Need help with proper f-stop for ancient 35mm film camera on two wildly different shoots.

Novice Shutterbug said:

baloo_buc said:

If you gonna use it in the future then it is worth it to buy. If you use it only for this event it is better to rent..

Lenses for weddings are quite expensive because they need to be fast and flexible. So I would rent them. The kit lens is not the best tool to use at a wedding because it is quite slow. It may be OK if every photo opportunity will be outdoor.

Click to expand...

I admit I don't know much about lenses, but I do know that kit 18-55mm lenses are generally regarded to be garbage. So, I was considering buying the camera body only and going with an AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens. The reason is that it would give me more versatility in a lot of shooting situations from wide angle to a pretty substantial zoom, probably all the zoom I would need for the occasion as well as other general shooting situations apart from wedding. It seems to me to be a good all-around lens choice since I don't have the money to buy a whole collection of fast lenses, and I would prefer to concentrate on shooting on that day without having to change lenses (which means carrying around a camera bag during the whole event).

The first wedding (I will be attending two less than a month apart) will be outdoors, and the second will be outdoors weather permitting. Therefore, I don't know if you would consider the 18-140mm NIKKOR to be fast enough, but at the first wedding the bride isn't expecting professional results, and as I said I'm not a professional photographer. However, I would like to deliver as good of a result as possible, or at least as much as I'm capable of and can afford to produce. Therefore, some artistic bokeh may have to be sacrificed. Also, I have not been tasked to photograph the second wedding, but I may volunteer myself to help capture some moments if the bride so desires.

Taking all this into consideration, what lens or combo of lenses would you recommend?

Click to expand...

PLEASE .... do NOT volunteer unless you FULLY explain they will be nothing more than "snapshots". They will NOT be "wedding" portraits.

I tried to explain earlier that even if you were a "technical" expert, (which you respectfully are not), that is only about 5% of a successful wedding album.

First of all I tried to explain that over 50% of my (500) weddings I have had to "manage" and "time", (and the worse were the others when they had professional wedding-coordinators that still managed to mis-time everything).

Also there are many "cliché" wedding "poses" that if not done 100% correct simply do not look like "wedding" images.

I recommend going on at least 6 weddings with another professional-photographer before you dare "volunteer" with any expectation of "professional" results.

If you blow-it ... they will HATE you for LIFE !!!

So PLEASE do THEM, (and yourself), a favor and do not try to replace a professional.

I'm afraid the OP is deaf to such good advice and isn't aware of how modest his knowledge and expertise is. I've put it as politely as I can.

Novice Shutterbug said:

baloo_buc said:

If you gonna use it in the future then it is worth it to buy. If you use it only for this event it is better to rent..

Lenses for weddings are quite expensive because they need to be fast and flexible. So I would rent them. The kit lens is not the best tool to use at a wedding because it is quite slow. It may be OK if every photo opportunity will be outdoor.

Click to expand...

I admit I don't know much about lenses, but I do know that kit 18-55mm lenses are generally regarded to be garbage. So, I was considering buying the camera body only and going with an AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens. The reason is that it would give me more versatility in a lot of shooting situations from wide angle to a pretty substantial zoom, probably all the zoom I would need for the occasion as well as other general shooting situations apart from wedding. It seems to me to be a good all-around lens choice since I don't have the money to buy a whole collection of fast lenses, and I would prefer to concentrate on shooting on that day without having to change lenses (which means carrying around a camera bag during the whole event).

The first wedding (I will be attending two less than a month apart) will be outdoors, and the second will be outdoors weather permitting. Therefore, I don't know if you would consider the 18-140mm NIKKOR to be fast enough, but at the first wedding the bride isn't expecting professional results, and as I said I'm not a professional photographer. However, I would like to deliver as good of a result as possible, or at least as much as I'm capable of and can afford to produce. Therefore, some artistic bokeh may have to be sacrificed. Also, I have not been tasked to photograph the second wedding, but I may volunteer myself to help capture some moments if the bride so desires.

Taking all this into consideration, what lens or combo of lenses would you recommend?

Click to expand...

The kit lenses are not garbage. They are just limited especially regarding the speed, reach and building quality. A few kit lenses (Sony 18-70 mm, older, not present offering, Canon 18-55 mm, Sony 16-50 mm) are quite bad optically. The rest are OK.

