Reading mode: Light Dark

I shot my first Wedding! [imgs]

Go to last post
J

joachim Haagen Be

Senior Member
Messages
1,186
Reaction score
0
Location
Oslo, NO
Hello,

I shot my first wedding for a couple of friends. I have had no previous wedding photography experience, and I generally do not shoot people. I agreed to shoot some during and after the wedding, with no strings attached :)

I used my Z-1p. FTZ 500 flash, and mostly my SMC-M 50/1.7 for photographs.

Manual focussing was more difficult than I had anticipated, but I am generally pleased with the results.

Shot on Kodachrome 200, and scanned with a DiMage Scan Dual III, Post Processed with Aperture.

Lighting in the chruch was difficult, but the flash did a good job in my oppinion



It had been raining most of the day, but just as the happy couple exited the church, the sun did shine for just a couple of minutes ;)



A few couple shots outside the church:





Group shots:







Getting shots of the dance was difficult with manual focus, especially as they had a fast paced dance with a wedding salsa ;)

All in all, I shot about 1.5 rolls of Kodachrome (about 50 exposures), so I'm pretty pleased with the results!
--
All The Best,
Joachim
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joachimhb/

 
Hi Jo, they look good. I'm so pleased to hear that you generally do not shoot people, we'll call the police off.
--
Capturing Creation
 
That's a hard job. It can be fun though I'm sure. You did good though! I think digital is great for this, because of the post processing possibilities.
--
Lipo
 
I guess what's really important is whether the happy couple liked them, but I can see the reason for the first comment above.

Not sure whether it's your scanner or the film, but the pictures seem to have an overall magenta hue. Also, there is a distinct lack of shadow detail (blocking up), especially in the church shots.

Lastly, considering it was shot with kodachrome, I seem to detect a bit of grain, which should not be apparent at this size.

I agree with the hint of the last person posting: that a good digital camera could have done a better job, rather than shooting with film and converting. Film means you are stuck at a certain color balance,while with digital you can change the color balance at will. Matter of fact, if you shoot raw, you can even forget color balance and just post-process to make the shots all consistent. Also, scanners (unless they are super high quality and the person using it knows what they are doing) can degrade quality considerably.

Otherwise, composition and faces are great. You are doing everything right, it's just that you need to revisit the equipment
issue.
(just my opinion, having shot a few of these).
Djedi
--
frustrated photog
 
djedi said:
I can see the reason for the first comment above.
Not sure whether it's your scanner or the film, but the pictures
seem to have an overall magenta hue. Also, there is a distinct
lack of shadow detail (blocking up), especially in the church shots.
Lastly, considering it was shot with kodachrome, I seem to detect a
bit of grain, which should not be apparent at this size.
Click to expand...
Agree with djedi about images from scanning film/slides. I've shot thousands of pics of my son's swim team over the last 3 summers and scanned many many many slides/frames. Some came out great, but many are a disappointment. A bit grainy, colors muted, shadows too dense, not terribly sharp. Some PP helped, but it was impossible to replicate the sharp, well-exposed, vivid original slides. I don't have a dedicated film scanner (have Canon 9950) but I suspect that 500-1000 bucks for a very nice dedicated unit (KM or Nikon) wouldn't give results that I judge worth the cost. Anyone care to argue otherwise? I can be persuaded. I've got TONS of negatives and slides from last 30 years.

As for "docktor"...I felt a twinge of regret and embarrassment (for you) when I read your post. I wanted to say something in response, but I soon realized...what's the point?

Stu
 
As a fellow non-people shooter, I can appreciate how difficult this was for you. I just did a cousin's wedding in August, and it was hard, but fun.

I'd say you got a very high success rate. I shot digital, about 3x the number you did, and I don't think I got any as nice. I suspect you lost a lot of quality in the scanning process - I've never been happy with my scanned photos. So don't listen to the trolls saying you're wrong to shoot film! That said, digital has a lot to recommend it, and as one of the non-trolls pointed out, you have a lot more control over WB and the like.

I like the couple smooching in the doorway, although it seems to be not quite one thing or another - not quite silhouette, not quite fully lit. But still it has a nice spontaneous quality, and it's something a little different. They must be very pleased with your efforts!
Julie
 
I'm not trying to be rude and hopefully you'll see my comments as constructive criticism.

I haven't seen the original slides so maybe some of the problems are due to being scanned rather than being original digital images out of a digital camera.

The first photo of the bride & groom kneeling at the railing is way too dark, grainy, and has a severe unnatural color cast. Colors and skin tones are not at all natural. It would also have been better to see more of the bride's face.

2nd Photo of B&G kissing in doorway: If you were trying to create a sihloouette effect, I just don't think you succeeded. In reality it just simply looks like a badly underexposed photo due to severe backlighting. No detail whatsoever in the couple's faces or bodies. The picture looks crooked. The corner of the brick wall on the left is distracting, it shouldn't have been in the picture.

3rd Photo of B&G posed in front of brick wall: It looks like you were catching a shot of the couple while they were posing for another photographer. There is a severe reddish or magenta color cast, a little too dark, too grainy, unnatural skin tones.

4th Photo of B&G posed in front of brick wall: This is a little more interesting than photo # 3. I like the way the bride's veil is flowing in the breeze. However, as with photo #3 they seem to be posing for another photographer and the same unnatural color cast exists.

5th PHoto Group of 7 people: Same technical problems as before. Not a single person is looking in the same direction. It's like they had no idea you were trying to photograph them. Only one of them is looking at you. The photo is off-center, the lady on the right end is partially cut-off.

Photo 6 Group of 4 : Again same tech problems and they are posing for someone else.

Photo 7: Same problems again.

--
Allan Plucinik
Colorado Springs, CO
 
I use a minolta film scanner when I have to scan slides or negs. Not sure of the model, but it's 2700dpi, I believe.

I have done some excellent scans with it, both from B&W negatives, blown up to A3 prints, and some smaller color prints from slides. It has a program to restore "lost" color on old slides, and it actually works pretty well. Have saved a few old photos for people that way.

If tweaked a bit, I can usually get pretty good color depth and accuracy with it. It's miles ahead of any flatbed scanner I have ever used, but I shelled out a few $$ for it at the time.

Original digital images from an SLR, are still better than scanned, but this unit comes close.
Djedi
--
frustrated photog
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top