# Wedding Photography Emergency!!!  Please Help!!!



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 21, 2014)

So, i am doing my first wedding tomorrow.  tonight was the rehearsal.  The wedding is outside at 7:00pm.  Here is what I was able to grab of the bride walking down the isle.

I told them we will need some slave flashes off to the sides and some kind of light on them as the stop to get the focus (I have all this).  

Any other thing I could do?




wedding by Theantiquetiger, on Flickr


----------



## e.rose (Feb 21, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> Any other thing I could do?



Yeah. Find someone else to shoot the wedding who knows what they're doing.

Because if you're posting "Emergency! Help!" The night before the wedding and this was your result? Well, all I have to say is that I hope the bride is aware of your skill set so it doesn't come back to bite you later.

I don't not trying to be rude, and I'm not trying to be mean, even though I know what I said is probably less than to your liking, but that's the truth.

You shouldn't take on this kind of stuff until you KNOW you can 100% go into it with confidence.
.
.
.
.

NOW...that being said... are they walking at night? Are there *NO LIGHTS* whatsoever lighting their path? How are they expecting their guests to see them walking down the aisle? There has to be SOME sort of light there...


----------



## Derrel (Feb 21, 2014)

What's the deal with your flash??? Why is it underexposed at ISO 1,250 at f/5.6 at 79mm? What kind of flash do you have?

Are your batteries in the flash good, and fresh?

If the posted shot is an un-cropped image, based on the field of view shown, I would estimate that you're probably around 27 feet distant (Field of View Calculator would indicate exact distance, but that's close). You COULD shoot from closer, with a shorter focal length.


----------



## manicmike (Feb 21, 2014)

Sorry, I have to agree with E.rose on this. 

Best of luck though.


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 21, 2014)

e.rose said:


> Theantiquetiger said:
> 
> 
> > Any other thing I could do?
> ...



The wedding is poorly planned and very informal.  They had no plans on lighting and were basically walking in the dark.

The bride and mother of the bride (the one who asked me to do it) knows I am not a wedding photographer, and I told them at first I didn't have the experience to do it.  After talking me into it because of the other photographer has less experience (and equipment) than me, I told them I will not guarantee a single good shot.

That said, after the rehearsal tonight, I told them they will not get a single good image without any lighting.  They are walking at night with no lights other than 6 candles lighting the path.  The wedding is VERY informal, the bride really doesn't care, its more the MotB.  They told me I could light it as I see fit, so I plan to use one or both of my slave studio flashes with umbrellas.  I also have some small LED lights with gels (cold foot mount).  I plan to place this down the isle to get a good focus.

The other photographer is using a cheap 50mm.  So I told her about the slaves and we plan to shoot after each other.  She will get the full body and I will grab the close up with my 70-200 2.8.



Derrel said:


> What's the deal with your flash??? Why is it  underexposed at ISO 1,250 at f/5.6 at 79mm? What kind of flash do you  have?
> 
> Are your batteries in the flash good, and fresh?
> 
> If the posted shot is an un-cropped image, based on the field of view  shown, I would estimate that you're probably around 27 feet distant  (Field of View Calculator would indicate exact distance, but that's  close). You COULD shoot from closer, with a shorter focal  length.



Brand new charged batteries in my Canon 430ex ii speedlite.


----------



## e.rose (Feb 21, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > Theantiquetiger said:
> ...



The wedding can be as informal as it wants to be, but I hope you have a contract.

Because when the MOTB sees the images and potentially decides she hates them (I hope she doesn't, but if she does...), you're gonna be up sh*t creek, because I don't think a verbal statement of "I can't guarantee a single shot" is gonna hold up in court.

Are they *paying* you for this?

And I hope you're taking into account the light the LEDs will produce and I hope they're less powered than the flashes, or else your lighting is gonna look really weird coming from the bottom like that...

You'd be better off using a flash on your camera, turning off the light in the settings of the camera, but leaving the flash assist on to focus. Just my two cents...


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 21, 2014)

May the light be with you!

If I were you, I would shoot it at ISO3600, f/2.8, 1/30s, on camera flash.  The more you expose the ambient, the less flashy it is.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 21, 2014)

wait a minute.....
let me see if I am understanding this. 
the _*other *_photographer is less equipped and less experienced than you... and _*you*_ are shooting your first wedding tomorrow.....
so..._*two*_ inexperienced photographers, who may or may not have all the proper equipment/knowledge to shoot a wedding, are going to be shooting this wedding....at the same time?!?
Plus, the bride says she "doesn't care" about the quality of the pictures of her _*wedding*_?

Ladies and Gentlemen......
I give you.....




Recipe for Disaster. 


*you _*might*_ have a slightly better chance at getting some decent pictures by having the other photographer hold a flash on a light stand with a small softbox on it on to help get you some better lighting and just use a radio trigger. IE: use one flash on camera, and a second flash off camera.