For a wedding you need fast lenses and external flash. The lenses can be either 24-70 mm f/2.8 and 70-200 mm f/2.8.

24-70 mm it is used mainly for group photos and 70-200 mm it is used when you want to separate the subject. Another option is to have two primes one for wide angle and one for the portrait. For wide angle I would not go beyond 24 mm or the Sigma zoom 18-35 mm f/1.8 (almost a prime). For telephoto a 85 mm f/1.8 is quite good for portraits.

18-140 mm VR might work but you have to be very careful with the background as it is not a fast lens so the blurring of the background is not optimal. Use flash indoors and outdoors in bright sunlight (the latter may be a problem with cameras that have no high sync speed support so a ND filter (3 stops should be OK and not very expensive) would be necessary only for the outdoor flash photos.

With a good eye and some good composition you will be OK with one lens that is not fast.

For a portrait use around 100 mm to fill the frame so use a distance of 2-2.5 m. For group photos use 24 mm or 35 mm (if the group is small) and for general wide angle use 18 mm. Keep the aperture quite open for portraits (maximum aperture i.e. f/5.6).

Good luck!

PhotoTeach2 said:

PLEASE .... do NOT volunteer unless you FULLY explain they will be nothing more than "snapshots". They will NOT be "wedding" portraits.

Click to expand...

First off, I did not volunteer for this wedding shoot. I was volunteered by my father who was asked by the bride to take some shots. Apparently, she is under the impression that he has more photography skills and equipment than he does, but she is not expecting professional results nonetheless. That of which I am certain.

PhotoTeach2 said:

I tried to explain earlier that even if you were a "technical" expert, (which you respectfully are not), that is only about 5% of a successful wedding album.

First of all I tried to explain that over 50% of my (500) weddings I have had to "manage" and "time", (and the worse were the others when they had professional wedding-coordinators that still managed to mis-time everything).

Also there are many "cliché" wedding "poses" that if not done 100% correct simply do not look like "wedding" images.

I recommend going on at least 6 weddings with another professional-photographer before you dare "volunteer" with any expectation of "professional" results.

If you blow-it ... they will HATE you for LIFE !!!

So PLEASE do THEM, (and yourself), a favor and do not try to replace a professional.

Click to expand...

I am not trying to replace a professional. The bride and groom in the first wedding cannot afford a professional. That's why they asked my father to help them out instead of a real photographer. Since I have more interest in photography than he does (though I admit not many more skills at this point) and am a faster learner, he sort of passed the task along to me without asking me in advance. I guess he felt he was in no positon to tell them "no" flat-out, so now I fear the task falls to me, and it has caused me more than a little stress. However, I was sort of looking for an excuse to delve deeper into the art of photography. I had already bought a DVD course on the basics of photography and I snapped up a more advanced masters of photography course at the same time.

Do I think that will make me some kind of expert overnight? No. Of course not. But the bride isn't expecting much more than snapshots of the event. She's not delusional. She's just on a very tight budget. The only reason I am considering attempting this is because I feel sorry for her situation. Otherwise, I would have declined, but I don't feel I am in a position to just say "no" either considering her financial situation. If I do, she will end up with nothing but point-and-shoot snapshots of the event, and I feel I can at least do better than that.

Novice Shutterbug said:

Novice Shutterbug said:

PLEASE .... do NOT volunteer unless you FULLY explain they will be nothing more than "snapshots". They will NOT be "wedding" portraits.

Click to expand...

First off, I did not volunteer for this wedding shoot. I was volunteered by my father who was asked by the bride to take some shots. Apparently, she is under the impression that he has more photography skills and equipment than he does, but she is not expecting professional results nonetheless. That of which I am certain.

Novice Shutterbug said:

I tried to explain earlier that even if you were a "technical" expert, (which you respectfully are not), that is only about 5% of a successful wedding album.

First of all I tried to explain that over 50% of my (500) weddings I have had to "manage" and "time", (and the worse were the others when they had professional wedding-coordinators that still managed to mis-time everything).

Also there are many "cliché" wedding "poses" that if not done 100% correct simply do not look like "wedding" images.

