# mulitple cams remotely triggered / wedding?



## andrew todd (Mar 6, 2007)

i havent shot any weddings.. ive been seriously considering getting a start in it this summer. I was wondering if anyone who has multiple bodies and pocketwizards has ever thought to preframe and focus one cam on a tripod during the ceremony and set it up for remote trigger with the PWs and get a different perspective with another cam for the same moment. So like for the ring exchange or the kiss you could get both a wide and a tight shot. just something i was thinking about tonite.


----------



## Garbz (Mar 6, 2007)

This would only really work if you can guarantee that the subjects will stand where you want them too.


----------



## andrew todd (Mar 6, 2007)

theres generally not alot of movement when the couple is on the alter is there?  Even if your are standing right with the 2 cameras in one spot.  The camera on the tripod could be set for a wider angle and you could just crop to correct for any slight movement that might throw off your composition.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 6, 2007)

Wouldn't it be easier to have an assistant operate the 2nd camera?  I've been thinking about this myself...wanting to get some shots from the balcony but not wanting to be running up and down stairs during the ceremony.  You could set it up and all they would have to do...is check the focus and fire the camera at appropriate times.  

Well, I guess it could work with a remote.  You could set it up to have enough DOF that small movements won't put them O.O.F. however, you would be sacrificing shutter speed or ISO to get that DOF.

It would also depend on the flow of the ceremony.  A lot of them have long periods of time where a lot of stuff is said...but the scene is the same.  This would give you time to take the photos yourself and return to the floor.

Also, I guess it depends on the type of ceremony and the couple in question...but from what I can tell, covering every second of the ceremony isn't as important as we sometimes think it is.  Really, how many shots of the ceremony make it into an album?  I'm  guessing that it's only a handful of shots for a lot of clients.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 6, 2007)

andrew todd said:


> I was wondering if anyone who has multiple bodies and pocketwizards has ever thought to preframe and focus one cam on a tripod during the ceremony and set it up for remote trigger with the PWs and get a different perspective with another cam for the same moment.




I've seen this done YEARS with video.  It was a big production, equipment-wise...  pre-digital and all.  The guy brought a mixing board with multiple monitors and set up somewhere out of sight in the building.  He had one stationary camera and two others that were hand held.  He used headphones to communicate with the videogaphers and did the editing "on the fly."  Wow.

I've never considered this with still photography.

Pete


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 6, 2007)

I had considered it using a D70 with the built in remote.  Wrap the tripod and camera (with cutout of course) in white with some gold trim so it wouldn't look out of place.  Use an ultra wide set on the hyperfocal.  Now if I could just afford a third rig.   mike


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 6, 2007)

I have a coupla problems here.  First, no, you can't pw the thing.  The minister is always swaying back and forth, and the couple is running around to the unity candle and so and such.

Which brings me to my second point.  This is definately not a job for a first timer.  Pleasepleaseplease apprentice under someone else at least once, or I can assure you, you will get sued to hell and back.  Even if you do if for free.  This is not a place to test your talent.  It's a once in a lifetime thing that people spend tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands on.


----------



## andrew todd (Mar 6, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> I have a coupla problems here. First, no, you can't pw the thing. The minister is always swaying back and forth, and the couple is running around to the unity candle and so and such.
> 
> Which brings me to my second point. This is definately not a job for a first timer. Pleasepleaseplease apprentice under someone else at least once, or I can assure you, you will get sued to hell and back. Even if you do if for free. This is not a place to test your talent. It's a once in a lifetime thing that people spend tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands on.


 

i still think it would work fine for a wide shot.. from a balcony or whatever.  Such a wide shot would not need adjustment for slight movement..  because you would frame the shot not by the people but by the background.  If its wide enough it doesnt matter how much they move. 

 Not for every shot.. but whenever you want you could switch on the PW insetad of running up to the balcony.  So yes.. you can do the PW thing,,  if you have the gear why not?  youve got nothing to lose.. and possibly some decent shots that would not otherwise be possible as a single shooter.


 And of course i would work as a second shooter a few times to become confident enough to take it on myself.  I would never want that responsibility unless i was 100% confident in myself.  

but no.. i dont think someone can sue you if theyre not paying you.


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 6, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> I have a coupla problems here. First, no, you can't pw the thing. The minister is always swaying back and forth, and the couple is running around to the unity candle and so and such.
> 
> Which brings me to my second point. This is definately not a job for a first timer. Pleasepleaseplease apprentice under someone else at least once, or I can assure you, you will get sued to hell and back. Even if you do if for free. This is not a place to test your talent. It's a once in a lifetime thing that people spend tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands on.


 
I think you've maybe gone off on a slight tangent here....

The question is a perfectly reasonable one and I would certainly not see it as a problem - so long as the photohgrapher still has a second camera toi take what's considered to be the main shots.

I too have considered this. I have a remote shutter release and thought about setting the camera up with a cloth covering it and the tripod with a hole for the lens. The camera could sit at the back of the alter.

Many wedding images do not capture the faces and passion of the congregation at a wedding and this would be a great way to do so. Set a wide angled lens at the rear of the alter (to one side) and you should be able to capture many shots.