I certainly wish you the best of luck. hopefully the other, more inexperienced photographer wont get in your way much.


----------



## e.rose (Feb 21, 2014)

Robin Usagani said:


> May the light be with you!  If I were you, I would shoot it at ISO3600, f/2.8, 1/30s, on camera flash.  The more you expose the ambient, the less flashy it is.



100%

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## runnah (Feb 21, 2014)

Ugh if you were in Maine I'd come help. Where are they doing the ceremony? Do they have a lighted stage type place? What are you going to do for formals?


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 21, 2014)

e.rose said:


> The wedding can be as informal as it wants to be, but I hope you have a contract.
> 
> Because when the MOTB sees the images and potentially decides she hates them (I hope she doesn't, but if she does...), you're gonna be up sh*t creek, because I don't think a verbal statement of "I can't guarantee a single shot" is gonna hold up in court.
> 
> ...



Doing it for free (MotB is life long friend 40+ years).  I have some concerns about the LED lights, but I may have to make due.

To show you how unplanned this wedding is, the image above was taken about 6:30 (30 mins before the wedding scheduled tomorrow).  They want to do the family portraits before the wedding (after 6pm, about the same time as image above).   I will have the slave flashes for that, so it will not be as bad.


----------



## runnah (Feb 21, 2014)

I would suggest posing them with something behind them so they don't look like animals caught on game cameras. Try using a shallow dof and you could get some bokeh going on any lights.


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 21, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> wait a minute.....
> let me see if I am understanding this.
> the _*other *_photographer is less equipped and less experienced than you... and _*you*_ are shooting your first wedding tomorrow.....
> so..._*two*_ inexperienced photographers, who may or may not have all the proper equipment/knowledge to shoot a wedding, are going to be shooting this wedding....at the same time?!?
> ...



I talked to the other photographer and will basically be my assistant.  I have plenty of good equipment for lighting (two large slave studio lighting, on/off camera 430 speedlite, two LED lights with gels and dimmers)


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 21, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > wait a minute.....
> ...



I mentioned the other person holding a speedlight on a stand because its a technique that works pretty well for moving people. 
studio lights are fine for the formals, where people just stand in one area. when you have people moving around, you need the flashes to move
with you so you can keep the lighting where it needs to be. especially if you want to get different angles of the bride and groom as they walk down the isle. 
 I honestly do not know anything about the LED lights, i have never used them before.


----------



## orljustin (Feb 21, 2014)

"Informal' is not an excuse to give a sucky result.  Ye gods.  Apologize and buy a bunch of disposable flash cameras and hand em out.


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 21, 2014)

These are the LEDs (I have two)







This is my speedlite off camera set up






And these are my Studio slave lights


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 21, 2014)

I agree with Robin, open the aperture, pump up the ISO and slow the shutter speed down as much as you can. Too bad you can't string up lights around the altar and down the aisle. 

Truth is, under the circumstances, this is a lot of pressure and sucks. Telling him that he needs to back out, or find another photographer...blah blah doesn't help him. He's here for advice and help. Not to be chastised. I've not been in this situation, nor do I plan on it. But I hope it all works out and the tips that have been given are helpful


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 21, 2014)

Just went outside and did an impromptu shoot with the same conditions, zero light.  I used one LED to just give me enough light to get focus and used my slave lighting on lowest setting.  Only thing, behind the wedding march, there is nothing for atleast 50 yards.




flash practice by Theantiquetiger, on Flickr


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 21, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> Just went outside and did an impromptu shoot with the same conditions, zero light.  I used one LED to just give me enough light to get focus and used my slave lighting on lowest setting.  Only thing, behind the wedding march, there is nothing for atleast 50 yards.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/theantiquetiger/12687536525/ flash practice by Theantiquetiger, on Flickr



You have a second one correct?

Set it off to the side about 20 yards back and throw light sideways. It'll illuminate the background and also not be so head on


----------



## Derrel (Feb 21, 2014)

Well...the good thing is your DO HAVE a d-slr, and that gives an instantaneous review of each frame shot...so, you're not totally shooting in the dark (pardon the pun).

I shot my first wedding when I was 14 years old, with a Russian-made 35mm SLR and 58mm manual focus lens in a judge's chambers...using Kodacolor print film....at THAT time, the "fastest" color negative was ASA 200...400 ASA color print film would not come along for another three years...

You've got a decent camera AND a flash unit...compared to the God-awful contraption I had, you're a NASA astronaut and I was The Wright Brothers-at Kitty Hawk...so, WTF, really. I mean...you can literally SEE if disaster is hitting...so, it's not like you will have no idea how things are going as the event happens.