I recommend going on at least 6 weddings with another professional-photographer before you dare "volunteer" with any expectation of "professional" results.

If you blow-it ... they will HATE you for LIFE !!!

So PLEASE do THEM, (and yourself), a favor and do not try to replace a professional.

Click to expand...

I am not trying to replace a professional. The bride and groom in the first wedding cannot afford a professional. That's why they asked my father to help them out instead of a real photographer. Since I have more interest in photography than he does (though I admit not many more skills at this point) and am a faster learner, he sort of passed the task along to me without asking me in advance. I guess he felt he was in no positon to tell them "no" flat-out, so now I fear the task falls to me, and it has caused me more than a little stress. However, I was sort of looking for an excuse to delve deeper into the art of photography. I had already bought a DVD course on the basics of photography and I snapped up a more advanced masters of photography course at the same time.

Do I think that will make me some kind of expert overnight? No. Of course not. But the bride isn't expecting much more than snapshots of the event. She's not delusional. She's just on a very tight budget. The only reason I am considering attempting this is because I feel sorry for her situation. Otherwise, I would have declined, but I don't feel I am in a position to just say "no" either considering her financial situation. If I do, she will end up with nothing but point-and-shoot snapshots of the event, and I feel I can at least do better than that.

Click to expand...

You have my full-on sympathy for being volunteered into this position--especially since it sounds like you won't be getting paid at all (except maybe food at the wedding).

That being said, It's good that the bride (and it sounds like the groom as well) have no delusions about you not being a professional and while you're going to do the best you can given the situation, chances are stuff might come out less-than-perfect.

I would say regardless, have the bride and groom double up--and have P&S snapshots as part of it as well as your shooting it. More photos+photographers certainly can't hurt especially for candids

I would also say to make sure it's not just the bride and groom who understand, but also anyone with a vested interest in the photos (wedding party, families, etc.). The last thing you & the bride & the groom really need after all is said and done is someone else bagging on results that the bride is happy with.

Novice Shutterbug said:

Novice Shutterbug said:

PLEASE .... do NOT volunteer unless you FULLY explain they will be nothing more than "snapshots". They will NOT be "wedding" portraits.

Click to expand...

First off, I did not volunteer for this wedding shoot. I was volunteered by my father who was asked by the bride to take some shots....

Click to expand...

Last year at my son's wedding I noticed a little lady of a certain age clutching an entry level DSLR and taking photos, although nobody seemed to know her. I got talking with her and it turned out she had been 'volunteered' as well so she came along to her local registry office to try shooting practice pictures.

I gave her the advice I give to anyone in this position who can't just run away:

Concentrate on the actual photography. Have somebody else whose job it is to run crowd control. Unless you are shooting purely off the cuff candids (most mums, if not brides want something more) you should have a list of the shots you must get (see below) . It is this person's job to keep track of this list and gather the people needed as and when.

A typical short 'must' list runs:

• The Bride -- several different poses
• The Groom -- one or two different poses (he's always less important!)
• B&G -- kiss, hold hands, gaze lovingly...
• B&G + best man and head bridesmaid
• As above plus all bridesmaids and groomsmen
• Add in parents -- near B&G not on the ends
• Lose bridesmaids etc -- just B&G + parents
• Add in siblings, grandparents, rich uncles...
• Any special groups like old school friends etc -- far less important because these are usually more for sales opportunities than anything else.
• Cake cutting.

You can usually get the Groom shots before the bride arrives.

Anything not on your list is nice to have.

I repeat: find someone to do this for you. You'll be under enough pressure using a camera and (hopefully) posing the victims nicely.

When you need to communicate hold your camera where they can see it, like a badge of office, and speak loud and clear.

Don't touch a drop until you have put your camera away for the day.

Try and enjoy yourself

AlbertInFrance said:

When you need to communicate hold your camera where they can see it, like a badge of office, and speak loud and clear.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, and make sure YOU are known to be the main photographer. I've tried to take candid shots at group events and just because I have a "big camera" I've seen some eyes wandering in my direction when they should have been looking at the main camera. Ask others to take their posed photos AFTER you've got yours. You might need to be a bit bossy or as suggested get someone to do the 'dirty work' for you.

