5D's AF and ISO3200 saved my b*tt

and to be frank I still haven't got my hands into the mud yet. I just dumped the cards and deleted some duds LOL

about the groom, there's a pic in which his eyes are closed, I was about to delete it and then I stopped, took another look at it and thought I'd keep it just for the fun. It's really dumb but he reminded me of the Crazy Frog, you know, the idiotic creature with a lame music video that makes much noise here in Europe (people have no taste)
http://www.turboforce3d.com/annoying/

see the oval goggles? see the wide smile? that thought made my day. I photographed The Annoying Thing's wedding LOL

Guillaume

' Most americans aren't racist or stupid. Why should I be burning cars, or dissing americans? Just because I'm french? '

T3 said:

photographer-friendly lighting. So if a bride and groom want to
have a reception in a cave lit with nothing more than tea lights,
yes, as a professional you DO JUST SMILE and get the job done!

Click to expand...

next time I'll ask the wed. planner to suggest the couple that they add twice the number of candles around the table... it'll cost twice the price and it won't seem that much of a change, but if it allows me to get ISO1600 and 1/45... it's already huge!! LOL

Guillaume

' Most americans aren't racist or stupid. Why should I be burning cars, or dissing americans? Just because I'm french? '

but to the friend here who talked about stupidity phrasing my contribution.

You did the best you could, and you did good. I understand exactly your situation and it does happen at the beginning to everybody. With a little more experience (and the help of more experienced colleagues or a mentor) you'll grow your talent and you'll get more used to take more control. Also you'll see that the "last minute" bookings are usually the more complicated for many reasons (mainly because who comes to the day with no photographer means something). You'll start to understand that soon.

But still the fact that you completed the coverage shows that you are able to overcome the difficulties already, and that's very important in this practice.
You'll be fine, and I also like your style.

One final note, and I don't mean to scare you (promise): you didn't see nothing yet...it can be much worst that that

As for the fees there is no extra charge for rehersals (unless you put it in the contract) but you must collect the cost of the coverage in advance. That's mandatory, even at the beginning. It's the most important aspect Gauillaume. The way you start will most likely sign the way you'll stay in the business for a long time. If you collect now after the fact you'll stay that way for a long time. That also applies to the price list. This is a mainly word of mouth driven business, Clients will talk, brides in particular. What you do to a couple you'll be asked to do to again to the next. It's not easy to adjust the prices even for the next year. Unfortunatelly when the beginning of the bookings comes the concern of not booking well for the next season will make you keep the previous price list

I'm just telling the main mistakes we all make, I hope you don't take this in the wrong way again.

I apologize for taking over this forum discussing aspects that should be discussed on another forum.

Feel free to take the stupidity of my (stupid) experience in the field with a laugh. I did what I had to do: every time I see a colleague in a difficult situation I can't turn to the other side. That's how I am. (also because I've been there myself.. of course)

--

http://www.ImagingPhotographics.com

All too many wedding photographers seem to believe that a wedding is primarily a big photo shoot. That the flowers and dressy clothes are there to look good the all important pictures. Ugh.

Others would disagree with me, but I believe that the photographer's job is to document, in as attractive but representative way as possible, the event as it happens. If the wedding has a dark muted mood, the photos should. If it was a rainy day - show it. Chaotic reception - show some movement. Too many pros fall back into a bracket-flash everything-should-look-the-same mode. No grain, no shadows, no motion blur.

I think it's arrogant of a photographer to request that something as critical to the wedding experience as the ambient mood should be altered so he can take pictures the way he is accustomed to - in other words "take control." The photographer should function as if he wasn't there (which is a big reason I shoot without flash.) To be entirely unobtrusive, yet produce beautiful evocative pictures, that's pro work.

Now Mark, you never answered the question about a dark church with no flash allowed. You said to prepare in advance - even with a decade of preparation, what would you do?