High ISO makes the flash "go farther", and you need less flash. One word of advice: have a LOT of fresh alkaline batteries, and for gosh sakes, MARK THEM ahead of time so as to make up "sets", so that you can reliably switch out sets and NEVER have to worry about getting one dud in a set...trust me...MARK the batteries in SETS, ahead of time!!!! When a set starts to get sluggish, DUMP it, and put in a brand-new set. If you do as Robin mentioned, ISO 3200, I think that 'might be' a bit too much ISO, and f/2.8 is risky too...not much DOF at f/2.8, so on close-in groups and posed groups and stuff, f/2.8 is a bad choice; f/5.6 is better, as long as it can get you the DOF needed.

When you shoot the numerous posed, and semi-posed stuff after the ceremony, the LCD and its review can really help you see what the heck is going on.


----------



## JoeW (Feb 22, 2014)

Wow...this is a prescription for a train wreck.  Okay, no more editorial comments by me--you've got a thread full of them and you're trying to manage the situation.

You've gotten a range of good options for dealing with a difficult shooting situations.  I particularly loved Runnah's phrasing of "animals caught on game cameras"...so easy for this to happen.

Let me offer a couple of other ideas:

1.  Set up a portrait station.  Backdrop.  Couple of soft boxes or umbrellas with speed lights on stands.  A prop or two (flowers?  bridal bouquet?  symbol from the wedding?  champagne flutes?) to give stiff people something to do with their hands.  So you may be shooting the ceremony with jacked up ISO, lots of shadow and glare from all of the artificial light, lots of editing demands from the background caught by your slaves but at least with the portrait station you can guarantee some photos that look lovely and professional and will end up on someone's mantel or framed and on the wall.

2.  See if you can get the B&G to pose for you separately at a separate time with better light.

3.  Very tricky given the timing.  But set up and shoot some practice/trail shots and then look at the results and adjust.  Check your work BEFORE you start shooting for keeps and see how you need to adjust (to remove hot spots, to eliminate an ugly shadow or raccoon eyes, to get rid of red eye, etc.).  Better to catch that upfront rather than in post-production.

Best of luck!


----------



## Warhorse (Feb 22, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> Just went outside and did an impromptu shoot with the same conditions, zero light. I used one LED to just give me enough light to get focus and used my slave lighting on lowest setting. Only thing, behind the wedding march, there is nothing for atleast 50 yards.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wish you well. I am just a rank amateur, but with your lighting equipment, and proper placement of such, you may just pull it off.

Please post a couple shots from the wedding. Good luck!


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 22, 2014)

make sure the candles don't catch her dress on fire


----------



## jaomul (Feb 22, 2014)

You may have to take charge of the portraits and some shots. What i mean is the people may want certain shots in certain places that are just not possible in the dark. Scout the area for small light up areas and insist on a few shots there also. If the shots the bridal party want don't work out you may salvage that by some planned shots that you insisted on. Good luck, I don't envy you


----------



## Braineack (Feb 22, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> Just went outside and did an impromptu shoot with the same conditions, zero light.  I used one LED to just give me enough light to get focus and used my slave lighting on lowest setting.  Only thing, behind the wedding march, there is nothing for atleast 50 yards.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Much better than the first result.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 22, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Theantiquetiger said:
> 
> 
> > Just went outside and did an impromptu shoot with the same conditions, zero light.  I used one LED to just give me enough light to get focus and used my slave lighting on lowest setting.  Only thing, behind the wedding march, there is nothing for atleast 50 yards.
> ...



Although, if you look, the older girl has a severe case of redeye...big red eyes...


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 22, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Although, if you look, the older girl has a severe case of redeye...big red eyes...



If that and a little over exposure is my problems, I will call it a good night!!! :thumbup:

Easily fixable in LR




flash practice2 by Theantiquetiger, on Flickr


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 22, 2014)

She, I think, not he. 

Nice picture of the girls, at best tonight you might be getting something, I don't know, salvageable? usable I guess. Good luck, hate to say but I've been shaking my head thru reading the thread. 

With only 6 candles lit I might be hoping the bride doesn't trip and fall flat on her face! geez, nobody's going to be able to see the ceremony very well I wouldn't think much less photograph it. I've done a few photos by candlelight using just the existing light but nothing like this, used a 50mm within a few/several feet of the subject. Tricky. 

If you know the MOB then hopefully that will prevent any potential misunderstandings without a contract etc. and the expectations will be realistic with what you can do. Maybe they'll serve alcoholic beverages at least at the reception! Hope it goes OK and you enjoy the evening.


----------



## e.rose (Feb 22, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> She, I think, not he.



No, he.

The name on the Flickr account is "Chris".

Could still be a girl, but my money is on "dude". 

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## Warhorse (Feb 22, 2014)

Flickr account shows some very impressive shots IMHO.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 22, 2014)

e.rose said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> > She, I think, not he.
> ...



e.rose, do you remember the old Saturday Night Live couple, "Pat" and "Chris"??? There was a movie as well, called "It's Pat", described as, "The comic misadventures of a person of indeterminable gender," on IMDB  It's Pat (1994) - IMDb.