I can appreciate and understand you got conned into this. And I especially understand how you think it is a good opportunity to "start" into photography ... we welcome you into the photo-world, (and this site).

But you really can't WIN in this situation. You WILL BLOW IT ... this is not even a situation a "good" photographer can "win" in because "wedding" portraiture is so uniquely different, (and challenging).

First of all, I don't even think weddings are a place for dSLR's, (albeit I am sure most here will disagree with that). I ALWAYS used "rangefinders" for my weddings because I had a higher flash-sync, (1/500). I also ALWAYS used a 200GN strobe, (w/ EXTERNAL BATTERY PACK for FAST "recycle" times).

I now use a mirrorless camera w/ LEAF shutter so I again have a fast flash-sync capability. (and HSS flash is NOT a replacement because that does not give you a long fill-flash range of 15' or more w/ internal 42 GN strobe -- and 70' w/ 200 GN -- outdoors in sun you WILL have shadowed faces) Note that I did an outdoor/SUN wedding in a "latticed" gazebo with black/white shadows completely engulfing both bride/groom -- it was only because of my unique flash-sync & strobe combination that was not a problem.

Weddings are FAST ... timing is CRITICAL ... (you can't "stop" a wedding or redo a pose). You have to be prepared AHEAD of time, and thus you must always know WHAT IS "GOING" to happen BEFORE it "happens".

And I have said several times that in most cases, they asked/relied on ME to actually direct/time the wedding/reception. You have to know how to direct/manage people without it seeming like you are being "boss'y"

Albert's list is correct, (for starters). But that is for someone who already KNOWS "photography", (and very-experienced and knows how to "FULLY" USE THEIR CAMERA PROPERLY).

At your point ... even promising "snapshots" is more than ambitious. I mean you admitted you did not even know what EC (Exposure-Compensation), was. (Which I don't even use because I do all my weddings in "manual" for "consistent" exposures.)

I understand the situation you are in for the "first" wedding/situation your father forced you into, (he must HATE you ... LOL). But what worried me most is you said you were going to volunteer to do another wedding .... PLEASE DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT THAT.

I do encourage you to GET A CAMERA and LEARN it .... then worry about what you want to do ... (but weddings should not be "soon").

PhotoTeach2 said:

I understand the situation you are in for the "first" wedding/situation your father forced you into, (he must HATE you ... LOL). But what worried me most is you said you were going to volunteer to do another wedding .... PLEASE DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT THAT.

Click to expand...

No, no, no. I didn't mean to give the impression that I volunteered to be the main photographer at the second wedding. I'm assuming the second wedding will be properly funded to the point of having a professional photographer there. And I have no intention of volunteering to replace him or her, but I would ask if I could take some candid shots. I would stay far out of the way of any pro, believe me. I'm not looking to replace a professional photographer. I realize the first wedding is a special situation.

And today I gave the bride in the first wedding (my cousin) a "heads-up" of the situation I'm in. I want to know more about what her expectations are. I know she's not expecting professional results, but I don't want her to be disappointed nonetheless, and I asked her if she has a back-up plan. The more picture takers at this wedding the better as far as I am concerned.

Novice Shutterbug said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

I understand the situation you are in for the "first" wedding/situation your father forced you into, (he must HATE you ... LOL). But what worried me most is you said you were going to volunteer to do another wedding .... PLEASE DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT THAT.

Click to expand...

No, no, no. I didn't mean to give the impression that I volunteered to be the main photographer at the second wedding. I'm assuming the second wedding will be properly funded to the point of having a professional photographer there. And I have no intention of volunteering to replace him or her, but I would ask if I could take some candid shots. I would stay far out of the way of any pro, believe me. I'm not looking to replace a professional photographer. I realize the first wedding is a special situation.

And today I gave the bride in the first wedding (my cousin) a "heads-up" of the situation I'm in. I want to know more about what her expectations are. I know she's not expecting professional results, but I don't want her to be disappointed nonetheless, and I asked her if she has a back-up plan. The more picture takers at this wedding the better as far as I am concerned.

Click to expand...

OK ... but I hope you realize the situation you are in.

You have "NO" camera yet ... I mean you have no "CAMERA" yet ... you have NOTHING !!!

