# My 2nd Wedding.... free of course....



## zendianah (Jun 26, 2007)

Hello.. who ever is viewing this mess... I'm feeling a bit discouraged,,, I'm using Lightroom as well as Photoshop.. I saved all RAW images as TIFF.. cause I read somewhere thats what you should do.. Than my final images saved in JPEG.. to my surprise the image size reads as follows

w= 1.416
h= 2.056
Resolution = 2000  -- At this point I want to cry. What did I do wrong. Are my pics a wholy mess?  Also.. these were taken is a lightning storm ..


1.






2.





3. 





4.






5.





6.





7.


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 26, 2007)

> w= 1.416
> h= 2.056
> Resolution = 2000


Is that a size in inches, and a resolution of pixel per inch?  If so, you have nothing to worry about, that is a large enough to make big prints.  The only thing you really need to worry about is the size of the image in pixels.

As for the photos, I like them and maybe I can come up with some helpfull critique:
#1, the white balance/color seems off, it looks too green or cyan.  I love the shot though.
#3, this one also seems off.  Too red this time I think.
The rest look better, although you are loosing detail in the dress in a few of them.
Also, many of them have the dreaded 'side shadow'.  It's not so much a problem in #3 but it's a bit worse in #4 and #5...and in #7 it really makes the bride look weird.
I'm assuming you are using a hot-shoe flash and shooting with the camera in portrait orientation?  This is why they have flash brackets that flip or rotate...so that you can keep the flash above the camera when shooting in portrait...and keep the shadows from being thrown to the side.


----------



## Southerngal (Jun 26, 2007)

Exactly what should you do to avoid that type of shadow?


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 26, 2007)

> Exactly what should you do to avoid that type of shadow?


Don't have the flash off to the side of the camera...have it above the camera instead.  The problem is that people are taller than they are wide and so it makes sense to shoot in portrait orientation...which puts the hot shoe on the side of the camera, rather than on top.  As I mentioned, that's where a flash bracket comes in.  You attach the flash to the bracket and connect it to the camera via a cord.  There are two types...the flip and the camera rotate.  Either way, the flash will be above the camera in either landscape or portrait orientation.


----------



## zendianah (Jun 26, 2007)

Unfortunately I used the on camera flash for these,,,, So I dont know how in the heck I did it.. Growing pains I guess


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 26, 2007)

Well, the on camera flash can create side shadows as well...although not as pronounced as a hot-shoe flash.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 26, 2007)

If you are using an off camera flash you might want to get it up a little higher.  That shadow behind their heads would most likely be thrown down rather than straight back if you did that.  With digital most people bounce if off the ceiling to avoid it all together.  With film for me it is better to get the flash a bit higher than the camera.


----------



## zendianah (Jun 26, 2007)

Im the idiot that let my 2nd shooter use the speedlight.. ugghhh... I think I went a little crazy on the diffuse glow. I think thats why there are funky shadows.. Thank god I have the originals. I will rework and post. 

Funny story about the day.. We were in Boulder and cells of storms kept coming in.. Finally we thought great.. storm is over.. Minister quite colorful speeds thru the vows.. Low an behold.. as soon as he says I pronounce you man and -- LIGHTNING STRIKES... We lauph and look up.. I WISH I WAS EXPERIENCED ENOUGH TO CATch that lightning bolt.. I lauphed so hard and thought.. dammmnn is that a warning OR WHAT


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 26, 2007)

Nice work Zendianah!  He sure does look like a colorful minister from that first photo (physically and expression-wise!).  

NJ


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 26, 2007)

I should have said nice job as well... those shadows dont bother me at all I have seen worse in my sample books from the old days.


----------



## zendianah (Jun 26, 2007)

NJMAN said:


> Nice work Zendianah! He sure does look like a colorful minister from that first photo (physically and expression-wise!).
> 
> NJ


 

Thank you !!  Its hard work and Im trying to get better. It helps to look at your photos as well as some others. Lighting... IM TRYING VERY HARD,,, Im reading Understanding Exposure, Field Guide to the D200 and a Wedding Book on Lighting and catching that moment.. I'll get there one day..  I LOVE IT.. and love people photography in general.