LOL! Just trying to add a bit of levity here.


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 22, 2014)

So how did the wedding shoot go anyway?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 22, 2014)

Yeah Derrel, it _is_ Pat! that was funny, I'd gotten an impression but can't say I know for sure. Maybe we'll find out who the Tiger is and how this went.


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 22, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> So how did the wedding shoot go anyway?



FYI, I am a he, not a she.

The wedding went very well, my slave flashes saved the night.  I just started PP images, here is the first




wedding9a by Theantiquetiger, on Flickr


----------



## 71M (Feb 22, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > So how did the wedding shoot go anyway?
> ...




Well, you did it, so well played.


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 22, 2014)

One more




wedding11a by Theantiquetiger, on Flickr


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 22, 2014)

I hope the couple likes them. For the price, they are great.


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 22, 2014)

Here is the Flickr set (as I build it)

Amber's Wedding - a set on Flickr


----------



## Derrel (Feb 23, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> Here is the Flickr set (as I build it)
> 
> Amber's Wedding - a set on Flickr



Whew! The first and fourth shots, of the bride with her father, are solid. Especially considering this event was at NIGHT, outside. The horizontal of the father of the bride and the bride, the color one above in post #36, looks theatrical, and decent. You actually have pretty decent lighting on both people, and a decent camera point of view!


----------



## fokker (Feb 23, 2014)

Had a look through the flickr set, looks like you did a good job. Phew!


----------



## Annaa (Feb 23, 2014)

I think you did very well under the circumstances. Good job!


----------



## Warhorse (Feb 23, 2014)

Congratulations!

Once you described your lighting equipment, and I looked at your flickr account that you posted, I knew you would do well.


----------



## Pattihogan (Feb 23, 2014)

A 70-200 2.8 and doesn't have a SB800 that assistant could hold and he can shoot wireless?


----------



## Nevermore1 (Feb 23, 2014)

You did an amszing job considering the limits you had!


----------



## e.rose (Feb 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> e.rose, do you remember the old Saturday Night Live couple, "Pat" and "Chris"??? There was a movie as well, called "It's Pat", described as, "The comic misadventures of a person of indeterminable gender," on IMDB  It's Pat (1994) - IMDb.  LOL! Just trying to add a bit of levity here.



Haha, no, I have never seen that, but that's funny.

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## JustJazzie (Feb 23, 2014)

The only wedding I was ever in was one where the brides cousin purchased her FIRST dslr the week before the wedding and was the sole "photographer" the bride has got plenty of those photos hung on her wall.

I had no photographer when I got married (at a courthouse) and had my FIL take "wedding pictures" several months later. 90% of them were pretty terrible, but I cherish the few that DID turn out.

My only point is- not EVERY bride has the funds for a professional photographer and not every bride is so picky about quality. When a bride knowingly requests an amateur photographer to shoot her wedding it's usually because she doesn't have any other options.  So don't let all the naysayers get you down. Even if you only get ONE awesome photo, it will be more than they would have without you, and even the bad photos will be cherished because it was their memories you helped capture.
Good luck!


----------



## Braineack (Feb 24, 2014)

I think what you were able to pull off, considering your plea for help, was decent.

but you REALLY need to watch your focus.  Plenty of shots with missed focus on your set.


----------



## runnah (Feb 24, 2014)

I would soften the black on all of these. Way too dark. But otherwise you well in the given circumstance.


----------



## manicmike (Feb 24, 2014)

I'd say you did pretty well.


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 24, 2014)

Where are all the naysayers from the 1st page of this thread? E.rose, Pixmedic, etc?

There is a link to the Flickr set back on page 3, reply #38. 

I do agree they need lightened. I have always noticed things appear darker on line than they do in my LR.  They are still in my LR and will only take a few seconds to adjust. 

I will also admit there are some soft images, but not too bad. Good enough for the layman's eye.  They are extremely pleased with what I have given them so far. I have about 50 more images to work. I took little over 300, knocked out about half of them on first glance, and will wind up with about 100 images (66 on Flickr right now).


----------



## manicmike (Feb 24, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> Where are all the naysayers from the 1st page of this thread? E.rose, Pixmedic, etc?
> 
> There is a link to the Flickr set back on page 3, reply #38.
> 
> ...



I think the very first shot posted didn't give many of us high hopes. I think they'd agree that the ones from the wedding look a lot better than that first shot.


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 24, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> Where are all the naysayers from the 1st page of this thread? E.rose, Pixmedic, etc?  There is a link to the Flickr set back on page 3, reply #38.  I do agree they need lightened. I have always noticed things appear darker on line than they do in my LR.  They are still in my LR and will only take a few seconds to adjust.  I will also admit there are some soft images, but not too bad. Good enough for the layman's eye.  They are extremely pleased with what I have given them so far. I have about 50 more images to work. I took little over 300, knocked out about half of them on first glance, and will wind up with about 100 images (66 on Flickr right now).