So whatever you get ... (and I am assuming you do get "some" type of camera) ... that still does not guarantee you have ANY (usable) photos. They could ALL be "bad", (blurry, out-of-focus, wrongly-exposed). I mean the (used) camera could be bad or you make some major mistake and you get "N-O-T-H-I-N-G", (yes I have done that also).

That is of course a worse case scenario and I hope much more/better for you ... but s-h-I-t happens. You simply are not in a position to offer anything at this point, (at least until you do get a camera and get some EXPERIENCE with it).

And I stress that even with "experience" ... a wedding is a more difficult and unforgiving gamble with photos you HOPE the bride/groom will MOST ENJOY "50" YEARS from now.

PhotoTeach2 said:

OK ... but I hope you realize the situation you are in.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do. And now so does the bride. She actually said it doesn't matter what kind of equipment I have. She just wants some candid photos. God bless her for that.

PhotoTeach2 said:

You have "NO" camera yet ... I mean you have no "CAMERA" yet ... you have NOTHING !!!

So whatever you get ... (and I am assuming you do get "some" type of camera) ... that still does not guarantee you have ANY (usable) photos. They could ALL be "bad", (blurry, out-of-focus, wrongly-exposed). I mean the (used) camera could be bad or you make some major mistake and you get "N-O-T-H-I-N-G", (yes I have done that also).

Click to expand...

Yes, all that is true. That's why I told her not to put all her eggs in one basket. I told her the more people with cameras at this event the better.

PhotoTeach2 said:

That is of course a worse case scenario and I hope much more/better for you ... but s-h-I-t happens. You simply are not in a position to offer anything at this point, (at least until you do get a camera and get some EXPERIENCE with it).

Click to expand...

I haven't offered anything at this point. That's the only good thing about my situation. The bad thing is that since I was volunteered I now feel obligated to help deliver her something.

PhotoTeach2 said:

And I stress that even with "experience" ... a wedding is a more difficult and unforgiving gamble with photos you HOPE the bride/groom will MOST ENJOY "50" YEARS from now.

Click to expand...

I know. But this chick is cool. She even said she isn't expecting professional results. (She just wants some snapshots.) And no matter what happens, she won't hate me for life. I just hope I can help give her a little more than what she's expecting, and that is my goal. But I also told her my limitations and that I don't want my father and I to be the only ones snapping photos that day. I don't want to be on the hook for the whole shebang. I want others to help share the load.

That's why I contacted her today, and she didn't freak out or anything. She's not your typical bride. Not high maintenance at all. Not expecting too much. Not demanding of others. And I know she would even be happy with some nice point-and-shoot shots if that's what it comes down to, but I know even those can be hard to deliver (with the iffy autofocus and slow shutter speeds). But at least now she has been forewarned. I still feel under pressure to deliver some nice shots, but I'm not taking this whole burden upon myself.

And I know she would be happy with even something like this:







This is a photo I snapped with my little Nikon L-22 point-and-shoot at another cousin's daughter's wedding a couple of years ago while they were posing for a paid photographer (not myself). And, yes, that is a camo wedding dress you see. (My relatives are unique people. What can I say?) Anyway, I managed to capture some very useable photos that day with the L-22. The autofocus was working unusually well for some reason. It was just some quick snaps for friends and family, but I was pleased overall with the results. If I could just duplicate those results for the new (sort of, it's her second wedding) bride, I know she'd be happy as a clam.

But of course that is never guaranteed, and I think I could also do better with a DSLR.

Novice Shutterbug said:

I know. But this chick is cool. She even said she isn't expecting professional results. (She just wants some snapshots.) And no matter what happens, she won't hate me for life. I just hope I can help give her a little more than what she's expecting, and that is my goal. But I also told her my limitations and that I don't want my father and I to be the only ones snapping photos that day. I don't want to be on the hook for the whole shebang. I want others to help share the load.

That's why I contacted her today, and she didn't freak out or anything. She's not your typical bride. Not high maintenance at all. Not expecting too much. Not demanding of others. And I know she would even be happy with some nice point-and-shoot shots if that's what it comes down to, but I know even those can be hard to deliver (with the iffy autofocus and slow shutter speeds). But at least now she has been forewarned. I still feel under pressure to deliver some nice shots, but I'm not taking this whole burden upon myself.

