Wedding work with the Fuji S2 pro

I'm a newspaper reporter/photographer who has shot 28,000 frames with his S2
in the past 19 months. I am branching out into wedding photography, and have
a half dozen booked this summer.

I have heard differing opinions as to what modes to shoot in.

For my news work, it is almost all fine jpg, 3024 wide, with auto white
balance, high colour, hard tone, hard sharpening. Occasionally, i will shoot
4256 wide, when i know I will need more detail and the ability to crop.

I have found that my camera is consistently 1/2 fstop dark via the histogram
and the results on screen, so I consistently shoot +1/2 fstop exposure
compensation.

Most of my flashwork is done with the SB 28 pointed straight up, with the
bounce card extended. I typically have it sent on automatic at f8, with the
camera set on f5.6 or f6.7 aperature metering. This seems to get the best
results for most of my work. Recently I have started using a stroboframe
quickflip with a SC-17 cord, with ok success. It's a real hassle for
vertical shots.

My ISO is almost always 800, often 1600 except when I use flash. Noise is
not a factor for news work, but can be for weddings.

My experience with RAW is next to zero.

I am picking up two 300ws aurora strobes in short order.

My wedding business plan is to charge a decently high flat rate, the client
gets copies of the disks and can make whatever prints they want from there.
The photos will of course be editted. I will not charge a per-print rate,
nor do I put together an album. You pay your fee, you get your disks, have
fun.

So, my questions a

1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high amount of
storage space and slower shooting times, especially to write? One person
tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I should shoot in jpg in the
setting I normally use. He has a camera studio/store and shoots with two
S2s. i currently have only one 512 card, and want to keep the number of
cards I use to a minimum. As well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb each,
as far as i can determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.

2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?

3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I looking
at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.

4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with the S2?
I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a guy get by with
using the histogram until I can afford a light meter? (As you can guess, I
have no experience with a light meter. They aren't that useful or convenient
for news photography)

5.What ISO do most people yuse for their wedding work - in the chapel,
portraiture, reception, etc.? Why?

Any help, criticism, etc, would be appreciated.

Brian Zinchuk


Remove the NOSPAM to email me

In article , Brian Zinchuk
wrote:

1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high amount of
storage space and slower shooting times, especially to write? One person
tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I should shoot in jpg in the
setting I normally use. He has a camera studio/store and shoots with two
S2s. i currently have only one 512 card, and want to keep the number of
cards I use to a minimum. As well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb each,
as far as i can determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.

RAW is the way.

2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?

Not those who know what they're doing.

3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I looking
at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.

600? JEEZ! Be discriminating.

4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with the S2?
I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a guy get by with
using the histogram until I can afford a light meter? (As you can guess, I
have no experience with a light meter. They aren't that useful or convenient
for news photography)

Maybe you're getting into something you shouldn't?

5.What ISO do most people yuse for their wedding work - in the chapel,
portraiture, reception, etc.? Why?

The lower the better...

In article , Brian Zinchuk
wrote:

1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high amount of
storage space and slower shooting times, especially to write? One person
tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I should shoot in jpg in the
setting I normally use. He has a camera studio/store and shoots with two
S2s. i currently have only one 512 card, and want to keep the number of
cards I use to a minimum. As well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb each,
as far as i can determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.

RAW is the way.

2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?

Not those who know what they're doing.

3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I looking
at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.

600? JEEZ! Be discriminating.

4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with the S2?
I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a guy get by with
using the histogram until I can afford a light meter? (As you can guess, I
have no experience with a light meter. They aren't that useful or convenient
for news photography)

Maybe you're getting into something you shouldn't?

5.What ISO do most people yuse for their wedding work - in the chapel,
portraiture, reception, etc.? Why?

The lower the better...

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , Brian Zinchuk
wrote:

1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high amount
of
storage space and slower shooting times, especially to write? One person
tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I should shoot in jpg in the
setting I normally use. He has a camera studio/store and shoots with two
S2s. i currently have only one 512 card, and want to keep the number of
cards I use to a minimum. As well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb
each,
as far as i can determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.

RAW is the way.

Why?
Specific reasons, please


2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?

Not those who know what they're doing.


This is a common thing with the S2. www.digitalphotographers.com forums are
full of it.


3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I
looking
at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.

600? JEEZ! Be discriminating.

