Reading mode: Light Dark

Digital Wedding Sin?

Go to last post
The lens she was using was the 17 - 40 f4 L
YAZ77K said:
O_o ... looks weired 1/750 at f/16 ... what is she shotting? the
sun? lol ... then the lense looks like a 24-70 ... so why don't use
a lower f#??? i really don't understand this shot ... then the
flash has to shot a powerful blast with 1/750 f/16 ... maybe se is
getting a portrait ... O_o ... i think ... but the background? ...
very strange for me
--
my shots http://yaz77k.deviantart.com/gallery/photography/
^ ^ bye!
Piero Cicogna
Click to expand...
--
Joel Telling - Photographer at Large
 
Here are a few from my 20D

The first picture was shot with a 20D, RAW. 280mm (70 - 200mm f2.8 L IS + 1.4x TC), f6.3, 1/125th, ISO 400. I was standing on the second level of the boat and zoomed in to get the groom putting the ring on the bride.



The second shot was with my 20D, RAW, 10mm (10 - 22mm), f13.0, 1/100, ISO 400. Again, on the second level. I tried to get as much of the "scene" in the shot as possible. Yes, the buildings are leaning because of the lens distortion, what's a good way to fix that?



There were 3 photographers at the event. Two were dedicated to doing video, and she was the stills person. After the ceremony, she saw me with my long white lens and said they might ask me for some of my shots since I had longer glass than them (they only brought the 17 - 40). I haven't heard from them, though, it's just nice to feel wanted :)

The scene is a bit north of Seattle on Lake Union. It was around 7:20 or so, and the sun was on the right-hand side of the frame.

--
Joel Telling - Photographer at Large
 
It is amazing isn't it that the technical purist has time to ponder how many pixels are warm, hot/stuck,misfocused, fake, alaised, RAW, JPEG compressed etc...but the PRO has to deal with issues of time and money.

Thank you for pointing this out.

I like having 100% control over the process, but when I am asked to shoot a wedding, event, or game I need something that can help me master my most challenging enemy...time!

Yes I want better than just average results, but I can not spend a week tweaking 300 images for a wedding.

Those who are technical purists...I love you too...you do the pioneer work to help us all understand how many pixels we can squeeze through the process undamaged. :)

We need both workflows...the perfectionist and the time/money professional.

We also need the artistic workflow...

Don't you just love this medium of photography??? So many facets and avenues of discovery await!

--
RichO
http://www.pbase.com/richo
http://community.wildflowerhaven.com
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
Shutter. said:
Hi Petteri,

It really isn't any harder in jpg than it is in raw. Why would it
be harder?
Click to expand...
I haven't yet found an 8-bit program that allows you to adjust the
color temperature on the Kelvin scale, nor one that permits me to
copy white balance settings from one shot to several.
Click to expand...
Petteri - not Kelvin, but you can save the levels settings in PS CS and then apply them to subsequent shots once you have set the white, grey and black points. I don't shoot in JPG any more - always RAW, but did find this somewhat useful before I converted to the 'light side'.
Petteri Sulonen said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
I've often wondered why this is such a point of consternation with
shooting in jpg.
Click to expand...
It's a lot more work, 'sall.

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://194.100.88.243/petteri/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
Click to expand...
--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

 
Well, you did photographer her between shots.

None of us know what the camera was set on either for the previous shot or the one right after the one in the first post.

Everything else is pure speculation.

By the way, hope you got a signed release....................
 
Looks like the entire wedding took place outdoor with late afternoon sun. There goes the theory that she forgot to set the ISO when moving from indoor to outdoor.

BTW, very nice pictures, especially the color of the second shot.

As for the leaning buildings, perspective control can straighten up, along with trees on the right. But doing so will leave you large areas of blank sky to clone in. I will leave them slanted.

