tough to be a wedding photographer

On 10-07-12 14:10 , C J Campbell wrote:

As Robert Cole pointed out, he is
using a flash with a diffuser pointed straight up -- hardly helping him
at all.

Not so true. While not energy efficient it does give a light that's
high and above the lens axis and slightly diffuse. This not only gives
flattering light but is sure to avoid redeye (most likely with the
larger apertures used indoor).



--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-07-12 16:42 , DanP wrote:

Just an idea, would you consider covering the walk with a long lens
from the other end of the aisle?

Sure, but it flattens the scene making it look like they are snuggling
the cult leader - and at larger apertures (common in weddings due to
lower light levels) the DOF will be uncomfortably shallow.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

In article
2010071211102316807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom, C J
Campbell wrote:

He blocks the videographer from filming the entire wedding retreat. He
doesn't know where the fountain is. As Robert Cole pointed out, he is
using a flash with a diffuser pointed straight up -- hardly helping him
at all. He walks backwards for a long distance without looking where he
is going.

He deserved what he got.

Agreed...the guy is an amateur...

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:48:13 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HD5GZooPQ

I don't think anybody's mentioned it yet, but watch the body language of the
5-year-old flower girl in the last half second of the video. :^)

Bob

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:32:29 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:
: On 2010-07-12 13:42:31 -0700, DanP said:
:
: On Jul 12, 7:35*pm, George Kerby wrote:
: On 7/12/10 1:10 PM, in article
: 2010071211102316807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom, "C J Campbe
: ll"
:
: wrote:
: On 2010-07-12 10:48:13 -0700, Bowser said:
:
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HD5GZooPQ
:
: He blocks the videographer from filming the entire wedding retreat. He
: doesn't know where the fountain is. As Robert Cole pointed out, he is
: using a flash with a diffuser pointed straight up -- hardly helping him
: at all. He walks backwards for a long distance without looking where he
: is going.
:
: He deserved what he got.
:
: What the hell was he doing with that Canon 'cannon' on his shoulder. Usel
: ess
: for that particular event. Showing off, I guess...
:
: Just an idea, would you consider covering the walk with a long lens
: from the other end of the aisle?
:
: DanP
:
: I might. The thing is, can you imagine in your wildest dreams the bride
: and groom buying any of those frames? I can't. Let the videographer
: shoot them. The bride and groom will buy the video.

They will now! ;^)

: I am all for documentary wedding photography, mind you. But a repeat of
: the same shot over and over is not the way to do documentary. The
: photographer should be getting other angles, other perspectives, and
: different framing. His tightly framed pair of faces with a bit of
: church all around them is fine -- for one or two shots. But that is not
: the whole show. He needs to move around more relative to the subjects
: and he especially needs to be invisible.

It's a pleasure to watch a good wedding photographer in action. The most
recent time, I didn't get to see him do the ceremony - had to babysit my
grandson - but watched him intently during the reception (except, of course,
while I was doing my own shooting). He was indeed very nearly invisible, and
always in the right place at the right time. Because I was so busy myself, I
never got to see his pictures. But my daughter, a good photographer herself,
told me that they were superb. (FWIW, he used a Canon 5D. This was before the
5D2 came out.)

Bob

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:45:35 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:
: On 2010-07-12 12:03:52 -0700, tony cooper said:
:
: On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:10:23 -0700, C J Campbell
: wrote:
:
: On 2010-07-12 10:48:13 -0700, Bowser said:
:
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HD5GZooPQ
:
: He blocks the videographer from filming the entire wedding retreat. He
: doesn't know where the fountain is.
:
: Font, not fountain. That's a baptismal font.
:
: So it is! Well, he baptized himself, eh?
:
: It also seems to me he could have dressed appropriately for a wedding.
: Too many photogs out there looking like slobs.

Interesting point. I thought all wedding photographers dressed in black. I've
been told that it's to prevent any reflected light from colorizing the bride's
dress.

Bob

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:40:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 10-07-12 14:10 , C J Campbell wrote:
:
: As Robert Cole pointed out, he is
: using a flash with a diffuser pointed straight up -- hardly helping him
: at all.
:
: Not so true. While not energy efficient it does give a light that's
: high and above the lens axis and slightly diffuse. This not only gives
: flattering light but is sure to avoid redeye (most likely with the
: larger apertures used indoor).

True enough, if the ceiling is able to reflect a usable amount of the light.
But church ceilings don't often fit that requirement. And not just because
they're so high. They're often irregular in shape, causing a lot of the light
to be scattered.

My own nemisis is the City Hall ceiling in the city for which I work. I shoot
events there two or more times a year, and bounce flash is pretty much out of
the question. The celiling is two stories high, and the wslls are effectively
red. :^|

Bob

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:52:43 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
wrote:
: On Jul 12, 7:38*pm, Alan Browne
: wrote:
: On 10-07-12 13:48 , Bowser wrote:
:
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HD5GZooPQ
:
: Funny how the videographer doesn't seem inclined to warn him ...
:
: I bet those CF cards kept the photos though.
:
: --
: gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
:
: That guy must have had a battery pack for the flash. Too bad he
: didn't get repeatedly jolted after he fell into the drink.

He thrashed a right smart before he climbed out. Maybe he did. ;^)

Bob

On 10-07-12 23:21 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:40:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 10-07-12 14:10 , C J Campbell wrote:
:
: As Robert Cole pointed out, he is
: using a flash with a diffuser pointed straight up -- hardly helping him
: at all.
:
: Not so true. While not energy efficient it does give a light that's
: high and above the lens axis and slightly diffuse. This not only gives
: flattering light but is sure to avoid redeye (most likely with the
: larger apertures used indoor).

True enough, if the ceiling is able to reflect a usable amount of the light.

That's not the point. With the flash pointing up, the diffuser radiates
upward (lost) but also all around. That light heading toward the couple
is what lights them.

Again: not energy efficient, but WELL OFF LENS AXIS as well as lighting
slightly downwards.

Which is the point.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

Bowser wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HD5GZooPQ
Hi,

This video is no longer available, as someone has made a copyright
claim, per YouTube.

Mort