I easily shoot 200 at a longer news event. I shoot the whole wedding, from
the bride getting ready, to the chapel, protraiture, and reception. 600 is
not high



4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with the
S2?
I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a guy get by with
using the histogram until I can afford a light meter? (As you can guess,
I
have no experience with a light meter. They aren't that useful or
convenient
for news photography)

Maybe you're getting into something you shouldn't?

constuctive criticism is appreciated. flames are not. How many news photogs
have the time to run out and put an incident light meter in front of the
burning car they are shooting a picture of?

Typically, handheld meters aren't very useful in news.


5.What ISO do most people yuse for their wedding work - in the chapel,
portraiture, reception, etc.? Why?

The lower the better...

yes, I understand that. I'm looking for specifics.

thanks for your respons.

Zinchuk

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , Brian Zinchuk
wrote:

1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high amount
of
storage space and slower shooting times, especially to write? One person
tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I should shoot in jpg in the
setting I normally use. He has a camera studio/store and shoots with two
S2s. i currently have only one 512 card, and want to keep the number of
cards I use to a minimum. As well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb
each,
as far as i can determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.

RAW is the way.

Why?
Specific reasons, please


2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?

Not those who know what they're doing.


This is a common thing with the S2. www.digitalphotographers.com forums are
full of it.


3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I
looking
at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.

600? JEEZ! Be discriminating.

I easily shoot 200 at a longer news event. I shoot the whole wedding, from
the bride getting ready, to the chapel, protraiture, and reception. 600 is
not high



4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with the
S2?
I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a guy get by with
using the histogram until I can afford a light meter? (As you can guess,
I
have no experience with a light meter. They aren't that useful or
convenient
for news photography)

Maybe you're getting into something you shouldn't?

constuctive criticism is appreciated. flames are not. How many news photogs
have the time to run out and put an incident light meter in front of the
burning car they are shooting a picture of?

Typically, handheld meters aren't very useful in news.


5.What ISO do most people yuse for their wedding work - in the chapel,
portraiture, reception, etc.? Why?

The lower the better...

yes, I understand that. I'm looking for specifics.

thanks for your respons.

Zinchuk

"Brian Zinchuk" writes:

I'm a newspaper reporter/photographer who has shot 28,000 frames
with his S2 in the past 19 months. I am branching out into wedding
photography, and have a half dozen booked this summer.

I have heard differing opinions as to what modes to shoot in.

I'm an amateur, doing some semi-pro work including 3 weddings in the
last year or a bit that I've used my S2 at, so I hope my experience
will be of some use to you.

For my news work, it is almost all fine jpg, 3024 wide, with auto
white balance, high colour, hard tone, hard
sharpening. Occasionally, i will shoot 4256 wide, when i know I will
need more detail and the ability to crop.

I have found that my camera is consistently 1/2 fstop dark via the
histogram and the results on screen, so I consistently shoot +1/2
fstop exposure compensation.

I use mostly manual exposure, but yeah, the camera really likes to
make sure I don't blow the highlights, so I often end up shooting
higher than it would have picked.

I normally have my camera set for no alteration, and plan to do all
that myself in post-processing. This is at least partly my amateur
orientation -- I'm not doing lots of large events, so the time I spend
at my computer afterwards isn't a key part of my work schedule. I can
see the benefit of having the shots come out of the camera more ready
for final use in high-volume work.

Most of my flashwork is done with the SB 28 pointed straight up,
with the bounce card extended. I typically have it sent on automatic
at f8, with the camera set on f5.6 or f6.7 aperature metering. This
seems to get the best results for most of my work. Recently I have
started using a stroboframe quickflip with a SC-17 cord, with ok
success. It's a real hassle for vertical shots.

Needing to request .5-1 stop more exposure on auto is about right in
my experience. I'm using mostly an SB-80, but I wouldn't expect a
difference on this. I was taught about bouncing off the ceiling
around 1973, I think, and it's still one of the most valuable
techniques I've learned. And the built-in fill card is great and I
use it too.

The flash performance is one of the biggest drawbacks I've found with
this camera -- especially since TTL flash working so well was such a
treat previously. (I actually end up working with the flash on manual
a lot of the time as well.)

In fact, this is one of two reasons I've used *both* film and digital
at the weddings I've done recently. The excellent TTL flash
performance of an SB 28 on my Nikon N90 is very valuable when things
move quickly. (The other reason is to have two lenses mounted and be
able to switch really quickly; and since it's often an extreme wide I
want, the film camera helps with *that* too).