With your second camera do as you would normally do. I use a 20D and a 70-200 f2.8L IS during the ceremony as my main lens and I think a 10-22 or a 17-35 would be perfect for setting at the rear of the alter with a second camera (normally my 350D). Obviously you'd need to check your lighting and use a fast enough shutter speed to avoid the subjects being blurred. The UWA lenses have a huge dof so even at 12 feet away, the camera would have everything from 6' to 280' away in focus. - Full manual control would be a must (including manual focus)

If the minster wastes a few images it's no big deal. You're likely to capture some great emotion.

First timers mostly do the work for friends and family. I know that's how I started. I took candids of the guests and couple while the pro did his work I asked ifd he minded and he was fine so long as I didn't "steal" his money shots. Watched and learned. After a few weddings I'm now regularly being asked to do work for portraits, weddings and even commercial work and am getting to the stage I'm thinking of starting a business.

I still think it's a great idea even although I've not tried it yet..... One of these days.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 6, 2007)

Hey, then go and do it then. 
Me personally, I'm always worried that Uncle Bob is gonna steal my money shot. I can't tell you the hours I've spent sleepless about the whole thing.
You don't have to try it. Don't shoot a wedding one. Just show up one day and blast away with no flash in a 3200 ISO atmophere. They will be totally cool with the noise in the photo. It's ok, right.  Call it art.
After all, that thousand bucks you made is worth it all, right? If you even charged that?
To be honest, what it does is downclass the entire business. But, go for it. After all, you have to fleece someone right?


----------



## andrew todd (Mar 6, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> Hey, then go and do it then.
> Me personally, I'm always worried that Uncle Bob is gonna steal my money shot. I can't tell you the hours I've spent sleepless about the whole thing.
> You don't have to try it. Don't shoot a wedding one. Just show up one day and blast away with no flash in a 3200 ISO atmophere. They will be totally cool with the noise in the photo. It's ok, right. Call it art.
> After all, that thousand bucks you made is worth it all, right? If you even charged that?
> To be honest, what it does is downclass the entire business. But, go for it. After all, you have to fleece someone right?


 

you have some pent up agression?  the only reason i suggested it is as a backup angle.  if for some reason someting happens to your primary shot(and i imagine theres a million things that could go wrong.. at least you have a backup.. )  filmmaking is my thing. .. its great because you have the luxury of getting mulitple safety shots.  with something like a wedding i just though that the idea of my second cam being put to some use as a safety net (and possibly some surprising nice shots) instead of sitting unused in my bag would be a good idea.


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 6, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> Hey, then go and do it then.
> Me personally, I'm always worried that Uncle Bob is gonna steal my money shot. I can't tell you the hours I've spent sleepless about the whole thing.
> You don't have to try it. Don't shoot a wedding one. Just show up one day and blast away with no flash in a 3200 ISO atmophere. They will be totally cool with the noise in the photo. It's ok, right. Call it art.
> After all, that thousand bucks you made is worth it all, right? If you even charged that?
> To be honest, what it does is downclass the entire business. But, go for it. After all, you have to fleece someone right?


 
You are way off the line on this one!

Who is going to shoot a wedding at ISO3200?!!! Buy faster lenses!!!

Why does it downcalss the business? Can you tell me? I don't understand this? Because I may want to try something different???

Remember the OP stated multiple cameras so the main shots wioll still be taken but you can supplement these with some amazing emotion shots..... think about it!!

Why would we be fleecing? Is it such a bad idea? I'd really like to know why you feel as you do!!


----------



## JIP (Mar 6, 2007)

One thing I have got to yell you, if you are planning on doing this at your first wedding forget it.  At a wedding there are just way too many things to worry about than having to monitor and shoot with another camera other than the one that's around your neck.  I would at least get afew under your belt before you attempt something like this.  I have been shooting weddings for about 6 years now and I don't think I could pull this one off.


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 6, 2007)

JIP said:


> One thing I have got to yell you, if you are planning on doing this at your first wedding forget it. At a wedding there are just way too many things to worry about than having to monitor and shoot with another camera other than the one that's around your neck. I would at least get afew under your belt before you attempt something like this. I have been shooting weddings for about 6 years now and I don't think I could pull this one off.


 
I must agree with this.
However, if you can set the camera on a tripod (obviously with minister's approval - and with a trial at the rehersal) then I think it's certainly possible although I agree that you don't want to miss crucial shots with bothering about firing a remote shutter release.

I still think it would be an interesting trial.


----------



## dewey (Mar 6, 2007)

Well without getting involved in the holier than though vibe of this thread I'll answer your question.  

I have setup a D80 on a wireless remote and grabbed a few ceremony shots with a 12-24 lens before.  The shots were set to be very slow, I think they averaged 1/2 second each... so it was a dreamy sort of shot.  My main focus is on the cameras that are in my hands... but if the facility has a balcony or other unique view point I'll set it up before hand.   I would say it's not a good idea for shots you HAVE to have, but it's a plus if you have a third body as a backup to your backup.

It's not much different than setting up strobes in the reception hall for certain shots which I do with SB 800s.


----------



## andrew todd (Mar 6, 2007)

thanks for all the discussion.. it just came across my mind the other nite while i was playing around with my PWs and realised it had this feature.


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 7, 2007)

Andrew
As a first wedding (if and when you do one) it's not really worth considering.  Keep your two cameras close to hand with fast glass, you'll probably need them.

Worth a go though. You have me thinking about it again for my next one!


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 7, 2007)

besides what elsa said, its an obstruction and a potential lawsuit if someone tripps over an unmanned tripod. and your out 1K or more. 


