,i have just photographed the wedding I was asking advise on.Thank you to all the people who responded.I can recommend reading the tutorial you advised,very clear and concise.Your recomendation to shoot Kodak porta 160,spot on.Great skin tones.I am lucky because there are 3 professional photographers locally who also d&p,at prices just slightly more expensive than one hour sevice.These 2 things together have made good shoots great.The only disappoitments where a few of my indoor photos.because I was under pressure,i shoot before flashgun was fully charged.But this only ruined 5-6.photos.In fact 2-3 underexposed photos look quite good.3 of the photos I took are probably amongst my best portraite I have taken yet.I would highly suggest use of bracketing,i bracketed -1to +1.[as suggested for print] this ruled out most exposure problems.So when using flash you have to be patient,because that rushed shot will probably be a waste.Better to wait,what seems minutes is only seconds.One more problem was tungsten lightning at reception,it caused colour cast on 3-4 photos.So if you can check out lighting beforehand, you can save yourself some grief.At first I was a bit shy tring to organise people,where & how I wanted them. On these photos subjects attention was not towards camera,in most cases not the best shot.So take charge early on.Ask bestman & bridesmaid,to assist.But even after these few glitches I thourougly enjoyed it.I have learnt a great amount.I did a lot of reading including your excellent tutorial,of which I am very greatful.But there is nothing like the experience.As I previously wrote,it showed in my very satifactoy results.THANKS ALL.Regards Roland
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Roland, I'm very pleased for you that it worked out well. A wedding shoot can be stressful until the negatives are back safely with acceptable proofs that show there weren't any serious gaffes. Also glad the tutorial was able to help you prepare. Just a month ago I was approached to shoot another wedding about two weeks before the event. I declined and offered the names of a couple local professionals. Told him to call me if they could not be booked. Fortunately one of them was available. Went as a guest and did take a camera. Shot a roll of film with a strategy to create something unique for them. Used a very old 35mm rangefinder with a flash handle (a.k.a. potato masher) much like a photojournalist would have used about 40 years ago. Shot ISO 400 B/W negatives with it, taking care to keep out of the way of their photographer. The result looks much like old newspaper photography. The style of lighting is offset from directly above the lens, which does create some shadows. The trick with this is knowing where the shadows will fall and composing with them in mind. Normally wouldn't use this type of lighting. An idea for you if you go to another wedding as a guest, not the "official" photographer, but still want to make some photographs for them. An ancient RF isn't required (just happened to have one and it was the one body without film in it). Nor is a flash handle (helps with the lighting style if you know how to avoid its pitfalls). B/W isn't that common though and that's the primary effect. If you do this, use a lower contrast film such as Tri-X and avoid having it printed on high contrast paper (loses shadows and/or blows out the whites). -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||