MarkLe said:

sorry. I understand your reasons (perfectly) but that's not the
point. The point is the strenght of the coverage (and job). You
keep seeing the whole experience from the "photographer with a
camera" point of view
What counts is the album. nothing else and the integrity of your work.
Look, it's a tough business, I can tell you a dozen of horror
experiences and unfortunate situations I was in, just like every
wedding photographer but it doesn't change the fact that we must
deliver, regardless and professionally.
There is no such a thing like "I couldn't take control". You
must've. and should've.
Anyhow good to see that you're happy with the results but next time
I'm sure that you'll know how to profit from this experience.
That's all I wanted to tell you.

P.S.: I know that this is a gear oriented discussion, that's why I
said that it was irrelevant to the couple and the album (if you
read between the lines...)

P.P.S.: I was also trying to help giving you my view and a
suggestion on how to live this kind of work in the future, and I'm
shooting weddings for more than 15 years in a raw: I wasn't
disminishing your skills or the camera's, I hope you understand
that. And you don't find help easily in this line of work.

--

http://www.ImagingPhotographics.com

Click to expand...

Guillaume paris2 said:

http://www.turboforce3d.com/annoying/

see the oval goggles? see the wide smile? that thought made my day.
I photographed The Annoying Thing's wedding LOL

Click to expand...

Hey Guillaume, the link is not working

--
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=15816234
My latest 5D gallery, Bali, bikinis, bikes, beaches, babies.

you're confusing a wedding photographer with a PJ. Also a PJ doesn't have the background music like we do.
Nobody wants to see real.... reality. What are nuts?

now, I appreciate that you feel strong enough to call my name directly and ask for an advice even if I don't know you.

Ok, I can't tell you in details what I'd do because it's part of my income LOL

I said that I'd go well prepared and that should be enough for you. If it's not then let me know right away and I'll dedicate a couple of thoughts just for you.

But I can tell you that I'd bring (and light) a couple of candles.

happy shooting and good luck.

--

http://www.ImagingPhotographics.com

T3,

yes I agree in general, but in this case the lighting wasn't planned because the wedding coordinator just asked how they wanted the lights right before the event. And again if it was planned would fall into the "I knew it and I was prepared" category.

Improvvisation may work or may not work in the wedddings "for the money" shooting practice for a lasting forever album . Planning is the key (like you rightly said).

Perhaps you're right, I'm thinking more of PJ. Which is why I don't have much respect for the aestetics of most wedding shoots. If the reality of a wedding, the excitement, mood, feeling of joy, isn't enough to make good photography, don't blame the photographer for a poor wedding. Capturing these things is what I believe is most important, not overriding them with a fake sentiment of my own.

Did it ever occur to you that you're not really being helpful, just patronizing? We're doing it wrong, you're doing it right, and that's all we need to know.
Good luck lighting a church with candles, and good luck with the fire code.

Mathias

MarkLe said:

you're confusing a wedding photographer with a PJ. Also a PJ
doesn't have the background music like we do.
Nobody wants to see real.... reality. What are nuts?

now, I appreciate that you feel strong enough to call my name
directly and ask for an advice even if I don't know you.

Ok, I can't tell you in details what I'd do because it's part of my
income LOL
I said that I'd go well prepared and that should be enough for you.
If it's not then let me know right away and I'll dedicate a couple
of thoughts just for you.

But I can tell you that I'd bring (and light) a couple of candles.

happy shooting and good luck.

Click to expand...

it's not a matter of doing it right or wrong, and absolutely I don't consider myself nothing more than a working average photographer not blessed by talent. I said it many times and maybe you got to know me just from my last posts and completely misunderstood my intentions.

This is a matter of not making mistakes or at least trying to suggest a way to avoid'em when possible. And believe me I made and still make so many mistakes... countless.

Now in this particular matter do you believe that the client would be ok if I say "yes, there is some noise in the pictures but the camera I used is better than others". Don't you think that the bride or groom couldn't care less about it? LOL

That was the idea I was trying to correct, when the album is the only thing that matters.

That's all. I really hope that you get a better opinion of me now, because honestly I was just trying to help.

--

http://www.ImagingPhotographics.com

http://www.liduce.com/index.php

Sure, there is no such thing as wedding "PJ."