--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
Shutter. said:
Hi Petteri,

It really isn't any harder in jpg than it is in raw. Why would it
be harder?
Click to expand...
I haven't yet found an 8-bit program that allows you to adjust the
color temperature on the Kelvin scale, nor one that permits me to
copy white balance settings from one shot to several.
Click to expand...
hmmm.... maybe you've just been using the wrong software. ;-)


Petteri Sulonen said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
I've often wondered why this is such a point of consternation with
shooting in jpg.
Click to expand...
It's a lot more work, 'sall.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.... not for me. I apply kelvin white balance temperatures to several photos at a time in a batch. It's really quite simple.

I think it's more work to wait forever for RAW images to be uploaded and edited and converted.

This is just one issue that I've really tried to convert myself on, but everytime I try, I just walk away wondering "why?".

:-)

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.fuglestadphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/366
  • You're not in third grade anymore. Take as many recesses as you want!
  • Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
 
Jan_Shim said:
To have my application post process the RAW files
as fast as JPG I will have to make significant investment in far
more capable hardware and software along with a new learning curve.
In the end, we're still looking at a considerable change - more
costs involved to reduce the time needed to post process. There's
still no reason for me to do this considering I am getting very
good results with my current JPG workflow and most importantly, my
clients are happy with the end results.
Click to expand...
I have found that with the new Bridge function in Photoshop CS2 that processing RAWs is now considerably faster than Jpeg ever was for me. You can apply WB, shadow, contrast, exposure, curves ect... and even crop and correct for horizon in the browser all before the RAWs are ever loaded into photoshop. Then, after you have decided on your adjustments to several hundred images, you just let the computer batch convert them all over to tiff or Jpeg. The time it takes is completely limited to your patience per file, since the hardware requirements are pretty much set asside till after you have made your decisions (and that is when I leave the computer to its work!). Really amazing actually, and the only way I can see working in the future (plus the sidecar files are great since they have partly eliminated the need for Tiffs unless you are sending a picture to be printed: they instantly tell photoshop your preference for a given RAW file, and of course, you can save multiple versions of each based on taste).

--
-CW
 
Let's see...

Your two shots were:
f6.3, 1/125, iso 400
f13, 1/100, iso 400

I understand some variation for angle and subject, but what iso would you expect to go along with f16 and 1/750 under similar shooting conditions? Both of your shots appear to cover very well lit subjects, too.

Let me preface the next remarks by saying that I don't shoot weddings. I cover local events and the shots end up on websites and in periodical newsprint publications. No shot is critical, so I don't understand the complexity of shooting a wedding.

I can appreciate the time vs. money trade-off, but I couldn't do less than my best for a wedding. Maybe shooting a few hundred of them would change my mind, but part of being human is a propensity to err. In the overall scheme of things, buying a few extra CF cards to shoot raw+JPEG is cheap compared to the down side of missing important shots to bad settings. This shouldn't cost the pro any extra time if the JPEGs are good, and could save the shoot.

Part of being a pro at anything is getting it right the first time, and I respect the skills of those who can do it. Another part is understanding and managing risk. Maybe managing a computer network with a 99.99995 uptime requirement gives me a different perspective on this? If I have a $5-10K equipment investment to shoot weddings on a regular basis, I wouldn't think twice about an extra $500 in memory cards to reduce the margin for error.

Is there some other cost to shooting raw+JPEG and only using the JPEG that I am not accounting for? Or, are the raw images less of a safety net than I am crediting them for?
 
You can print easily 16x20 not only from Medium Fine, but also from Medium Standard (the stair steps mode). It is a consumer bloviation that you have to have high megapixels with low compression to get great pictures and enlargements. If the D30 were to be up to par with today's technology in focus speed, card writing speeds, flash system (ETTL-2) and higher ISO cleanliness, it would make a great wedding camera. Anything above 3 megapixels, and here is the deal-breaker, with good dynamic range will give you great enlargements. Anyone can try it for themselves, 20x30 prints are cheap and you can prove it to yourself. Dynamic range kills the camera, not the megapixels - everything else being equal.

As Canon starts to release more cameras, I hope they concentrate on a dual setting feature set like the Kodaks have, a 11mp RAW and a 5mp RAW setting. Along with greater dynamic range, they would really be workhorse cameras.

