# First Wedding Shoot



## mortallis288 (Mar 9, 2008)

Here are some of the photos from yesterdays wedding shoot. Please tell me what I did right and what I did wrong. Please be harsh, I loved doing this wedding and I hope to get more later on after i get some better equipment. I got short notice of this wedding, 3 days, and the bride and groom did not want anything special just the normal pictures. 

1. I know this is a little blurry and the podium is distracting. 







2. 





3. 





4.




5.


----------



## Yahoozy (Mar 9, 2008)

it seems like they werent ready for the pics when they were taken (the frowns and half-smiles)

did you do like a "1 2 3 click" or just snap it when they were all together?


----------



## mortallis288 (Mar 9, 2008)

i did 1 2 3 on some of them. The strange thing also was that the bride and groom wanted to keep all the guest in there during the photo shoots to shoot pictures then and not during the ceremony. This was not a very happy bride and groom.

I was expecting a lot more out of my self, but there was also no communication between the couple and me. I would have to go to the bride's mom to find out anything. I wanted to try to talk to them before the wedding but the bride did not get their until 15 min before the wedding was suppose to start and the groom wasn't there until about 20 mins before the wedding was suppose to start, so any opportunity to talk to them was blown. I did this pro bono because it is family, but I do not know if these are even par or not.


----------



## Yahoozy (Mar 9, 2008)

well it seems like they arent all too great, sorry man
in the future try a tripod (it seems like these are handheld shots) and pray for a more cooperative couple 
at any rate, you win some you lose some, eh?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 9, 2008)

This is not an attack on you personally as a photographer, but this is something for everyone who reads this and cannot see what's wrong with these and be able to immediately know how to correct it. 


Your EXIF says you were shooting in manual, only ISO 500, with the aperture stopped down all the time. If you were shooting at ISO 1600 and f/1.8 when using the 50mm, all of the images would be sharp, and well exposed, the background would also be more out of focus, *win-win-win*! 



The thing that gets me is that everything wrong with these pictures could have been easily avoidable, nobody's ready, or smiling, a quick joke could have made everyone smile, and counting down on _all of them_ would make sure everyone was ready. Also knowing your camera and what the appropriate settings should have been would have made these printable. 






Was at: 50mm, ISO500, 1/8th, f/4. (not hand-holdable)

Should have been at~: 50mm, ISO 1600, 1/90th, f/1.8. (hand-holdable, would have been printable, and still properly exposed)








Shot at: 50mm, ISO500, 1/30th, f/2.2. 

Should have been at~: 50mm, ISO 1600, 1/180th, f/1.8. (proper exposure, would have been very sharp, easily printable)








Shot at: 120mm, ISO500, 1/6th, f/5.6

Should have been at~: 120mm, ISO1600, 1/15th, f/5.6 [i'm guessing you were using the 18-135 because of the vignetting] try leaning up against something or bring along a tripod/monopod or strobes)








Shot at: 66mm, ISO500, 1/4th, f/5.3

Could have been~: 50mm, ISO 1600, 1/45th, f/1.8 (still not really hand-holdable, but would have been MUCH better if a tripod was used)







Shot at: 50mm, ISO500, 1/30th, f/2.2. (obviously not hand-holdable)

Should have been at~: 50mm, ISO 1600, 1/180th, f/1.8. (proper exposure, would have been very sharp, easily printable)



These look real shaky resized, on the web on monitors with pixels the size of legos, they're going to look worse printed. 

If you're going to shoot in manual, at least take advantage of it, if the EXIF data didn't say manual mode, I would have guessed it was with the canned program modes judging from the odd exposure numbers.


----------



## mortallis288 (Mar 9, 2008)

thanks so much for the info, i was afraid to jack the ISO up. I shot one time using a high iso and it was grainy as hell. I guess it would have been better than being out of focus.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Mar 9, 2008)

switch gives you a good look at how to correct the issues.  It's good to get out there and try though for sure!  Just play around and see what gets you to that higher shutter speed.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 9, 2008)

mortallis288 said:


> thanks so much for the info, i was afraid to jack the ISO up. I shot one time using a high iso and it was grainy as hell. I guess it would have been better than being out of focus.


I'm guessing you've never seen ISO 1600 film before.

Modern digital bodies create incredibly clean images at all ISO's for the most part, the only reason people complain about noise at high ISO's is because they've become so jaded with modern NR techniques. 

Properly exposed, High ISO images are no biggie.


----------



## mortallis288 (Mar 10, 2008)

ahhh, thanks switch. I may see if I can talk to some wedding photographers in my area to become a second shooter/assistant. If they ask have i ever shot a wedding before would you show them some of the ones i have done? 