----------



## zendianah (Jun 26, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> I should have said nice job as well... those shadows dont bother me at all I have seen worse in my sample books from the old days.


 

I apprecaite your coments mystery !! Im still a newbie and not claiming to be pro. I dont think I will ever claim that .. There is so much to learn.. New poses -- New and intreresting lighting... I'll never be a pro at anything always a student of life.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 26, 2007)

that's the best attitude... You can be in photography for lots of reasons.  Some folks are in it for the money, some for the ego boost, and some just to express themselves.  I got in it to get laid.  Worked to lol


----------



## zendianah (Jun 26, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> that's the best attitude... You can be in photography for lots of reasons. Some folks are in it for the money, some for the ego boost, and some just to express themselves. I got in it to get laid. Worked to lol


 

NICE!!!  Thats a rockin reason!!  Chicks dig photographers...


----------



## EOS_JD (Jun 26, 2007)

zendianah said:


> Than my final images saved in JPEG.. to my surprise the image size reads as follows
> 
> w= 1.416
> h= 2.056
> Resolution = 2000 -- At this point I want to cry. What did I do wrong. Are my pics a wholy mess?


 

If these are sizes in inches and ppi here's what you have.

Images are
2.056 x 2000 = 4112px
1.416 x 2000 = 2832px

So 4112 pixels x 2832 pixels in size which is pretty big!

There are 3 simple equations that help give you the info you require.

No of Pixels (on one axis) (Px) = Print Size (PS) x resolution (ppi)

PS = Px/ppi

ppi = Px/PS

From this you can work out print sizes or resolution for a particular print size so as you can see with the No of pixels you have you can easily get a top quality 13" x 9" image (or smaller) at 300ppi and you can get larger sizes up to around 16x12 at 240ppi (which will look fantastic).

And you can print even larger if you wish.


----------



## EOS_JD (Jun 26, 2007)

One other thing, are you looking at the print with the border at the pixel dimensions you quoted?


----------



## zendianah (Jun 26, 2007)

EOS_JD said:


> If these are sizes in inches and ppi here's what you have.
> 
> Images are
> 2.056 x 2000 = 4112px
> ...


 

Thank you... I copied this so that I can use these figures.. !!


----------



## zendianah (Jun 26, 2007)

EOS_JD said:


> One other thing, are you looking at the print with the border at the pixel dimensions you quoted?


 

Yes. :meh:


----------



## EOS_JD (Jun 26, 2007)

zendianah said:


> Thank you... I copied this so that I can use these figures.. !!


 
No problem.  Once you get your head around those equations (very simple ones) it's VERY easy to resize to the sizes and resolutions you need.  All that is important is the number of pixels (and their quality - as these make up the image).


----------



## EOS_JD (Jun 26, 2007)

zendianah said:


> Yes. :meh:


 
You should save your tif images without the border and keep them as processed images then add the border at the jpg conversion stage.

What camera are you usiong?

Also the ppi value can be set at the time of exporting. I'd usually set it to 300ppi in lightroom if that is what you use.


----------



## zendianah (Jun 26, 2007)

i use lightroom..i have the tiff images.. thank goodness. i will re do..


----------



## EOS_JD (Jun 26, 2007)

Leave the borders if you like.  It's very quick to export the tifs again from the RAW files if you need to so no damage done.  Take the images into PS or just use Lightroom and then you can arrange the print sizes and crops for each image.


----------



## zendianah (Jun 26, 2007)

w= 1.416
h= 2.056
Resolution = 2000 

Is not a good res. ?  what sould i shoot for?


----------



## EOS_JD (Jun 26, 2007)

zendianah said:


> w= 1.416
> h= 2.056
> Resolution = 2000
> 
> Is not a good res. ? what sould i shoot for?


 
Prints should be no higher than 300ppi for up to around 10x8 (slightly larger with an 8Mp+ Camera) so that is 3000 pixels x 2400pixels. Depends on res of your camera.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 26, 2007)

Those sizes will be dynamically adjusted when printing. They are not important till they get too low when you resize. In Photoshop unless you intend to actually print a picture 1.4" wide it will resize them you print and in the process the PPI go down. You haven't lost anything yet saving the way you do.