-joseph

MarkLe said:

you're confusing a wedding photographer with a PJ. Also a PJ
doesn't have the background music like we do.
Nobody wants to see real.... reality. What are nuts?

Click to expand...

--
Canon.

in-camera JPEG, Standard style, same settings as above (that's 1/30, ISO3200)...



I think I can live without RAW when storage is limited ;-)

Guillaume

' Most americans aren't racist or stupid. Why should I be burning cars, or dissing americans? Just because I'm french? '

What wide angle lens were you using? Looks nice

I understand your feelings about how a wedding should be photographed and frankly, they mirror my own preferences.

But my feellings also differ a bit. It seems to me that a wedding photographer is in business primarily to please his clients -- not necessarily himself. Therefore, a wedding should be photographed in the style and manner that the bridal couple would like.

If that means (at one extreme) totally un-posed, no flash, "catch us when you can" photography (and the photographer agrees to do the job) then that's the "right" way to do the photographs.

If (at the other extreme) the bridal couple wants traditional, formal, completely posed images "and none of that un-posed with my mouth open stuff" (and the photographer agrees to do the job) then that's the "right" way to do the photographs.

The photographer doesn't need to take the job if he sees that the client's desires run strongly counter to his own vision of how his work should look. But once he agrees to do the job, his responsibility is to provide the product that his client wants.

Because there is a very high probability that he has been to more weddings than the entire wedding party, it is not unusual for a photographer to politely try to steer the bridal party in directions that will help him deliver the kind of coverage that they have hired him to provide. If he does this smoothly and with sensitivity, the bridal party will thank him for the help. If he does this like a bull in a china shop then he may be perceived as trying to take over a special occasion for his own purposes. He won't be helping them and he won't be helping his reputation.

Good wedding photographers learn to recognize when to push a bit and when to back off and let things take their natural course. A wedding photographer who has strong bookings year after year probably has learned when to push and when to back off. Those that don't learn, generally don't have enough bookings to keep them in the business.

That's my opinion, for what it's worth.

Ken

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Mathias Tornqvist said:

MarkLe said:

sorry. I understand your reasons (perfectly) but that's not the
point. The point is the strenght of the coverage (and job). You
keep seeing the whole experience from the "photographer with a
camera" point of view
What counts is the album. nothing else and the integrity of your work.
Look, it's a tough business, I can tell you a dozen of horror
experiences and unfortunate situations I was in, just like every
wedding photographer but it doesn't change the fact that we must
deliver, regardless and professionally.
There is no such a thing like "I couldn't take control". You
must've. and should've.
Anyhow good to see that you're happy with the results but next time
I'm sure that you'll know how to profit from this experience.
That's all I wanted to tell you.

P.S.: I know that this is a gear oriented discussion, that's why I
said that it was irrelevant to the couple and the album (if you
read between the lines...)

P.P.S.: I was also trying to help giving you my view and a
suggestion on how to live this kind of work in the future, and I'm
shooting weddings for more than 15 years in a raw: I wasn't
disminishing your skills or the camera's, I hope you understand
that. And you don't find help easily in this line of work.

--

http://www.ImagingPhotographics.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.ksgraphicart.com

because I was referring to the photojournalists, not the wedding photographers doing it "PJ style", which is alltogheter a completely different thing.

Sorry, but you should read carefully what another poster says before making sarcastic comment like you just did. Which is fine of course even if you don't read or don't know exactly what you're talking about: just expect that the poster object of your sarcasm won't stay at the window and will reply with the same sarcasm.

Anyhow I know the difference, the question is.. do you?

--

http://www.ImagingPhotographics.com

Yeah, I probably do know the difference, and your repetitively condescending pronouncements and tit-for-tat sarcasm don't do wonders for your credibility ... or your personability.

But I suppose you're a grownup, so you're on your own.

By the way, we all get your point about THE PHOTO ALBUM. Seriously.

Cheers dude,

-joseph

MarkLe said:

because I was referring to the photojournalists, not the wedding
photographers doing it "PJ style", which is alltogheter a
completely different thing.