Good for you. I was pleased too. Considering the circumstances, I think they turned out extremely well. One of my close photography buddies once put it to me this way:

"The viewer is seeing an image of their loved one. They don't pixel peep, critique sharpness, and appreciate the bokeh like we do. Produce the image your client desires." 

I'm glad your client is happy, and I agree your produced some quality images. Keep it up


----------



## e.rose (Feb 24, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> Where are all the naysayers from the 1st page of this thread? E.rose, Pixmedic, etc?
> 
> There is a link to the Flickr set back on page 3, reply #38.
> 
> ...



Oh, I've been here the whole time, and I saw your Flickr post. You just don't really want to know what I think, so I've elected to keep my opinion to myself :sillysmi: 

(And to those of you gasping in shock at the thought of that... I do that MORE OFTEN here than you THINK I do.  But if you hit your head on the way down during your feinting spell, don't come find me to pay your medical bills cause I'm flat broke.  )

OP, if your bride and the MoTB are happy... that's all that matters. Good for you. :sillysmi:


----------



## fokker (Feb 24, 2014)

Let's see the photos from your first wedding eroselayball:


----------



## e.rose (Feb 24, 2014)

fokker said:


> Let's see the photos from your first wedding eroselayball:



Why? I already know they suck.  I don't need anyone to tell me that. 

But my bride was happy. Which is why I said to the OP if his bride is happy, then that's all that matters.  

Cause that is legitimately all that matters at this point.

I didn't comment on the images, because he wasn't asking for critique. So I didn't give it. Seems fair enough to me.

Had I posted my first wedding way back when, and asked for critique, as I did with nearly every single shoot I've ever done, it would have been ripped to shreds, and rightly so. And I would have taken that critique and learned from it and tried to improve, like I did with every CC post I ever did.

I don't care how new or how experienced (general) you are, people are going to have an opinion of (general) your work, just like I have my opinion. 

I wasn't ever out to start a fight with this one. I'm not one for sugar coating as you well know, haha. So yes, I said my opinion of taking on a project like this, with the expressed level of experience and the photographic evidence to go along with it in the OP, but if you notice, while probably not as light and fluffy as everyone else, I *did* try to help.

My first post suggested there had to be some light somewhere. My second post I suggested how I would probably try to achieve focus to avoid any strange shadows coming from LEDs on the ground. My third post I agreed with Schwetty, because... sh*t, that's how I shoot a ton of lowlight weddings I second shoot. He's right about that. He's experienced enough to know. After that I stopped any real contributions, because I have a job, and I've been at it for the majority of the going-ons of this thread and didn't really have time to think through anything else. Plus... I'm pretty sure the wedding was over by that point anyway, so what was the point of contributing any further? 

Then the images were posted, I had a look, I gathered my opinion of them, and I moved on.

Would you *rather* I had come back guns-a-blazing? :lmao:


----------



## fokker (Feb 25, 2014)

My point was simply that the guy did a pretty good job all things considered.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 25, 2014)

Naysayers eh?
You asked for opinions. The pictures are ok. I didn't care much for most of the B&W conversions.  Plus, you posted a pic here asking someone to fix it...so you could give it to a client. What is it you are looking for from us "naysayers"? A congratulations for not ruining the wedding photos? Fine. Congratulations, your pictures were pretty decent. Don't get me wrong though, I can totally relate. I will freely admit that I have also shot under adverse conditions in the past and given the client mediocre pictures. My battle cry is the same as all the rest....As long as the client is happy.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 25, 2014)

Pattihogan said:


> A 70-200 2.8 and doesn't have a SB800 that assistant could hold and he can shoot wireless?



How would he be able to shoot wireless with an SB-800. They shoot canon.


----------



## JoeW (Feb 25, 2014)

First, thanks for posting results.  I can't tell you how many times on photography forums someone has said "what would you advise?" or just "help me with this" and then they disappear in to the night and folks are left wondering...."did we make a difference?  how did it turn out?".

Second, you had a very tough shooting environment and you got some good results.  Kudos to you.

Third, I agree with the comments about softening the black background.  I think you've also got a number of instances where you'd going to want to remove some white highlights that distract (the young boy with the table full of objects for instance) or at least burn them a bit.  But that's always the challenge of shooting in a tough setting with bad light--it requires a lot more post production.