And I know she would be happy with even something like this:



This is a photo I snapped with my little Nikon L-22 point-and-shoot at another cousin's daughter's wedding a couple of years ago while they were posing for a paid photographer (not myself). And, yes, that is a camo wedding dress you see. (My relatives are unique people. What can I say?) Anyway, I managed to capture some very useable photos that day with the L-22. The autofocus was working unusually well for some reason. It was just some quick snaps for friends and family, but I was pleased overall with the results. If I could just duplicate those results for the new (sort of, it's her second wedding) bride, I know she'd be happy as a clam.

Click to expand...

The issue here is primarily one of composition -- note that the feet are cut off in the photo.

Novice Shutterbug said:

But of course that is never guaranteed, and I think I could also do better with a DSLR.

Click to expand...

Composition, accurate focus, and attention to motion blur should be your primary goals. IQ (image quality) and artistic use of DOF (depth-of-field) are distant seconds to those.

Novice Shutterbug said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

OK ... but I hope you realize the situation you are in.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do. And now so does the bride. She actually said it doesn't matter what kind of equipment I have. She just wants some candid photos. God bless her for that.

Novice Shutterbug said:

You have "NO" camera yet ... I mean you have no "CAMERA" yet ... you have NOTHING !!!

So whatever you get ... (and I am assuming you do get "some" type of camera) ... that still does not guarantee you have ANY (usable) photos. They could ALL be "bad", (blurry, out-of-focus, wrongly-exposed). I mean the (used) camera could be bad or you make some major mistake and you get "N-O-T-H-I-N-G", (yes I have done that also).

Click to expand...

Yes, all that is true. That's why I told her not to put all her eggs in one basket. I told her the more people with cameras at this event the better.

Novice Shutterbug said:

That is of course a worse case scenario and I hope much more/better for you ... but s-h-I-t happens. You simply are not in a position to offer anything at this point, (at least until you do get a camera and get some EXPERIENCE with it).

Click to expand...

I haven't offered anything at this point. That's the only good thing about my situation. The bad thing is that since I was volunteered I now feel obligated to help deliver her something.

Novice Shutterbug said:

And I stress that even with "experience" ... a wedding is a more difficult and unforgiving gamble with photos you HOPE the bride/groom will MOST ENJOY "50" YEARS from now.

Click to expand...

I know. But this chick is cool. She even said she isn't expecting professional results. (She just wants some snapshots.) And no matter what happens, she won't hate me for life. I just hope I can help give her a little more than what she's expecting, and that is my goal. But I also told her my limitations and that I don't want my father and I to be the only ones snapping photos that day. I don't want to be on the hook for the whole shebang. I want others to help share the load.

That's why I contacted her today, and she didn't freak out or anything. She's not your typical bride. Not high maintenance at all. Not expecting too much. Not demanding of others. And I know she would even be happy with some nice point-and-shoot shots if that's what it comes down to, but I know even those can be hard to deliver (with the iffy autofocus and slow shutter speeds). But at least now she has been forewarned. I still feel under pressure to deliver some nice shots, but I'm not taking this whole burden upon myself.

And I know she would be happy with even something like this:



This is a photo I snapped with my little Nikon L-22 point-and-shoot at another cousin's daughter's wedding a couple of years ago while they were posing for a paid photographer (not myself). And, yes, that is a camo wedding dress you see. (My relatives are unique people. What can I say?) Anyway, I managed to capture some very useable photos that day with the L-22. The autofocus was working unusually well for some reason. It was just some quick snaps for friends and family, but I was pleased overall with the results. If I could just duplicate those results for the new (sort of, it's her second wedding) bride, I know she'd be happy as a clam.

But of course that is never guaranteed, and I think I could also do better with a DSLR.

Click to expand...

OK ... I have no-problem with anything in your post above. And we (I) am here to help you in any way we can.

BTW: Do you appreciate some C&C on the photo above ... you have too-much space above the people and you cut off their feet. From the exact spot you shot from, the camera simply should have been tilted "lower" just a little, (about half of what you have -- and the feet would have been visible).