Sorry, but you should read carefully what another poster says
before making sarcastic comment like you just did. Which is fine of
course even if you don't read or don't know exactly what you're
talking about: just expect that the poster object of your sarcasm
won't stay at the window and will reply with the same sarcasm.

Anyhow I know the difference, the question is.. do you?

Click to expand...

--
Canon.

It is most pronounced in long exposures, as in 15 seconds @ 3200. I'd call it "acceptable" considering.

Hopefully I'll get to put this thing to work on some auroras next time I'm in Fairbanks. Look out Santa! I'll probably stick to 800 ISO, where the camera seems to do very well.

As an aside, in terms of image cleanliness, my D60 was a better low-light camera than my 10D is. Well - my D60 still "is," although I have it loaned out for a while.

-joseph

--
Canon.

well if you know the difference (but I doubt it) your post was a mistake then. You better find some different topic to discuss with me now.

You heard me saying PJ and you ran to search on google for PJ and post it in here all excited? LOL

And now you're saying that you don't like my "personability" (whatever it means).. but what that has to do with anything? most importantly what my "personability" has to do with you confusing between PJ and wedding PJ-style? I don't get it. Is my fault now if you made a mistake?

Seriously, if you need me to explain (to you) the difference between a PJ and a wedding PJ-style photographer don't be shy and just ask. I'll explain it to you. If you ask politely of course.

For now, you better pay more attention bashing another poster, at least get your facts straight, when you talk to a photographer in particular and about the photography business.

Or we both end up wasting our time here.

im done with you.

... personability... that was a good one LOL

I'm personally acquainted with one of those two photographers, both of whom are first and foremost award-winning photojournalists.

Personability is the "capacity to be personable." You may prefer the more to the point:

personableness
n : the complex of attributes that make a person socially attractive

I've been on dpreview for quite a while, but I don't spend a lot of time haranguing people who, for various but perfectly good reasons, don't agree with me.

Chill, man. And - by the way - there are a lot of people here who have things to teach you.

-joseph

MarkLe said:

well if you know the difference (but I doubt it) your post was a
mistake then. You better find some different topic to discuss with
me now.

You heard me saying PJ and you ran to search on google for PJ and
post it in here all excited? LOL

And now you're saying that you don't like my "personability"
(whatever it means).. but what that has to do with anything? most
importantly what my "personability" has to do with you confusing
between PJ and wedding PJ-style? I don't get it. Is my fault now if
you made a mistake?

Seriously, if you need me to explain (to you) the difference
between a PJ and a wedding PJ-style photographer don't be shy and
just ask. I'll explain it to you. If you ask politely of course.

For now, you better pay more attention bashing another poster, at
least get your facts straight, when you talk to a photographer in
particular and about the photography business.

Or we both end up wasting our time here.

im done with you.

Click to expand...

joebloe said:

As an aside, in terms of image cleanliness, my D60 was a better
low-light camera than my 10D is. Well - my D60 still "is," although
I have it loaned out for a while.

Click to expand...

My D60 is a lovely camera but no way I'd use it instead of my 10D for low light!! it's not only the luminance noise all around the image, but most of all, the shadows that shift like crazy when tweaking the images in PS... At 800 and 1000, it's the case and if I had to shoot this camera again (if I had known better before) I'd shoot it at ISO400, underexpose 1 stop then push: the images don't have "blocked and shifty" shadows at 400 pushed.

My 10D develops the "blocked" shadows at ISO1600 (they become mostly black). So far, the 5D doesn't seem to block the shadows! I must be hallucinating.

Guillaume

' Most americans aren't racist or stupid. Why should I be burning cars, or dissing americans? Just because I'm french? '

and yes, despite the good bashing this lens gets most everywhere, I actually like it. It's not an L, it's not a Leica or Contax either, but it's pretty much usable near wide open. It's perfect paired with my 85mm f1.8 USM.

If I ever get a better low light WA prime, maybe I'll change my mind as to what "usable" is, but so far, I like it.

(see my post above, "how is that for jpeg sharpness...")

Guillaume

' Most americans aren't racist or stupid. Why should I be burning cars, or dissing americans? Just because I'm french? '