BTW, I think this is a great thread for now discussing "lessons learned" or "important lessons."  For instance, a real obvious one that jumps out at me is that you took the opportunity to scout the place out during the same time you'd be shooting the next day (rather than just walking around during daylight or just getting there a couple of hours early).  You had a pretty clear idea (not conceptual but fricking realistic idea) of how challenging it would be.  You tested the environment and looked at the results and played with options.  For anyone who is new to wedding photography or shooting in an environment you don't typically shoot a wedding at (such as your first wedding on the beach or at a waterfall or in a small dimly lit chapel), I can't emphasize enough the importance of scouting the place out, testing with your gear and then looking at the results on a monitor.  Kudos to you for doing this and it's a lesson to anyone else who is considering shooting a wedding for free to build their portfolio but b/c it's free, doesn't want to invest the time to go there the day before and shoot some test shots--you can't skimp the prep work if you're going to have anything to hand over to the bride afterwards.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 25, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> Where are all the naysayers from the 1st page of this thread? E.rose, Pixmedic, etc?<BR>



This was pretty obnoxious.

I saw your pictures. You should be congratulated that your shots weren't utter garbage, but they were honestly not much&nbsp;better than "Oh my god, those actually aren't the worst wedding pictures I've seen!"

You have demonstrated, in this thread, an ignorance of how lighting works in open situations. You have shown us that you either do not know about, or have not bothered with, or have not SUCCESSFULLY implemented color/brightness calibration. There are a few other things, too, but I'm not gonna bother rattling them off. 

Suffice to say, you're new at this. If I were you I'd spend more time thanking my lucky stars that this went as well as it did, and far less time thumbing your nose at your detractors.


----------



## e.rose (Feb 25, 2014)

fokker said:


> My point was simply that the guy did a pretty good job all things considered.



Asking me to post images from my first wedding isn't making the point that *he* did a pretty good job all things considered... that's trying to deflect the attention onto the poor job that I definitely did with my first wedding so the heat can be directed at me and not at him, and he can feel good about the level of work that he did, because someone else's first wedding wasn't very good either. 

If that's what your point is, you would have just said, "Hey, e.rose... I think he did a pretty good job, all things considered." 

That's not how I form my opinions.

If someone asks for critique on something and I have a lot of specific negative feedback to give him, yeah, I may go, "But hey. We all sucked at this once, so keep working at it!" Cause we did all suck at this once. But that's not the general feel I'm getting in this thread, so I've been quiet, because everyone commenting that he did such a fabulous job, and the snarky response from the OP gives me the distinct feeling that we've moved on to head patting, and I'm not into that, nor do I hold that opinion, so... I never gave it.

Everyone is allowed to hold the opinion they have. Like I said, the only opinion that *really* matters at this point in this situation is the bride's, and if she's fine with the images, then great. There's no point in asking for the "naysayers" to come back to pat anyone on the back, or to try to get me to agree that he did a pretty good job all things considered because 1. Just because someone else thinks that, doesn't mean I do and 2. What's the point? 

If you INSIST on me writing something encouraging to him... then fine. Here it is, just like above:

_Hey. We all sucked at this once. We all had terrible firsts... "not so good firsts"... "okay" firsts... "could have been better firsts"... Hell, we've all had those kinds of shoots as seconds, thirds, and fourths... Sh*t, I still have those moments NOW, because *I'm* still learning and growing and gaining knew knowledge with each shoot... So keep working at it! With more practice and more knowledge, you'll get better. But as long as no one is coming back to sue you, and the client is happy, that's all that matters right now. Learn from this experience, grow, get better, do better, rinse and repeat._

That good enough for you?


----------



## e.rose (Feb 25, 2014)

^^^And if ANY of the above sounds rambling and doesn't make any sense...................... bite me. I just woke up. I'm waiting for Comcast to come between the hours of 8 and 10 to install a business line, and I HAVEN'T HAD MY COFFE YET.

::RAWR::

:lmao:   :hug::


----------



## Braineack (Feb 25, 2014)

coffee? don't lie, you go straight to the wine.


----------



## e.rose (Feb 25, 2014)

Braineack said:


> coffee? don't lie, you go straight to the wine.



I have an interview for a promotion today, so you have NO IDEA how I bad I want that wine right now.

I may... or may not be... freaking out a little bit. :lmao:


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 25, 2014)

The ISOs are too low IMO.... if I had known there will be fire, I would have suggested gelling your flashes.


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 25, 2014)

Robin Usagani said:


> The ISOs are too low IMO.... if I had known there will be fire, I would have suggested gelling your flashes.



Robin, here's a question for you. If you didn't have gels: Set your WB to CTO (e.g. cloudy) and shoot the entire image and process the fire in post, or vice versa?


----------



## e.rose (Feb 25, 2014)

reavesce said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > The ISOs are too low IMO.... if I had known there will be fire, I would have suggested gelling your flashes.
> ...



All that's going to do is make the fire that much warmer, so the flash is *still* going to look cool in comparison.

You need the gel to bring the flash up to the same temperature as the fire so everything looks cohesive, if that makes sense.


----------



## runnah (Feb 25, 2014)

e.rose said:


> You need the gel to bring the flash up to the same temperature as the fire so everything looks cohesive, if that makes sense.