Also, It makes them think that a robot could do your job, should they pay good money for it?.. seriously its not a good idea, from the time you react to the movement, and adjust any settings , also youll miss the shot. 

Video is a completely different monster... you actually prob could get away with that with video, pics, not the same thing... it may sound good, but give it a test run sometime and see how you like it...


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 7, 2007)

I accept the position regards the tripod. Didn't think about that. i don't think that anyone was talking about doing a wedding from that one position though. Some nice shots of emotion from the couple/congregation I don't think would be bad..... However yes if there's an issue of falling over a triod then obviously the minister wouldn't be keen to permit this.

Settings?  Set camera to manual (inc manual focus) all the photographer would need to do is select when to hit the shutter!

Why would video be different?  Fallong over one tripod would be the same as another?

Good to hear opinions on this though.  I'm seeing both sides at the moment and just arguing the points out


----------



## dewey (Mar 7, 2007)

Well if you setup the tripod in the aisle and asked the bride to sidestep it you may have an issue.  If you use some common sense and set it up in a private balcony or in the AV booth some facitilies have you'd be fine.  It amazes me how many people will tell you why you can't do something.

It works.  It's easy.  It's not for any shot you NEED but it will get some shots you might WANT and otherwise wouldn't get.

You would use it for a wide shot of the ceremony, not zoomed in on the couple or anything like that.  It works fine if you use some common sense and if you have a spare body.


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 7, 2007)

dewey said:


> Well if you setup the tripod in the aisle and asked the bride to sidestep it you may have an issue. If you use some common sense and set it up in a private balcony or in the AV booth some facitilies have you'd be fine. It amazes me how many people will tell you why you can't do something.
> 
> It works. It's easy. It's not for any shot you NEED but it will get some shots you might WANT and otherwise wouldn't get.
> 
> You would use it for a wide shot of the ceremony, not zoomed in on the couple or anything like that. It works fine if you use some common sense and if you have a spare body.


 
My thoughts too Dewey.  I think it would give a nice shot of everyone "watching" the ceremony rather than the usual "backs of heads"...... 

Split views.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 7, 2007)

some of the video gear has tripods that can swivel or pan remotely this is the goal of video, smooth panning, for still pics and a wedding thats not a good idea. 

If it works for you go for it!!!  I was just trying to let you know of a potential risk. No biggie.. generally speaking if you can go through the hassle of setting that up, why not hire an asistant and look 300% even more professional to all the people there who you will be handing out cards to... weddings are more about personality then equipment from what I see..................................just a thought... no biggie...


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Yep, I certainly do have some pent up aggression.  I've given my time, for free, to help first timers out of lawsuits.
"Man, that was a lot harder than I thought".
That's why I asked PLEASE do an apprenticeship.  The idea of a remote up front is simply not a workable option.  It's been tried time and time again with zero success.  Any videographer can tell you this.
Dewey, I'm not trying to be holier than thou.  I'm just trying to stop this poster and his EOS buddy from slashing their own throats.
You might not like what I have to say, but I'm a pretty damn well informed messenger.
And yeah, if you screw it all up, I will try to help.   I'm here to help, not to hinder.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 7, 2007)

Well, ya know...  Cindy is not way off on this.

Personally, I have no first-hand info on resulting law suits, but (for me) that's the least of it.  There's a lot at stake for the couple...  if the marriage lasts.

I made a policy years ago:  Try nothing new with a client...  at least nothing that keeps me from doing what I'm expected to do.  Once I've covered all that, then I may introduce something new.

I'm not willing to put anything of mine in view in the sanctuary.

Everybody has to start somewhere, but remember to walk before tying to run.

Good luck!

Pete


----------



## dewey (Mar 7, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> The idea of a remote up front is simply not a workable option.  It's been tried time and time again with zero success.



I'm sorry but you are wrong on this, plain and simple.  Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean it's not possible.  I have used a remote camera several times in places I could not be and it's worked just fine.

I'm not going to argue about experience, as a wedding photographer who has invested a lot of time and a lot of money into photography I support your idea of learning first.  Wedding photography isn't a trial and error sort of thing.  I just don't think it's fair that you jump on people like that - he asked a question about remote cameras not about whether we approve of him doing the wedding.

Let's stay on the topic


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

EOS_JD said:


> You are way off the line on this one!
> 
> Who is going to shoot a wedding at ISO3200?!!! Buy faster lenses!!!
> 
> ...


 

It's done all the time. And btw, most first timers wander in with a 24-105 f4 thinking they can shoot the whole wad with that. God knows, I've tried to help clean up after a few of those.
Unless they are really wealthy weekend warriors, first timers aren't walking around with a few bags full of 1.8 and faster lenses at $1500 a pop. No quick travel lighting, no 4th and 5th bodies, no assistance....no nothing.

You know how to get amazing emotion shots? You sweet talk the officiant, and you get your a$$ up in the front, but hidden away. I have a whole website of emotional up front shots to back up what I am saying. But you need a second shooter for the back, and an assistant to hand you the various cameras needed.....quickly.
You can't just shoot a frame every 10 seconds or so. That is "spray and pray", and yeah, a machine can do it, but shouldn't. They aren't paying for a robot camera. They are paying for a pro that they trust their entire big day to.

It downclasses the business, because I can't tell you the amount of horror stories I've heard from clients and priests. A story about a local wedding photographer made the nightly news recently, and it messed up ALL of the wedding photogs in the area. You will never see the newscast about the happy bride, but get one "wakes up one morning and wants to be a wedding photog" person out there, and it's a weeks worth of news. No kidding.