Of course you could, (should), have also been (zoomed) closer to more tightly frame the people/shoulders, (of course the feet again would have been cut-off but all you really need is the head/shoulders).

You could also have had the bride/groom holding hands or in some type of "embrace" but I realize you didn't pose it so I can't fault you for that.

BTW: You could also have gotten them all "closer" together, (again holding hands), and then shot it VERTICAL, (and thus also included all of the dresses/feet).

Who is paying for the film, processing and printing? Based on your camera and total lack of experience, I would estimate your percentage of keepers to be significantly less than 1%. A roll of 36 exposure 35 mm film will cost you about $5. Film development w/o printing will be another$6 per roll. That is $12 per roll before you even decide what to print. Also, since you will be getting no feedback as to how your pictures are coming out, you may be getting a 100% failure rate without knowing about it until the wedding is over. If you shoot say 20 rolls which is not a lot for a wedding, this means that you will be spending $240 for your pictures.

Considering that your father suckered you into this, have him rent you a real digital camera for the occasion which will cost less than the cost of the film and processing and shoot in automatic mode. Your percentage of keepers will still be very low since you have no knowledge of how to shoot a wedding but at least you will be getting some feedback. as to how you are doing.

If he will not do that, tell him that you are resigning from your unpaid position of photography sucker and run away as far as you can from the wedding.

BTW - what does shooting hummingbirds have to do w shooting wedding pictures. You are aware that the little suckers move much faster than your wedding couple and your percentage of keepers will be even lower.

--
Don

OP has already posted he's not going this route.

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

Click to expand...

The issue here is primarily one of composition -- note that the feet are cut off in the photo.

Great Bustard said:

But of course that is never guaranteed, and I think I could also do better with a DSLR.

Click to expand...

Composition, accurate focus, and attention to motion blur should be your primary goals. IQ (image quality) and artistic use of DOF (depth-of-field) are distant seconds to those.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know the feet are cut off. It's not easy composing a shot quickly with a point-and-shoot. You have to zoom while viewing the image on your little screen in full sunlight all the while trying to hold the camera very steady while hurrying before you miss the shot completely and pressing a two-stage shutter release to get the autofocus to kick in. That can be quite a challenge.

I don't think it's always necessary to read every contribution in a longish thread before diving in, but I do think it's a good idea to try to keep up with an overview before wasting time replying to an OP now 5 days old.

If you'd done that, you would have known that OP has long since abandoned any idea of using the Spotmatic camera for his cousin's wedding, and is now getting some quite good advice about what he might (or might not) achieve using his (yet to be purchased) digital camera.

Novice Shutterbug said:

Great Bustard said:

Novice Shutterbug said:

Click to expand...

The issue here is primarily one of composition -- note that the feet are cut off in the photo.

Novice Shutterbug said:

But of course that is never guaranteed, and I think I could also do better with a DSLR.

Click to expand...

Composition, accurate focus, and attention to motion blur should be your primary goals. IQ (image quality) and artistic use of DOF (depth-of-field) are distant seconds to those.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know the feet are cut off. It's not easy composing a shot quickly with a point-and-shoot. You have to zoom while viewing the image on your little screen in full sunlight all the while trying to hold the camera very steady while hurrying before you miss the shot completely and pressing a two-stage shutter release to get the autofocus to kick in. That can be quite a challenge.

Click to expand...

Indeed. This is a strong argument for a camera with a TTL (through-the-lens) viewfinder or EVF (electronic viewfinder).

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

.

Click to expand...

OK ... I have no-problem with anything in your post above. And we (I) am here to help you in any way we can.

BTW: Do you appreciate some C&C on the photo above ... you have too-much space above the people and you cut off their feet. From the exact spot you shot from, the camera simply should have been tilted "lower" just a little, (about half of what you have -- and the feet would have been visible).

Of course you could, (should), have also been (zoomed) closer to more tightly frame the people/shoulders, (of course the feet again would have been cut-off but all you really need is the head/shoulders).

You could also have had the bride/groom holding hands or in some type of "embrace" but I realize you didn't pose it so I can't fault you for that.

BTW: You could also have gotten them all "closer" together, (again holding hands), and then shot it VERTICAL, (and thus also included all of the dresses/feet).

Click to expand...