Wouldn't the flash melt if I did that?


----------



## e.rose (Feb 25, 2014)

runnah said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > You need the gel to bring the flash up to the same temperature as the fire so everything looks cohesive, if that makes sense.
> ...



Not if you send me $1,000 for the fire-retardant flash protector device that I have invented!!!!

PM me for my paypal account information....


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 25, 2014)

e.rose said:


> The wedding can be as informal as it wants to be, but I hope you have a contract.
> 
> Because when the MOTB sees the images and potentially decides she hates them (I hope she doesn't, but if she does...), you're gonna be up sh*t creek, because I don't think a verbal statement of "I can't guarantee a single shot" is gonna hold up in court.



This always seems to be the "go to" response; that "you could be sued" approach in case there's no contract.

If there's no contract, anyone who would be a plaintiff hasn't a leg to stand on, simply because they have nothing on which to base their argument. They have nothing from the OP to indicate that they were promised _anything_. The MOtB cab take the OP to court; sure. Idiotic lawsuits occur every day. But what would she use to show a judge that she had a reasonable expectation? 

If "I can't guarantee a single shot" isn't going to hold up, neither will "I expected acceptable results".

The OP isn't the only one without a contract, and that's important to remember.

Contracts work both ways. Most people forget that...


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 25, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> The wedding is poorly planned and very informal.



On what planet was that wedding "poorly planned and very informal"?


----------



## e.rose (Feb 25, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > The wedding can be as informal as it wants to be, but I hope you have a contract.
> ...



No, you're right. It does work both ways.

I guess I was just coming from the perspective of the fact that I would personally rather have one than not. Also, even though the case may be thrown out, it won't necessarily stop someone from attempting to go after you at first, and to me... that is a SUPER stressful situation, I can't even begin to think about trying to deal with, without having an anxiety attack. :lmao:

But then again... there's a reason I stopped doing weddings... The drama my good friend is going through right now with a couple whose wedding we're supposed to be documenting together (I'm second shooting for him) in June is enough to reassure me that decision was in my best interest. 

But you're right. Even if there was no contract and she did go after him, there's no guarantee she'd win.


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 25, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> Naysayers eh?
> You asked for opinions.



I was referring to the first page where you jumped in with your worthless two cents.  I didn't ask for opinions, I asked suggestions on how to salvage a wedding with some lighting, that was going to be in near black conditions.  You, E.Rose, and a couple others do nothing but jump in and basically say it will be a train wreck, not giving helpful suggestions.   After I shot the wedding, y'all disappear until I ask where are the "naysayers".


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 25, 2014)

JoeW said:


> First, thanks for posting results.  I can't tell you how many times on photography forums someone has said "what would you advise?" or just "help me with this" and then they disappear in to the night and folks are left wondering...."did we make a difference?  how did it turn out?".
> 
> Second, you had a very tough shooting environment and you got some good results.  Kudos to you.



Well said!!!


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 25, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> I was referring to the first page where you jumped in with your worthless two cents.  I didn't ask for opinions, I asked suggestions on how to salvage a wedding with some lighting, that was going to be in near black conditions.  You, E.Rose, and a couple others do nothing but jump in and basically say it will be a train wreck, not giving helpful suggestions.   After I shot the wedding, y'all disappear until I ask where are the "naysayers".



No, I'm pretty sure I offered some lighting advice. Plus, some of us have other things to do besides hang out at the computer 24 hours a day making sure we immediately comment on your photos. 
I give them a C+, giving you extra credit for the conditions.  

But if it makes you feel any better , congratulations.

Good job kiddo!


----------



## e.rose (Feb 25, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> You, E.Rose, and a couple others do nothing but jump in and basically say it will be a train wreck, not giving helpful suggestions.



Soooo... you're saying you didn't read the post where we (or at least I, I'm too lazy to go back to see what Pix said) *were* giving suggestions and trying to be helpful? Or was it that you just chose to ignore it because we didn't come flying in with pom-poms and a "You got this, kid!" cheer?



Theantiquetiger said:


> After I shot the wedding, y'all disappear until I ask where are the "naysayers".



And you're also wishing we had stayed to give you grief instead of taking a backseat and waiting for results? And then after seeing the results you, again, wanted us to come back and give you grief? Well, gee, that just seems like the very opposite of what most people want when they post images.

I'm happy to acknowledge and take that feedback from you. Next time someone posts images I don't particularly care for, I will be sure to give them all kinds of hell, even though they didn't ask for critique... you know... just to prove I'm still here and all. Because obviously every single opinion that rolls through our heads should be spoken always, no matter whether or not we feel it is appropriate to do so at the time, and no matter the consequences. :roll: 

It's like you're mad we didn't come running back in here after you posted to attack you.

This place is so backwards anymore...

First we get yelled at for sh*tting on and critiquing newbie work that didn't ask for critique... and now when we're gracious enough to not rip apart work that wasn't asked to be critiqued... we still get in trouble. 