So yeah, I have a right to ASK this photographer to work along side a wedding photog for a week or two. And you have a right to gripe about what I said, but unless you've spent a few years in my shoes, I don't think you can reasonably argue with what I've said. Call it ego if you like. I prefer to call it "saving your butt".


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 7, 2007)

This was the original question...


> I was wondering if anyone who has multiple bodies and pocketwizards has ever thought to preframe and focus one cam on a tripod during the ceremony


It's a simple enough question and the answer seems to be that it is doable but probably isn't the best idea, especially if it's untested.

The other issue stems from this statement...


> i havent shot any weddings.. ive been seriously considering getting a start in it this summer


I believe this is a separate issue and should be discussed in another thread.  And please keep the tone civil...there is nothing wrong with a heated discussion but we will shut down any threads that get out of hand.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

dewey said:


> I'm sorry but you are wrong on this, plain and simple. Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean it's not possible. I have used a remote camera several times in places I could not be and it's worked just fine.
> 
> I'm not going to argue about experience, as a wedding photographer who has invested a lot of time and a lot of money into photography I support your idea of learning first. Wedding photography isn't a trial and error sort of thing. I just don't think it's fair that you jump on people like that - he asked a question about remote cameras not about whether we approve of him doing the wedding.
> 
> Let's stay on the topic


 

Don't you understand that I am not "jumping on people?"  Do you honestly think I don't have work to do....that I don't stop by here as a way of paying back what was given to me by others here?
If you re-read my original post, I was mearly trying to help the poster with some good sound advice.  It was a later post that really ticked me off, and my latest posts will expound on why.
Remote cameras DON'T work. You can spray and pray and hope for the best, and you might get a good one, but not like you would get if people got up there, heart feeling humans, and did it themselves when the moment was exactly right.  I can promise you a great shot on EVERY moment with a live human, and 1% with a robot.
But this post cost you exactly no money, and you can decide it's worth just that.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 7, 2007)

MY whole point in even considering it was that Nobody is supposed to be behind the minister during the wedding (especially a photographer or assistant) and nobody but the minister really sees the emotion on the faces of the B/G during the ceremony so why not get one or two shots. Because they are looking the other way you wouldn't be doing anything anyway so aim the remote and shoot. I wouldn't suggest doing it anyway with out a third body. mike  ***looks like a lot has gone on since started typing.  It also looks lilke there are Two WAY different conversations going on here and I'll be leaving now.  me


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> MY whole point in even considering it was that Nobody is supposed to be behind the minister during the wedding (especially a photographer or assistant) and nobody but the minister really sees the emotion on the faces of the B/G during the ceremony so why not get one or two shots. Because they are looking the other way you wouldn't be doing anything anyway so aim the remote and shoot. I wouldn't suggest doing it anyway with out a third body. mike ***looks like a lot has gone on since started typing. It also looks lilke there are Two WAY different conversations going on here and I'll be leaving now. me


 

Why is nobody supposed to be behind the minister?  Is there a place, biblically that states this?
Of course you can be, as long as you make it clear that the santanty of the ceremony is the most important thing.
Sorry for the two conversations Mike, but there were two distinct topics in the initial point.
You should stay and offer your opinions.  They are valid.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> This was the original question...
> 
> It's a simple enough question and the answer seems to be that it is doable but probably isn't the best idea, especially if it's untested.
> 
> ...


 

I'm sorry Mike. You know my true heart in this. I'm not here to put others down. I'm here to help. I hope everyone understands that, even if I can be rough at times. Most times I'm the Paula Abdual of the bunch. But sometimes, I feel like I can't get my point through unless I'm Simon.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 7, 2007)

I understand where you are coming from and as always, you have valuable input.  I think your tone is coming off a little more 'Simon' that you mean it to be.  I'm sure if we were all face to face, everything would be clear and fun.

My take on the remote is that it could work.  After all, even though it's a remote, it's still a human pushing the button.  Just think of it as though you are pressing the shutter button on your hand held camera...only the camera is not hand held.  The sacrifice is that your focus and point of view are preset...but you still pick the moments to fire the camera.  As long as the rest of the job is being well taken care of...what is to loose?

Also, it should be clear to everyone that each church (or where ever) is different...and each officiant is different.  We have to adapt to every situation and do what we can.  Some won't let you use flash and some won't even let you move around during the ceremony.  Others are more understanding and tolerant.  We can't reasonably argue about this...every situation is different.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 7, 2007)

Ok, thank you.  Let me first say that I'm not a wedding shooter.  Yes, I would like to try it and No, I'm not going to Just jump in.  In doing my 'Due Diligence' it seems that a Wedding Album will save most marriages about twice from the bride/wife going back and remembering just why she married the 'bum' in the first place. [If you don't believe me, throw out this factoid and every woman who has been married over 5 years will nod her head in agreement (and very few will admit to it but all of her friends are that way  )]  And for this reason alone I am not going to take a chance on messing this up.  The reason I feel that there should be no one behind the minister is that the Three of them should be the Entire focus of attention.  A marriage is the creation of a whole new person out of two people bound by God and to draw attention away from that is something else I don't want to do.  I understand that if there is a place to hide it would be different but there are not that many churches that are that big (around here anyway) and unless you are in the high end of the business one is unlikely to see such a place often.  So, with stated reasons for not being behind the Minister and knowing first hand about the emotions playing across the faces of the B/G, should I ever get to do a wedding in a church ( I have done a couple in houses and out doors as a favor) I would like to capture as much of the emotion and joy as is humanly possible.  Thanks again for inviting me back,  mike