With that diffuse glow that you added it worries me a bit. It has bumped the contrast on some of the images up a bit. It worked well in number 5 where there was no black but to my eyes number 1 3 and 7 appear to be a bit dark in mood. This is just balancing the width of the glow and the contrast it induces. When going for a happy image I try to increase the glow size, but reduce it's opacy. Personal preference really.

Also in lightroom there's no need to save as TIFFs. Lightroom does not erase original RAW files when you download them. It saves them in Digital negative format on the drive. You simply click edit in photoshop and it will create a PSD for you. Until you finish editing PSD is the ideal format since it preserves the photoshop layers and other settings. The take a lot of room though so you may want to get rid of them after you're happy with the final and have saved it out to jpeg.


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 26, 2007)

EOS_JD said:


> Prints should be no higher than 300ppi for up to around 10x8 (slightly larger with an 8Mp+ Camera) so that is 3000 pixels x 2400pixels. Depends on res of your camera.


 
Zendianah, I don't know how you set up print size in relation to dpi in your program. But in photoshop, you can recalculate these numbers by going into the Image Size dialog, then unchecking the "Resample Image" box, and set Resolution to 300 dpi.  That should give you the approximate width and height (Document Size) at which you can print your image at high resolution.  In this example, I can print my image at 11.6x7.7 at 300 dpi with no loss of quality.  And as JD mentioned, if you drop your dpi down to 240, you can print an even larger size image at high resolution with outstanding quality. For you, with pixel dimensions of 4112x2832, it will be quite a large document size.







NJ


----------



## ericdrichards (Jun 26, 2007)

I think you're close to being able to charge people!  Really!

You need a diffuser and a little more photoshop techique, but you're RIGHT THERE!

THAnks for hte post!

ERIC


----------



## EOS_JD (Jun 26, 2007)

NJMAN said:


> Zendianah, I don't know how you set up print size in relation to dpi in your program. But in photoshop, you can recalculate these numbers by going into the Image Size dialog, then unchecking the "Resample Image" box, and set Resolution to 300 dpi. That should give you the approximate width and height (Document Size) at which you can print your image at high resolution. In this example, I can print my image at 11.6x7.7 at 300 dpi with no loss of quality. And as JD mentioned, if you drop your dpi down to 240, you can print an even larger size image at high resolution with outstanding quality. For you, with pixel dimensions of 4112x2832, it will be quite a large document size.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

NJ
THe only thing I'll correct you on is your use of the dpi term.  Note above in photoshop it uses the term pixels/inch (ppi). dpi is a printer/scanning term for the number of dots per inch an image is printed (or scanned) at.

As digital images are made up of pixels, the correct term is pixels per inch (although I know many use the dpi term meaning the same thing).

THe extra pixels in the image I think are down to the white border that was added and you may find the tifs exported without the border will be nearer to the size you showed (my images are this size from my 20D)


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 26, 2007)

EOS_JD said:


> NJ
> THe only thing I'll correct you on is your use of the dpi term. Note above in photoshop it uses the term pixels/inch (ppi). dpi is a printer/scanning term for the number of dots per inch an image is printed (or scanned) at.
> 
> As digital images are made up of pixels, the correct term is pixels per inch (although I know many use the dpi term meaning the same thing).
> ...


 
Yes, I stand corrected.  Technically, it is PPI.  Thanks for clarifying JD.


----------



## schumionbike (Jun 27, 2007)

Nice job, the first image is very unique.  I would like to see more of the bride in number 4 but that's about it.  The color and technique in the pictures are decent.  You can still improve but these are pretty good.  Thanks for the post.


----------



## zendianah (Jun 27, 2007)

I'm having a hard time with post processing.. I am reading Scott Kelbys book CS... The reason the colors look like that is that I changed my curves pallette as Kelby instructed.  Can someone tell me how they post proccess... Maybe send me a PM. NJMAN anyone?


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 27, 2007)

Zen, Im sending you a PM.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jun 27, 2007)

Yay!  Good job!  I'm glad to see you got another wedding to do... I know you enjoy it!  Keep it up.


----------



## Peniole (Jun 27, 2007)

I really like #5, just warm up her skin tone a bit. I have an edit if you like.


----------