My ISO is almost always 800, often 1600 except when I use flash. Noise is
not a factor for news work, but can be for weddings.

Yes, I think you'll need to use 400 or slower and flash for most
wedding situations. I find 400 very acceptable for candids, and use
something slower for the posed shots.

My experience with RAW is next to zero.

It's pretty wonderful -- for the shots you're going to spend time
working on in your "digital darkroom". Actually, it's also wonderful
for the shots you don't have time to get right in the field, since it
leaves a lot more room for later adjustment. Trouble is, the slow
write times are a problem for exactly the situation where I need the
room for later adjustment. So far I use raw for more posed shots, and
architecture and food and such.

(Remember that you can still shoot a burst of 7 in raw, that isn't
decreased. Actually, the longer delay to see the "preview" annoys me
more when shooting raw.)

I am picking up two 300ws aurora strobes in short order.

Good lighting on group shots and especially bride/groom portraits is
important. I don't know the brand, but 300ws is plenty of power.

My wedding business plan is to charge a decently high flat rate, the
client gets copies of the disks and can make whatever prints they
want from there. The photos will of course be editted. I will not
charge a per-print rate, nor do I put together an album. You pay
your fee, you get your disks, have fun.

That's very attractive from your point of view. I'm not sure the
people prepared to do all their own handling after the initial shoot
are going to want to pay the decently high flat rate -- but I do
weddings as a small sideline and my exposure to what people will
tolerate in pricing is pretty limited. Good luck with it!

So, my questions a

1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high
amount of storage space and slower shooting times, especially to
write? One person tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I
should shoot in jpg in the setting I normally use. He has a camera
studio/store and shoots with two S2s. i currently have only one 512
card, and want to keep the number of cards I use to a minimum. As
well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb each, as far as i can
determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.

You'll need more cards of course. I think trying to keep number of
cards "to a minimum" is a really bad choice. Of all the little things
to choose to save money on, it's one of the ones that will have the
biggest impact on your final results.

Generally, converting RAW to 3k 8bit works out well -- because you did
the big adjustments in the raw converter. So you don't have to deal
with 70mb for each one, anyway.

I shoot jpeg for the candids. I shoot sometimes RAW, sometimes jpeg,
for the posed/group shots, depending on how much control I have of the
lighting, how confident I'm feeling, and what size prints the client
wants.

2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?

Yes.

3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I looking
at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.

I notice Randall saying that's too many frames. Baloney, for a
wedding. I've shot that many just at the reception sometimes.

I can do batch RAW conversions using the Photoshop RAW plugin, and I
do. I may set paramaters for a batch of photos (one situation or
setup usually) and do them this way. Then, working with the results,
I *may* go back and re-convert a single picture if the first
parameters weren't good enough. This is essentially shooting raw for
the ability to rescue shots I fluffed in the field. For weddings
that's a key activity of course. I imagine your news photo experience
has taught you what the client says if you come back without key
pictures!

The big batches of conversions, hundreds of pictures, can take many
hours. If you can kick them off and go do other things it's not so
bad. Still, that's the biggest argument against RAW.

4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with
the S2? I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a
guy get by with using the histogram until I can afford a light
meter? (As you can guess, I have no experience with a light
meter. They aren't that useful or convenient for news photography)

A light meter doesn't add anything to what the camera can do for you.
I've got one, that I used to use with my studio lighting and film
cameras, but with the S2 I never take it out. The histogram gives you
a LOT more information than the light meter ever will, and it's always
exactly right (exactly matches what your camera will be capturing).
If I'm working with the subjects already on the set, I just tell them
I'm doing "technical tests" so they won't worry about my shooting
"pictures" without telling them what to do.

(I'm using three White Lightning ultra-zap 1600 heads, which are
660ws. It turns out they're too powerful; I use them turned to lowest
power (and they have a 5-stop range) a lot. Your 300ws pair should be
very useful for weddings.)

Other than that, studio lighting works great with the S2 in my
experience.

5.What ISO do most people yuse for their wedding work - in the chapel,
portraiture, reception, etc.? Why?

100, 160, 200 for anything I set up studio lighting for. Sometimes
those if I'm using just bounce flash for formal portraits and groups,
too. Because I can, because the shooting rate is slow, because the
difference might show in bigger prints. If I *had to* go to 400 for
these in one case I wouldn't panic, it'd be okay, but I'm not
comfortable doing it as my normal practice.