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> I understand where you are coming from and as always, you have valuable input. I think your tone is coming off a little more 'Simon' that you mean it to be. I'm sure if we were all face to face, everything would be clear and fun.
> 
> My take on the remote is that it could work. After all, even though it's a remote, it's still a human pushing the button. Just think of it as though you are pressing the shutter button on your hand held camera...only the camera is not hand held. The sacrifice is that your focus and point of view are preset...but you still pick the moments to fire the camera. As long as the rest of the job is being well taken care of...what is to loose?
> 
> Also, it should be clear to everyone that each church (or where ever) is different...and each officiant is different. We have to adapt to every situation and do what we can. Some won't let you use flash and some won't even let you move around during the ceremony. Others are more understanding and tolerant. We can't reasonably argue about this...every situation is different.


 

Sorry Mike, I really don't intend to come off that way.
I guess if I had NO OTHER CHOICE I might try what is proposed, but man, you could hire apprentices all day long for free or for a decent fee (what I do) and get the job done right.
I mean, why in the world would you spend all that money on a remotely run camera when you can have a real live human back there for little or no money.  I hate remotes.  Hatehatehate.
Because it is exactly that.  Remote.  Non Feeling.
In MO, worthless.
But put a human back there............priceless.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 7, 2007)

I would also suggest that if you already have the pocket wizards, they would be better used for remote flashes anyway.  There is a guy in my general area who almost exclusively uses his flash off camera with PWs.  His web site here


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> Ok, thank you. Let me first say that I'm not a wedding shooter. Yes, I would like to try it and No, I'm not going to Just jump in. In doing my 'Due Diligence' it seems that a Wedding Album will save most marriages about twice from the bride/wife going back and remembering just why she married the 'bum' in the first place. [If you don't believe me, throw out this factoid and every woman who has been married over 5 years will nod her head in agreement (and very few will admit to it but all of her friends are that way  )] And for this reason alone I am not going to take a chance on messing this up. The reason I feel that there should be no one behind the minister is that the Three of them should be the Entire focus of attention. A marriage is the creation of a whole new person out of two people bound by God and to draw attention away from that is something else I don't want to do. I understand that if there is a place to hide it would be different but there are not that many churches that are that big (around here anyway) and unless you are in the high end of the business one is unlikely to see such a place often. So, with stated reasons for not being behind the Minister and knowing first hand about the emotions playing across the faces of the B/G, should I ever get to do a wedding in a church ( I have done a couple in houses and out doors as a favor) I would like to capture as much of the emotion and joy as is humanly possible. Thanks again for inviting me back, mike


 
I hope you can forgive me Mike.  You don't have to be a wedding shooter to know what you would want after spending many thousands of dollars.
I'm a Christian, as is my husband.  We totally understand how important this ceremony is.  We don't run around the stage shooting over the priest's shoulder.  We sit WAY back in the front chior, and shoot.  Normally it's me, and I duck way down, dressed all in black, and balance my camera over the rails.  No one notices me at all.

I've very happily married, so I get it.  If I miss something crucial, I know I can re create it later, but there is nothing more precious than that first look at the groom when her father delivers her to the alter.

I can't apologize for this.  It's what I'm payed to do.  I'm payed to show the priest he can trust me, and I'm paid to get the shot, without a remote.


----------



## Canon Fan (Mar 7, 2007)

Pretty much all of what I was/going to say has been covered but here are my thoughts on a few . . .

First off I agree with a couple of the people who have mentioned here that you DO NOT want to try this on your first time out (and possibly not ever) but even more importantly why would you want to tie down your ONLY second camera in one position for the whole time? That second body should getting put to good use capturing multiple other angles or speeding up your flow by not having to change lenses all the time. A wide angle on a tripod MAY yeild one shot or one small sequence, but that is it. It sits there the rest of the time collecting dust and racking up actuations on your shutter. Get a good fast lens (like before mentioned 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L and shoot from the side. I have been in many churches where with a good zoom you can actually get "in front" of them being off to the side (does that make sense?) Also many churhes have the stairs to the balcony hidden away (well except for my last one where they came 3 feet from the alter) so an assitant or yourself could get up there discreetly once or twice to get one or two shots but then return for tight shots on the floor where the action is. That being said it is still of utmost importance that you speak to the officiant and make them aware of your intentions before hand whatever they may be. You do not want to get thrown out in the middle of the service!

As far as the experience thing goes I do agree with many of the others here. You do need to start somewhere, true. You don't _have_ to assist or study under a pro, but it would be a much faster track. I personally held myself back from taking ANY job as a primary shooter for three years before I would even accept a donation. Even then I made very sure to talk to the "pro photographer" to ensure them that I would not be taking photos (read- stealing the money shots) they posed (very big sales in this area) or set up, I would only watch. Also that I would be mindful of where they were at all times to not interfere with thier shots. They are working, you are learning. And even after those three years I started out slow with friends and family events only for my first "paid" contracts. Even now that I am finally comfortable shooting on my own I still second shoot for others I believe I can learn from. Wish I had done it that way from the start :er:


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

PWs only work within a very small area.  I've had much more success with slave/masters.
Just my experience with the two.
However I do use PWs on my booms.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Bless you Canon Fan.  I've never honestly seen someone on here so full of honor.
You go!