Here are a few more


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 10, 2008)

Sw1tchFX has given some good advice.  

Your photos aren't necessarily out of focus, but they have blur from camera shake and/or subject movement...this is from too slow of a shutter speed.  When shooting (especially indoors), you should always be aware of your shutter speed.  
The rule of thumb for shooting hand held is that you want the shutter speed to be at least as fast as the focal length (reciprocal) of the lens.  So with a 50mm lens, you would want to use at least 1/50 (1/60).  Also, maybe people feel you should take the crop factor into account, so for a 50mm lens, you should shoot with at least 1/75 of a second.  If you have moving subjects, you may want to go even higher...but 1/60 or 1/90 is usually enough to freeze slow moving subjects.

As mentioned, crank up the ISO if you have to.  Noise is better than blur.
And ISO 1600 on a good DSLR camera isn't that bad...as long as your exposure is good.

That's your biggest problem but there are others.  The background is distracting & rather ugly.  This can't be helped for the ceremony but don't take posed shots like that, if it can move them.  If you have to shoot in an ugly location...do your best to minimize it.  Get close, change your angle etc.

Their poses are quite bland & unorganized...some of them are too causal (hands in pockets) and in one, the groom looks like he's ready for the firing squad.  A quick tip, try not to have them (especially the bride) standing square to you.  Have then turn their feet (& bodies) slightly to the side and then turn their heads to look at you.  

Use this as a learning experience and do better next time


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 10, 2008)

I bet those mic stands and music stands are movable.  A bit of cropping and cloning would help.

The last image (family group) might have been composed as a horizontal.

-Pete


----------



## Peanuts (Mar 10, 2008)

You have been given good advice. The other thing is just to remember some good tips on posing.  Tell the ladies to put their weight on their 'back' foot as it 'elongates' them (as opposed to "it makes you thinner!") and to hold your shoulders back. Even a very thin individual can look heavier up top when slouching.


----------



## mortallis288 (Mar 10, 2008)

Thanks for all the advice! Like i said i loved doing this wedding, but i do not know if i am capable yet to shot another or even be a second shooter.


----------



## Darrell C. (Mar 10, 2008)

Practice is Key. Like anything in life. Keep at it and you will get better.

Be humble and always able to take advice.


----------



## JIP (Mar 10, 2008)

I think there has been a lot of good response to the OP especially from Mike and Switch but I think this also deserves a response that I have given to alot of people and sometimes been criticised for. The main thing that would have helped your images immensly would be fast glass. Alot of people say oh you dont need pro glass and save your money shoot with what you can afford. I think these images show how important fast glass can be. All you would have needed would have been even a 50mm 1.8 and the blurry problem would have been solved you could have even shot at the same ISO. Weddings are an unpredictable situation and mabye half of the time you can get away with slow glass but you will run into a situation like this where it looks bright and is not and you will see how important being prepared is. I don't know how seriously you are planning on pursuing this as a job or a second source of income but it would behoove you to look into your glass situation.

Edit: Sorry I did see in your sig that you have a 50mm 1.8 but you still would benefit from a longer fast lens and of course a tripod.


----------



## mortallis288 (Mar 10, 2008)

i totally agree with you, before i even consider shooting another wedding i wanna get atleast a 70-200 f/2.8 nikkor glass.


----------



## roxysmom (Mar 12, 2008)

I don't understand why you'd have an ISO of 1600.  That seems so high to me.  I thought it would make the photos look to grainy and not very clear.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 12, 2008)

roxysmom said:


> I don't understand why you'd have an ISO of 1600.  That seems so high to me.  I thought it would make the photos look to grainy and not very clear.



And this is reasonable thinking, roxysmom.

But like Mike explained, "ISO 1600 on a good DSLR camera isn't that bad...as long as your exposure is good."

Personally, if I had to shoot in this location without lighting, I'd use a tripod and shoot at the lowest ISO that would give me 1/30 sec at f5.6


----------



## MichaelT (Mar 13, 2008)

If you REALLY want to do weddings, you need to call the best wedding photographers you can find and volunteer to assist them for free.  Do this at least 6-12 times, with different photographers before taking another wedding job, pro-bono or not.  (If you're serious about wedding photography, you cannot let your reputation be associated with the type of work you have posted here.)

I guarantee your wedding photography will improve.  There is no better way to learn than by diving in with a pro.  Forum opinions are never going to help you overcome the volumes of problems you're having.