400 for candids shot with flash. It's plenty good enough for candid
size. (And I usually run it through Noise Ninja these days, too).
400 because the extra range of the flash, shorter recycle, and longer
battery life is worth the essentially invisible difference in a 4x6 or
even 5x7 print.

800 or 1600 as needed. If I have to shoot the ceremony available
light, for example. Being able to without sweating about it is
great.

Good luck with your branching out!

(A portfolio selection of my people photos is at
http://dbpromo.dd-b.net/photography/people/; the site is still under
development, but the people photos are there anyway.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:13:01 -0600, "Brian Zinchuk"
wrote:

yes, I understand that. I'm looking for specifics.

The nature of your questions indicate that you have little or no
experience with either wedding photography, or any other type of
photography where an intimate knowledge of your equipment is needed.
I would sugest that you find a wedding photographer you can apprentice
yourself to for a while, to get a feel for the craft.
No offence intended, but news photography and wedding photography have
little in common besides a camera.
If you think an editor is a taskmaster, you've yet to see a bride's
mother in full attack plumage! :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:13:01 -0600, "Brian Zinchuk"
wrote:

yes, I understand that. I'm looking for specifics.

The nature of your questions indicate that you have little or no
experience with either wedding photography, or any other type of
photography where an intimate knowledge of your equipment is needed.
I would sugest that you find a wedding photographer you can apprentice
yourself to for a while, to get a feel for the craft.
No offence intended, but news photography and wedding photography have
little in common besides a camera.
If you think an editor is a taskmaster, you've yet to see a bride's
mother in full attack plumage! :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:13:01 -0600, "Brian Zinchuk"
wrote:

yes, I understand that. I'm looking for specifics.

The nature of your questions indicate that you have little or no
experience with either wedding photography, or any other type of
photography where an intimate knowledge of your equipment is needed.
I would sugest that you find a wedding photographer you can apprentice
yourself to for a while, to get a feel for the craft.
No offence intended, but news photography and wedding photography have
little in common besides a camera.
If you think an editor is a taskmaster, you've yet to see a bride's
mother in full attack plumage! :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

I don't know about that. I make my living knowing my camera gear intimately,
so I'll try not to take too much offence.

You'll find when interviewing people as a reporter, it's best to play dumb
and let people explain things to you like you're a 8 year old. They are
flattered, and you get a more clear explanation most times.

In this neck of the woods (small town western Canada), there is precious
little opportunity to apprentice. This is a sideline, not full time. There
is a market here for that type of work, for the people who can't or won't
pay $1500 for a wedding photographer.

I have shot several weddings, typically as the 'extra photographer.' In most
cases, my work was much better than the 'pro' people paid $1200+ for. So i'm
pretty confident. Studio work is different, yes, but unlike news, you have
the chance to recreate a good portion of your work, if you must.

Ticked off cops carry guns, and I'm still able to do my job. No bullet holes
yet.

Anyhow, do you have any specific advice for use of the S2 pro?

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:13:01 -0600, "Brian Zinchuk"
wrote:

yes, I understand that. I'm looking for specifics.

The nature of your questions indicate that you have little or no
experience with either wedding photography, or any other type of
photography where an intimate knowledge of your equipment is needed.
I would sugest that you find a wedding photographer you can apprentice
yourself to for a while, to get a feel for the craft.
No offence intended, but news photography and wedding photography have
little in common besides a camera.
If you think an editor is a taskmaster, you've yet to see a bride's
mother in full attack plumage! :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

I don't know about that. I make my living knowing my camera gear intimately,
so I'll try not to take too much offence.

You'll find when interviewing people as a reporter, it's best to play dumb
and let people explain things to you like you're a 8 year old. They are
flattered, and you get a more clear explanation most times.

In this neck of the woods (small town western Canada), there is precious
little opportunity to apprentice. This is a sideline, not full time. There
is a market here for that type of work, for the people who can't or won't
pay $1500 for a wedding photographer.

I have shot several weddings, typically as the 'extra photographer.' In most
cases, my work was much better than the 'pro' people paid $1200+ for. So i'm
pretty confident. Studio work is different, yes, but unlike news, you have
the chance to recreate a good portion of your work, if you must.

Ticked off cops carry guns, and I'm still able to do my job. No bullet holes
yet.

Anyhow, do you have any specific advice for use of the S2 pro?