----------



## Canon Fan (Mar 7, 2007)

Either I type REALLY slow or you guys are really on the ball in this post today:stun:  After reading the like 4 posts you all got out while I was typing mine I would maybe change some of the phrasing of my post and/or delete sectins but if I do that there will be another 5 posts I missed!


----------



## Canon Fan (Mar 7, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> Bless you Canon Fan.  I've never honestly seen someone on here so full of honor.
> You go!



Thanks Paula  Luckily you've never gone Simon on me


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

We get it, or I hope to hell we do............


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

I admire you canon...........should I jusrt shut up and walk away?  I will if you say so.


----------



## Canon Fan (Mar 7, 2007)

:lmao: :hail: :hug::


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

The big deep ender...........
Dang, I love this place.  Totally. I've made so many friends here.
Time to go.  I tried, I really did.
Do well you guys.  There is a ton of talent here.
Best to all.
Cindy


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 7, 2007)

> PWs only work within a very small area. I've had much more success with slave/masters.
> Just my experience with the two.


That's interesting.  I've heard several people say that PWs are the greatest things ever.  They are supposed to be very reliable and workable over a great distance, hundred yards (or meters) or more.  I don't know because I haven't used them.

The built-in wireless feature of flashes (of Canon & Nikon anyway) is via infrared beams.  From what I can tell, they work pretty good in most indoor situations because the signal will bounce all around...but outdoors or over longer distances...they need line of site.  Several pros I've read about or talked to, use the PW over the infrared wireless.  The big difference, of course, is that the built-in wireless technology allows you to keep E-TTL, while PW will mean you have to use manual flash power.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

There isn't much reason to be here. We know it all, already. I don't need to help out, because it really isn't help. It's politally wrong to not help.I want to give back but I only get grief for it.
Ok, my work was bought by Collages.net for the national ads.
Signet Publlishing is featuring my work for the fall line up.
Collages.net just bought my photos for the upcoming year.
But maybe, just maybe, you will see I am here to help.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Or, maybe you won't.  To be honest, it takes a big part of my day to come here.  If it isn't appreciated, I can understand that.
But I'd rather help.
I' prepared to do either.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 7, 2007)

I'm not giving you grief, if you are taking it as grief, I'm sorry.  

I'm just bringing up a point because I've heard many differing opinions.  If I can't form opinions with first hand knowledge, I like to get info from many different sources and find out why different people have their differing opinions.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 7, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> ...To be honest, it takes a big part of my day to come here...




Boy, doesn't it!  But we love you for it.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 7, 2007)

I'm wondering how this thread got to be SO emotional.  Is anyone at all surprised that others have different approaches?

In my life, I take what I find useful and put it into practice and leave the rest.  I got some advice years back: "Worry more about you do, and not about what others do."  It's kept me on track through some tough times.  Mostly, it helped keep me sane.  I know others don't/won't do things the way I do...  and vise-versa.  I'm OK with that....  now.  It took some work, but I'm happier these days.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Ok, I'm calming down now.  Ahhhhhh.
I get pretty stressed out sometimes, and I get really POed when folks think I have some kinda agenda.
I'll tell ya my truth all the time.
If you don't like it, I'll probably walk on you about it.
Publications wouldnt be hiring me if I were an idiot.  You can trust me.  You may not like me, or my message, but it's sent with the best of intentions.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Shut up Pete. Nevermind, you are right.
Love ya.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

I'm giving you first hand opinions, not from someone who saw a wedding onetime, but one who has shot one 43 times last year, and from one who has already shot 20 this year.
This isn't a popularity contest.  These weekend warriors can hate me with their full heart, but believe it or not, I'm trying to help them, like so many helped me before.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

I just wonder sometimes why I give a crap.  I try to help but some people know everything.  Even when I tell them I've already tried it, I get a rash of crap.
At that point, I'm like yeah, whatever. Go and do your deed.  Don't call me when you screw up, because I already tried to help you.
But you know what?  I'm a total sucker. Yeah, I'd help.  Even though I told them not to, I'd help.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Honestly I love coming here, and if other people think my opinions suck..........well they can bite me. JK


----------



## Corry (Mar 7, 2007)

Ok, I think we all need to calm down here.  There is no need to get emotional about this subject.  No one is challenging you anymore, Cindy. I also think Pete's advice is good advice.  "Worry more about you do, and not about what others do."

I understand that you are just trying to help, but I think you are investing yourself a little more than you need to.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 7, 2007)

elsaspet,

We know you are a very good photographer and that you are very successful.  Congratulations, I mean that sincerely.  I also appreciate that you are trying to give back to this forum, I think we all do.  But I have to wonder what is going on here?  Nobody is attacking you here yet you are making posts that are very defensive.

Photography, like many other endeavors, is somthing that can be done, and done well, many different ways.  There is seldom a right or wrong way to do things.  If you ask 5 veteran photographers how do something, you will likely get 6 different opinions.  Are any of them exactly right or wrong?

We do appreciate your experience and I, for one, know that you are tying to save people from making huge mistakes...but if someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are attacking you.  Nobody will blame you for not trying to help...people will do things their own way.  All any of us can do, is to share our experiences.