As for this lady shooting in P mode, if it was outdoors she did the right thing, especially if she just came out from doing indoor shots. Often, in a transition of major extremes in lighting, a pro with switch to P mode until they can settle into setting up the camera the way they want to. I personally shoot M-Av-Tv modes indoors and P modes using program shift outdoors. Then when things are not in a fast paced mode, I will switch to another mode. Often a pro is shooting at strange ISO's indoors and needs to quickly get the shots when going to a window or outdoors, the P mode is the ticket and a very smart move.

Usually a pro is going for a certain shot, how they get it I could care less, the point is if they got it or not.

--
Peter Gregg
[email protected]
pbase.com/pgp777
 
No, not really. Last Saturday, I shot a beauty contest and my Image Tank g2 was on the blink, so I had no backup PSD. I had to make do with my 2.25 gb CFs. So, I went 6mp medium. Each 512mb gave me about 370 shots on ISO 400 compared to 160 whereabouts for 6mp fine with my D60 (my 300d was with canon being serviced). I shot about 1,100 that evening.

Back home, I have this software that told me the compression percentage was and wondered what the hit was that bad. I was surprised to find that I got a 93% compression on medium. But the file sizes were much smaller that it more than doubled what my card can have. I just printed A4 sized prints (some even cropped from the original) some from my epson 310 and I can't spot the difference.

NOw, if it were a wedding, and the shots were crucial I'd go for RAW. If I have my PSD working, I'd shoot fine on jpg. But now I know I can shoot medium, in case I am in a tight spot with limited CF space.

It's not a sin to shoot medium resolution. But if I were shooting group shots, or lighting is critical, or I know will need to be enlarged, I would go RAW. But I also know, I can get decent results with jpg.

---------------------
  • Caterpillar
'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'
 
Of the weddings I have shot, the bride and MOB were more interested in the composition of the shots than whether they were taken using RAW. All of the brides asked if I was going to shoot using a blur/dream filter. I told them no, but I could do the same in PhotoShop.

Super-Sharp images are not the issue with weddings...so the only other reason to use RAW would be WB/Exposure. I do worry more about the WB than the sharp images. In the tests I have personally conducted, I have found getting the exposure correct was more important.

What I like about RAW is the ability to easily go back and "re-shoot" the image with different settings as a starting point for my RGB PS processing.

So for those "set-up" shots where I want the untouched digital negative, I shoot in the RAW, but for those "time and money" shots I shoot Large/Fine JPG.

--
RichO
http://www.pbase.com/his.o
http://community.wildflowerhaven.com
 
IMO, the thread just reasserts one thing: everyone is still judging by the digital output on the monitor, rather than the prints.

Why not take a RAW shot of a particular subject and do the same with the JPEG Medium, print them out and judge for yourself.

--
Tim J.Y. Chong

'Photography is bringing order out of chaos.' - Ansel Adams
 
Hi, Jan --

The thing with RAW processing is that with a workflow program, you can apply the same settings (e.g. white balance, tone curve, shadow/highlight contrast, saturation etc.) across whole sets of shots at once. Then you can toss off your various copies at various sizes with a click. (You don't even have to wait for them, since it all happens in the background.) Check out CaptureOne DSLR Pro or even RawShooter Essentials; you might be surprised. Working with RAWs is actually faster and easier than with JPEG.

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://194.100.88.243/petteri/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
rnelson71 said:
-- I have always liked your work, have you always been using Jasc?,
or do you also use ps ?
R. Nelson
Click to expand...
Thank you. Yep, always used PSP... I tried to dedicate myself to using PSCS last December, just to see what I was "missing"... but then realized I wasn't missing anything, so I went back to PSP. There really isn't anything PSCS offers that is missing in PSP9. In fact, prior to PSCS2, I found more valuable features in PSP9.

Jim

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.fuglestadphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/366
  • You're not in third grade anymore. Take as many recesses as you want!
  • Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
 
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