I'll just repeat some of what I replied to Great Bustard. I know this photo has compositional problems, but it was one of the best in terms of focus and exposure that my L-22 produced on that day so I decided to include it anyway. Trying to compose a shot quickly with a point-and-shoot when you're running on the schedule of a paid photographer is challenging in its own right. You have to aim and zoom quickly while trying to compose the shot on your little screen in broad daylight while trying to remain very steady and operating the two-stage shutter release to engage the autofocus before you miss the shot completely. And don't even try to capture the couple walking down the aisle as any motion at all will cause blur. All of these are reasons I think I need/want a DSLR to shoot upcoming wedding even though I know the bride wouldn't be nearly as critical of my obvious shooting mistakes.

Novice Shutterbug said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Novice Shutterbug said:

.

Click to expand...

OK ... I have no-problem with anything in your post above. And we (I) am here to help you in any way we can.

BTW: Do you appreciate some C&C on the photo above ... you have too-much space above the people and you cut off their feet. From the exact spot you shot from, the camera simply should have been tilted "lower" just a little, (about half of what you have -- and the feet would have been visible).

Of course you could, (should), have also been (zoomed) closer to more tightly frame the people/shoulders, (of course the feet again would have been cut-off but all you really need is the head/shoulders).

You could also have had the bride/groom holding hands or in some type of "embrace" but I realize you didn't pose it so I can't fault you for that.

BTW: You could also have gotten them all "closer" together, (again holding hands), and then shot it VERTICAL, (and thus also included all of the dresses/feet).

Click to expand...

I'll just repeat some of what I replied to Great Bustard. I know this photo has compositional problems, but it was one of the best in terms of focus and exposure that my L-22 produced on that day so I decided to include it anyway. Trying to compose a shot quickly with a point-and-shoot when you're running on the schedule of a paid photographer is challenging in its own right. You have to aim and zoom quickly while trying to compose the shot on your little screen in broad daylight while trying to remain very steady and operating the two-stage shutter release to engage the autofocus before you miss the shot completely. And don't even try to capture the couple walking down the aisle as any motion at all will cause blur. All of these are reasons I think I need/want a DSLR to shoot upcoming wedding even though I know the bride wouldn't be nearly as critical of my obvious shooting mistakes.

Click to expand...

OK ... I can accept and understand your explanation that it was framed with a "SUN-lit" LCD screen which you could not see. They are indeed a major problem and there is indeed no substitute for an "eye" finder.

I don't mean to move off into a tangent but you don't necessarily need a "dSLR" to get an eye-finder. The newest technology is "mirrorless" cameras that have a (eye-finder) EVF, (Electronic ViewFinder).

A SLR/dSLR must, (because of 60+yo technology), use a mirror to deflect the image from the lens up to the eye-finder.

With (newer) technology, the image can now go directly to the digital-sensor and then be displayed on EITHER a rear-LCD or a (preferred) EYE-finder, (thus the same equivalent to conventional SLR/dSLR).

(eye) EVF's are very controversial because many old-timers refuse to accept them but most people, (including me), who have used them see their advantages with so much additional information that can now be displayed on the screen. Indeed with a (eye) EVF you can see your changes in exposure and white-balance, (WB).

Note that either one can be used in sunlight because your eye is shielded by a (rubberized/plastic) cup., so either one is better than having to rely on a sun-glared rear-LCD.

I am not sure if this makes any difference to you at this point because most of the "mirrorless" cameras are more expensive than a (cheaper) dSLR you may be considering buying (used).

If you REALLY want to expand your options and capabilities I could recommend you consider getting a (mirrorless) Panasonic/Lumix FZ-1000, ($800 new but now available used for somewhat less). It has a 25 to 400mm-equiv lens and more features -- that are impossible on dSLR's because of the inherent limitations of their mirrors.

It also has a fully-articulating rear-LCD that does allow more creative shooting positions, (low-"ground" level or held "high" overhead or even reversed for "selfies" if you want to do that).

And it has a 1/4000 flash-sync speed which you may not appreciate at this point but it allows greater range for (sun) fill-flash and the ability to "darken" backgrounds in closer subjects. (Note that the Pentax you were considering had only a 1/60 flash-sync limit which makes sun-light fill-flash impossible.)