This is a forum, and it's greatest strength is that it allows many different people to offer different opinions.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 7, 2007)

I also appreciate your input Cindy. Perhaps you could give us a brief synopsis of what went on in your area with the weekender in the news?  mike


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> I also appreciate your input Cindy. Perhaps you could give us a brief synopsis of what went on in your area with the weekender in the news? mike


 

Hi Mike and Mike,
I don't feel attacked, but i do shake my head wondering why I'm not listened to.
After all, I don't take valuable time out of my day to tell people they have it all wrong.  What is that worth?
I try, using tried and true methodolgy to help.  I give real world examples, and I hope for the best.
And if the photographer screws it up to the point of being sued, I am here to help.
It's not as if I haven't warned them.
And if they don't want my opinion, because they think I am some hack, I think it's good for them to know that I have been published many many times.
I'm not here to make jerks of them, and yes, this has gotten really off topic.
I wonder what I'm doing here sometimes.  I'm always behind on my work, yet I'm here trying trying trying to help people out.  But they don't want to know, they know everything.
It just makes me want to run from these people. Truely, it does.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> I also appreciate your input Cindy. Perhaps you could give us a brief synopsis of what went on in your area with the weekender in the news? mike


 

Hi Milke,
Bascially he took all the money ($4500+) and left them with nothing.  He was a very very talented photog.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 7, 2007)

You will never be able to help everyone, no matter how big your heart is or how hard you try.  All you can do is put your knowledge/experience out there...and let people take from it, if they will.  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.  

Don't worry about what other people learn or don't learn from you...Life is too short.  You are trying to help and that's what matters.  

If someone gets sued...then that is a lesson learned for them.  We won't come back to you and say that you should have warned them.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Hi Mike,
I'm just trying to save them from themslves.  Ingore me.  Sometimes it works, and sometimes they have to call us to help.  Let's hope it's not the latter.


----------



## elsaspet (Mar 7, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> I also appreciate your input Cindy. Perhaps you could give us a brief synopsis of what went on in your area with the weekender in the news? mike


 

It's a totally sad story.  This guy was totally great, but bit off more than he could chew.    His normal deal was in h e$4000 range, but he never delivered books or anything.  Keep in mind, this is one of the most talented photogs I've ever seen.

Sad story is that he got addicted to drugs. Just hung it all up.  But that happens everyday with the wannabes.  Only that doesn't make the news.

We've all come on board to process all the wedding he did'nt.  Just another job we all had to come on, and save, because someone didn't have their crap togerher.  He dicided the post was to hard..........so we all had to do it for him, and I can tell you it was no fun.


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 7, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> I'm not trying to be holier than thou. I'm just trying to stop this poster and his EOS buddy from slashing their own throats.


 
Cindy
It was more your tone that really got me down. I realise (more from reading your latest posts) you are very passionate about what you do. So am I. I suppose I may come across cheeky and arrogant too at times when it's not really meant.

One thing that really annoyed me was the above. It should be noted I'm no-one's "buddy". Because I share the same thought of capturing a special unique moment of a day does am I "downclassing business"? If it doesn't work I say nothing lost and why would I be cutting my throat?

In Scotland where I live it is rare that a wedding photographer gets to stand on the alter in front of a couple. In certain places like registry offices some allow you to be at the front some don't. Many churches do not have areas where the photographer can get in front of the couple and being advised by the priest or minister that you have to stay at the back and refrain from using flash is a pain as I'm sure you'll be aware of. Even being close to the front is sometimes not enough.

I too have tried the sweet talking but perhaps that's best left for a pretty girl  I've never had any real problems in any of the weddings I've shot. Sure we panic when things don't go to plan and you've very little time to capture the formals but we deal with that.

If it's been tried with no success as you say then that makes me less interested in doing it. I perhaps would have had more respect for your views at the start if you hadn't gone off on such a wild tangent.

Also perhaps I didn't make my experience known and you think I'm a first timer too...... That's not the case. I've been shooting weddings for about 18 months now. It is not my main job (I would not make the same money from photography as I do at my main job - supp;ose that makes me a weekend warrior) but I would like to be able to keep learning (as we all do constantly) and I love shooting weddings and have had much success and that's why I get business. Perhaps one day I may decide to do it full time. I'm happy supplenmenting my salary for now. I also have a bag of fantastic fast glass and equipment that makes shooting weddings a lot easier - I might not use the 24-105 for a full wedding but it's with me when shooting formals and I love it!



elsaspet said:


> It downclasses the business, because I can't tell you the amount of horror stories I've heard from clients and priests. A story about a local wedding photographer made the nightly news recently, and it messed up ALL of the wedding photogs in the area. You will never see the newscast about the happy bride, but get one "wakes up one morning and wants to be a wedding photog" person out there, and it's a weeks worth of news. No kidding.


 
I don't think I've ever heard anything like this in the UK. If people decide they want a cheap job, that's what they'll generally get and it's their fault. If I thought I could not achieve something, I'd politely decline and recommend another. My friend who assistes for me is a portrait photographer and he's a great guy to have arouns. I advise all my clients of my level of experience and also show them images I have in my portfolio and advise of prices up front. It's the images and trust that win me my business.

You mentioned EGO and I do think that's how you came across but having read you last few posts from earlier I see what you were trying to say. 

Lets say we have differing views although I do see what you are saying. I'm not saying this is the way forward or anything but for something different and the poportunity is there to have a spare camera I think it may proivide some nice moments.

Even though I'm not the OP, I really appreciate the points you and others have made.