----------



## mortallis288 (Mar 13, 2008)

MichaelT said:


> If you REALLY want to do weddings, you need to call the best wedding photographers you can find and volunteer to assist them for free.  Do this at least 6-12 times, with different photographers before taking another wedding job, pro-bono or not.  (If you're serious about wedding photography, you cannot let your reputation be associated with the type of work you have posted here.)
> 
> I guarantee your wedding photography will improve.  There is no better way to learn than by diving in with a pro.  Forum opinions are never going to help you overcome the volumes of problems you're having.




Hehe, thanks that makes me feel better with the volumes of problems i am having. But, on a serious note Thank You, for all the advice. I think the couple will be decently happy with these because other wise they wouldn't get any pictures anyways, but I still wish i did better and crank up the ISO some would've made sense, i just totally forgot about it.


----------



## N'Kolor (Mar 13, 2008)

Wow, these are not very good at all.  I would suggest some classes to understand shutter speed, aperture and ISO.


----------



## N'Kolor (Mar 13, 2008)

...oh yeah and go to a class or get a book on posture and position!  Having a bride stand broadside is not the best way to thin her out!  Try turning her almost sideways but not quite, put weight on one foot (usually back foot) and turn her shoulder closest to you out to open her up, it will create a nice "V", even if she doesn't have one.


----------



## N'Kolor (Mar 13, 2008)

Oops sorry, double post.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 13, 2008)

mortallis288 said:


> thanks so much for the info, i was afraid to jack the ISO up. I shot one time using a high iso and it was grainy as hell. I guess it would have been better than being out of focus.


 

As you have now seen, weddings are hard. Really hard.

I've seen posted, more times than I can count, "I'm doing my first wedding, and...." yet the poster has never attempted to apprentice with an established photographer. The result is the photos posted. There are some freak cases that the photog pulls it off on the first time, but those occassions are rare.

Had you shot the rehearsal, you would have been more prepared. Just another reason to go to the rehearsals. For free. Just to cover your own butt and be ready.

And the statement quoted above is also something I see posted all the time from first time wedding photographers.
If.....you....have.....to.....shoot....1600....shoot....it....

Also, if you shot this yesterday, or a day ago, then you should still be working on the photos fixing the things that CAN be fixed.

You wanted tough love. This is tough love.

Every single photo below was shot at 1600, and as you will notice, there is no decernable noise in any of them:

1.






2.





3.





4.





I'm not saying to give up. I don't want that at all. But this is not something to PRACTICE on. If you want practice (and all first time wedding photographers should), you really need to find someone who is willing to teach you. Weddings are a tough gig, but beyond that it's a once in a lifetime milestone.


----------



## jols (Mar 13, 2008)

ELSAPET  first pic her face is blurred and second pic his face is blurred.

or is it my moniter?


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 13, 2008)

Which photos Jols?


----------



## jols (Mar 13, 2008)

your set  sorry second and third


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 13, 2008)

Not blurry to me, and I have the full sized images.


----------



## jols (Mar 13, 2008)

ok.

nice pics though

must be my eyes


----------



## Allsmiles7282 (Mar 13, 2008)

Yay for good advice Cindy!  They don't look blurred to me but you know...

And about the 1600 ISO, I do  A LOT of shoots in a baby's room that is dark dark dark, but as long as you nail your exposure dead on...it is fine!

Good luck on the next wedding and don't get discouraged, everyone started somewhere!


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Mar 13, 2008)

N'Kolor said:


> Okay, okay, where do I begin. I see that you have done this a little .......................................................
> 
> ..................... camera or how to use it, it won't matter.


 


N'Kolor said:


> ...oh yeah and ...................................have one.


 


N'Kolor said:


> Oh yeah, one last thing...lol
> 
> ................................
> hand hold a camera at 1/8th shutter speed.


 
The edit button works great......just a tip there:thumbup:


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Mar 13, 2008)

jols said:


> ok.
> 
> nice pics though
> 
> must be my eyes


 

just looks like a soft focus effect to me


----------



## N'Kolor (Mar 13, 2008)

Yeah, I guess I could have used the edit button...lol


----------



## CWA_JGEISINGER (Mar 15, 2008)

ummmmm..... you also might want to invest in a good flash?


----------



## Anelle (Mar 15, 2008)

I think you have gotten some good advice here.  

Try getting the book:  Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.  It is a great, easy to read, yet pretty comprehensive book on exposure (aperture, shutterspeed and iso) and their relationship to one another.

Don't give up!  Take photos of people all the time, especially of groups/families so that you can work on posing (the posing in most of these make them seem snapshottish), post here for cc and take it to heart!

Anelle


----------

