A&P Here are the pics from my first wedding C&C appreciated

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by hootpie, Jul 4, 2009.

  1. hootpie

    hootpie New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    35,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northern California
    Not only is this my first wedding, but I had only had the DSLR for a few weeks prior to that, so keep that in mind before berating me :)

    That being said it was me or the groom's sister armed with a P&S, so needless to say these pics beat out the competition especially when you factor in the price (free).

    The sun was directly overheard for most of these and my onboard flash didn't do jack to get rid of shadows, so they naturally plague all of these pictures. It's an eyesore for me and for you guys, but no one else seems to notice :dunno:

    Equipment: 40D, Tamron 17-50 2.8, 2x8gb CF, 2xbatteries (only needed one though).

    If you guys wouldn't mind I'd appreciate 2 sets of comments per picture:

    1) What I did right (if anything :hs:)
    2) What I did wrong
    3) What to do next time to fix the problem


    1
    [​IMG]

    2
    [​IMG]

    3
    [​IMG]

    4
    [​IMG]

    5
    [​IMG]

    6
    [​IMG]

    7
    [​IMG]

    8
    [​IMG]

    9
    [​IMG]

    10
    [​IMG]

    11
    [​IMG]

    12
    [​IMG]

    13
    [​IMG]

    14
    [​IMG]

    15
    [​IMG]

    16
    [​IMG]

    17
    [​IMG]

    18
    [​IMG]

    19
    [​IMG]

    20
    [​IMG]

    21
    [​IMG]

    22
    [​IMG]

    23
    [​IMG]

    24
    [400 different posted pictures with various family members]

    25
    [​IMG]

    26
    [​IMG]

    27
    [​IMG]

    28
    [​IMG]

    29
    [​IMG]

    30
    [​IMG]

    31
    [400 various reception pictures]

    Here's where I would have killed for a 70-200...alas no $ for one even though Mike was going to give me a deal. Thanks again Mike :hs:

    32
    [​IMG]

    33
    [​IMG]

    34
    [​IMG]

    35
    [​IMG]

    36
    [​IMG]

    37
    [​IMG]



    I really hope those work...I'm hotlinking from Picasa for the first time.

    Edit: I think uploading them through the Picasa software decreased image quality quite a bit. My RAW files and exported JPG's don't look this grainy/washed out/strange.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2009
  2. EWhytsell

    EWhytsell New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think there pretty good and especially good for free pics. Sure you could have benefited from fill flash in a lot of the close ups.
     
  3. hootpie

    hootpie New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    35,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northern California
    I agree...I thought my onboard flash would, even if inadequate, remedy the situation somewhat, but it didn't even come close. It either blew out details or it did nothing...there was seemingly no inbetween.
     
  4. Smeghead

    Smeghead New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Klingonlandia
    The majority of them0 seems to be soft and oof.
     
  5. hootpie

    hootpie New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    35,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northern California
    I'm having issues with focusing...I manually select the focal point, stick it over where I want the focus to be, half-press, make sure there's a focus lock, then depress fully. Could it be an issue with the lens or what?

    Edit: Take the last few pics as an example. I'm standing really far away, zoomed in at 50mm with my focal point right over them and somehow they're not in focus. I thought it may be my hands not being steady, but my elbows were tucked in and those shots were at 1/640 or faster (some at 1/1600, some at 1/2000). They were wide open at f2.8 and I remember you making a thread about softness at 2.8, so :dunno:
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2009
  6. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    looks like you didn't have any way to fill and just did it in post
     
  7. EWhytsell

    EWhytsell New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was getting frustrated by oof pics. Usually more than half my indoor pics would be oof. Then I bought some L glass and I get maybe 10% oof now and thats mostly just motion blur from either me at the wrong shutter speed or the subject moving.
     
  8. PackingMyBags

    PackingMyBags New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NorCal
    I think you did great for having very little experience with your camera. I think what sets you apart from crappy photographers is that you actually have some good composition in most of your shots. You didnt rely on your gear (we notice that), but you made up for that with some otherwise well composed shots. Good job.

    Now get a speedlight and a diffuser and you should be pretty good. Also bump your F stop to 3.2 or higher for more crisp shots.
     
  9. hootpie

    hootpie New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    35,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northern California
    Is there any way to check if it's the lens, the camera, or me?

    Thanks.

    About how high an f-stop number will still give me nice background blur with good sharpness?
     
  10. hootpie

    hootpie New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    35,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northern California
    And tried to do it in post :rofl:

    Any other comments?
     
  11. EWhytsell

    EWhytsell New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Background blur is related to F-stop, subject distance, and lens focal length so you have to decide all this to get the blur your wanting. The 40D has the depth of field preview button that will help you with this. Just look through the view finder while pressing it down and you'll see what parts of your scene will be in focus.
     
  12. PackingMyBags

    PackingMyBags New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NorCal
    This^

    I would suggest increasing your distance and zooming in more on your subject for better results. I really like keeping my 17-50 Tammy a stop or two above 2.8 for the best results. F3.5 and 4.0 are about where i stay.
     
  13. 1992 240SX

    1992 240SX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    Considering they were gonna let someone with a PS shoot their wedding, Im sure they'll love em. That being said, get yourself a flash, it'll dramatically help out in the future.
     
  14. Jbrown

    Jbrown OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    44,498
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dallas
    :werd:


    As long as they didnt pay for them
     
  15. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    well the fill or lack there of has been addressed.

    5) gotta have her face either all in or out of the sun. placement of her into the scene is good, but the colors are washed as you "filled" in PP. angle of the hips + wind make her look heavy

    6) fill fill fill. i might have tried to ditch the grass for just sand

    7) bad mixed lighting again. friend do the bouquet? lots of dead space with her centered

    8) concept is good, pose needs work. something that shows off the body more

    9) mixed lighting again, maybe have her looking at the groom or more out to sea

    10) more mixed lighting, centering doesn't work well

    11) get in MUCH closer

    12) either move around her to the right so shes out of the frame, or to the left and have it horizontal to see her expression looking at the child

    13) mixed lighting, ditch the flowers

    14) see 12

    15) a better lens and PP would do wonders

    16) watch the details, the pastors notes are covering her face. also wait fo rthe woman to sit and move the car seat out of the way

    17) did the groom stop at the store for a shirt on the way there? bro needs to learn to iron

    18) whats the shit to the left?

    19) try cropping tighter, shes leaning back and makes her look prego. mixed lighting issues again.
    32-36 are great, but again if you had a flash :hs:


    now not all of the mixed lighting scenarios are avoidable or fixable easily. But when that happens, you have to look and see which part you want to expose for. The highlight side or the shadow side. It is ok to blow some of the scene out or send part to shadows if it makes important parts of the photo standout. Fake HDR looking fill is :wtc:
     
  16. TheManLouisianaFace

    TheManLouisianaFace and decide!

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    32,995
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm kind of reconsidering buying a tammy after seeing these pics, I heard it was sharper than that.
     
  17. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    nah, alot of the issues here are with the post processing and contrast. If you check my latest thread, 18 of the shots posted are with a tammy 28-75.
     
  18. hootpie

    hootpie New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    35,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northern California
    Thanks for the C&C...I really appreciate it.

    As for the last shots (32-36)...I was fully zoomed in on those at 50mm. I was standing ~100-150ft away from them, so I don't think a flash would have done much (or would it?).

    It's either me, a bad copy of the lens, or some combination of the two.
     

Share This Page