Best regards
Jim


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 7, 2007)

Cindy just read the rest of your posts! Calm down and believe we're all after the same thing. Different ideas get thrown in you give a polite but opinionated answer and people listen and learn

I don't want you getting upset over nothing. We all live and learn through our mistakes. All you can do is give advice as I do to peolpe who are starting out and want to shoot a wedding with 1 camera and a couple of f5.6 lenses and the on-board flash!! I'll be cheecky to waken them up first that wedding photography is a specialised area for those with knowledge of what they are doing and the right equipment.

Lets be friends.... we all don't have to agree on everything and that's what makes the world what it is :hug::


----------



## dewey (Mar 7, 2007)

Jeez everyone should relax a bit... elsaspet just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not listening.  You're saying something can't be done, when that's just not true.  It can be done.  It works.  

A camera on a remote release isn't going to replace anyone... it's a fairly specialized thing and that's what this post was about.

We all contributed some ideas and that's that.  There is no reason to get upset because I disagree with you.


----------



## dewey (Mar 7, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> I'm giving you first hand opinions, not from someone who saw a wedding onetime, but one who has shot one 43 times last year, and from one who has already shot 20 this year.
> This isn't a popularity contest.  These weekend warriors can hate me with their full heart, but believe it or not, I'm trying to help them, like so many helped me before.



I'm sorry I tried to leave this be, but you're WAY out of line.  I only shot 21 weddings last year, so I guess you're correct and I'm wrong?  *My experiences are just as valid as yours even if I shoot 1/2 as many weddings as you do.*

Weekend warrior... lmao... get a grip lady.  You can't make statements like this and then complain when people think you're full of yourself.

I was just sharing my experiences with remote camera releases during weddings, which you would never know was the point of this thread.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 7, 2007)

Please, lets all play nice and keep things civil.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 7, 2007)

Seriously guys, lets chill... 

Elsa has tons of expirience and she knows what shes talking about, but if you really want to try it, make sure you dont miss the normal shots... just dont make us all look bad is all we are trying to ask........ to some of us its super serious and image is everything ... 

Im sure on the other hand you want to try something that hasnt been done before... thats really cool, just dont make it the focal point of your wedding and im sure youll be OK. Im sure technically you could pull it off, but is the juice worth the squeeze...?

I am just trying to step in and clarify so nobody gets feelings hurt thats all.
especially from misunderstandings...

Elsa, dont you think of leaving, well hunt you down... 

lol just kidding...

im talk from experience with people, not because im a wedding master.... Just chill, one frame of mind likes to do things that havent been done before, thats awsome , without that we wouldnt even have new inventions... the other is more the tried and true method, we need both for our society to work !!! be happy and work together if possible !!! you can both learn something from each other...  and I can learn form BOTH of you...


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 7, 2007)

THORHAMMER said:


> Seriously guys, lets chill...
> 
> Elsa has tons of expirience and she knows what shes talking about, but if you really want to try it, make sure you dont miss the normal shots... just dont make us all look bad is all we are trying to ask........ to some of us its super serious and image is everything ...
> 
> ...


 

Well said.......... :thumbup:


----------



## andrew todd (Mar 7, 2007)

wow.. sorry to mess you guys all up. just wanted to clear up some stuff.. and say goodbye to this post all together.. yes i knew it was possible.. i was just wondering if anyone did it already.

I didnt ask your opinion as to how i should approach wedding photography. dont respond to me like im an idiot who knows nothing about photography. If you read my first question im telling you that I own pocketwizards.. so no.. i wont be going out and "spending tons of money on ""remote cameras""


reading through your posts im wondering if you fully understand what i was trying to say. i dont know if youre familiar with pocket wizards.. im going to assume that youre not as you mentioned that i was going to spend money on "remote cameras" (though i could be wrong.. just the impression i got)

the biggest problem i have with you is that you seem extremely close minded.

lets create a scenario where i am shooting a wedding by myself. now for make believe sake for some reason this wedding has hired you as well. (i guess they wanted to feel more safe with 2 photogs) 

i have no other photographers helping me. i have a few cameras. now this particular church doesnt allow flashes.. so my flashes and pocketwizards are sitting useless in my bag. 

thats when i figure.. hey!! why not throw a PW on one of my backup cams and maybe face it towards the parents, the family, a wide shot from the balcony.. a different angle of the bride and groom.. doesnt matter which.. endless possibilities.... so every time i take a picture with my primary camera the second one fires automatically and gives me a second perspective..   whereas your backup camera sits in your bag doing nothing for you. so the wedding takes place.. theres tons of "one time moments" that we both succesfully capture. only when i get home there will also be the possibility of some nice surprising shots sitting on the card of my backup cam from a different perspective. when u go home.. your backup cam has captured nothing but dust.


i guess all im saying is.. dont go on the offensive and try to tell us that using a second camera remotely is going to degrade anything..youre still doing the same job with the primary camera... it doenst add any more work to the shoot,  set up.. and dont worry about it until u take it down...  if none of the secondary shots end up working for you.. wel.. youve lost absolutely nothing.

and dont try to bring up lawsuits because of someone tripping over a tripod with a camera on it. cuz then ud have to advise every photographer that has a decent off cam lighting setup to leave it at home because of the same tripping hazard.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 8, 2007)

OK, that's enough of this thread.

I'm asking all of you to please drop this issue and move on.  Any continuation of accusatory or aggressive defensive behavior will result in further action by the moderators.


----------