(Ah man... Runnah... I think NOW it's time for that wine. )

I'm gonna go finish up watching my workshop now, before I have to head into work.

:ats your head:: You have a nice day now. :sillysmi:


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 25, 2014)

As for critiquing my images, critique away.  I know there are some images that are soft, underexposed, etc.  I am my worst critic and has already critiqued them.  I have to work with what I have.  If you notice, most of my images, the subjects are not looking at me.  This is the type of photographer I am.  I am a street/candid/life photographer, not a portrait photographer (something the MotB knew when she asked me to do it).  I actually cannot stand taking portraits or any kind of "staged" images.  The other photographer took all the "portrait" images, while I stood back and grabbed my shots mostly with the 70-200.  The bride and MotB are dumbfounded with the results I came up with.  They have actually backtracked and offered to pay me for the images now.  I still turned them down.  I have a real job that pays nicely.  I do photography as a hobby, and the first way to kill a hobby is to start making a job out of it.

Only thing I told them is not to take the images off Flickr and print at Walmart or Walgreens, just use the ones on Flickr for Facebook, etc.  I told them I am not completely happy with the results and when they pick images to print, let me know, because I will rework them and print via Adoramapix or CG Pro Prints etc.


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 25, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> No, I'm pretty sure I offered some lighting advice. Plus, some of us have other things to do besides hang out at the computer 24 hours a day making sure we immediately comment on your photos.



OK, I went back and looked, you offered some lighting advice *after* a paragraph rant of how it was going to be a disaster.  I usually just skip over post like this after the first couple sentences.

Then you and (mostly) E.Rose continue to post in this thread, defending yourselves (from other posters) about how you carried yourselves in this thread.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 25, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> OK, I went back and looked, you offered some lighting advice after a paragraph rant of how it was going to be a disaster.  I usually just skip over post like this after the first couple sentences.
> 
> Then you and (mostly) E.Rose continue to post in this thread, defending yourselves (from other posters) about how you carried yourselves in this thread.



Again, no, I said it was a "recipe for disaster". I did not say it "would be" a diaster. 

Twice now you have made false accusations against me, yet have the nerve to complain about how "I" carried myself in this thread.


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 25, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Naysayers eh?
> ...



You'd do well to lose the pissy attitude, Chief.

You're an exception. Experience here has shown us that when people come here and post as you do, 99 times out of 100 it's an unqualified disaster. The fact that you got results as good as you did, seeing as this was your first wedding, may well have been due to nothing more than a stroke of luck. I'm not knocking that; luck can be a damn good thing to run across when you need it. 

But don't come back with "Where are the naysayers?" as though you knew all along it would turn out well. Because, if you knew that, you wouldn't have posted in the first place...


----------



## Theantiquetiger (Feb 25, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Theantiquetiger said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



i came back with an attitude because of all the naysayers. 

Like your mother use to say, if you don't have something nice (or constructive) to say, don't say anything. 

The best advice in this thread was from Derrel. He has always show great respect to all members new and old. 

This is thread was started because I was asking for advice on how to shoot the wedding, not people's opinions on how I was going to fail miserably!!!


----------



## manicmike (Feb 25, 2014)

This thread has just about reached epic status.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 25, 2014)

Seems like some of what's being posted is just telling it like it is; this seemed more like just taking photos for a friend of her daughter's wedding than what might be considered actually shooting your first wedding. Asking the night before wasn't much time for people to offer suggestions or for you to try out ideas you might be given of what could work in this situation. From what I saw it looked like you got some decent enough shots considering the lighting (or lack thereof) but the backgrounds and framing I think could be better. 

It seems like you got some photos that your friends are happy with so that seemed to meet their needs. I've been a photographer for years but if someone asked me to do something that I felt was not in my area of expertise I'd probably refer them elsewhere and maybe offer suggestions of where to find someone. Glad it worked out, this type situation seems like it could just as easily have had disastrous results and unhappy friends.


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 25, 2014)

Theantiquetiger said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Theantiquetiger said:
> ...



As I said, there's a long history of wreckage when it comes to someone saying they're about to shoot their first wedding. Those who do so after being a second shooter seem to do pretty good. Those who seem to be going at it with no experience, as you did, fail far more often than they succeed.

As I said, your success could likely be attributed to luck as to anything else. Given the fact that you declared a "wedding emergency", I would submit that luck was, indeed, your friend. Accordingly, it's poor form to come back and accuse others of being "naysayers" as if you knew, all along, that it would be a success. 

The fact of the matter is that you didn't...


----------



## manaheim (Feb 25, 2014)

I'm gonna close this thread on the grounds of an exceptionally poor attitude causing spiraling negativity and hostility, that is just going to wind up as a train wreck.

I bet you $10 the OP "likes" this.


----------

