# L and S got hitched.  LOTS of photos!



## bennielou (Sep 9, 2011)

I did my best to group them so there would be less. 

1.






2.





3.





4.





5.





6.






7.





8.





9.





10.





11.





12.





13.





14.





15.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 9, 2011)

16.





17.





18.





19.





20.





21.





22.





23.





24.





25.





26.





27.





28.





29.





30.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 9, 2011)

Good looking couple.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 9, 2011)

31.





32.





33.





34.





35.





36.





37.





38.





39.





40.





41.





42.





43.





44.





45.





46.





47.





48.





49.





50.





51.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 9, 2011)

52.





53.





54.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 9, 2011)

Nice!


----------



## bennielou (Sep 9, 2011)

Thanks Mike and 2Wheel.

Holy Cow, I just noticed how crooked that church steeple looks.  Yikes!!!!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 9, 2011)

Nice work!


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 9, 2011)

Nice set!

I'm interested in your lighting setup (for the indoor shots like #43), care to share?


----------



## bennielou (Sep 9, 2011)

Thanks guys!

Hey Trever,  the lighting is a bit different in each photo.  Some is no flash, all the ceremony is no flash, the couple photos had on camera flash, and the reception was on camera flash.  Which photos would you like to know more about and I can give you more detailed info.

(BTW, this was the wedding I was talking about being so DARK!  Not really the ceremony itself, but the reception was a cave as far as lighting.  At first they had the lights on, but then they turned them off, and it was lit by candlelight only.  They had covered the tables and a lot of the walls in black fabric, so it sucked out all the flash pretty much.  The walls were yellow, and the ceiling was about 60 foot high and maroon so no bouncing.  It was a TOUGH reception.  There were two videographers there who were also having a ton of problems).


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 9, 2011)

Yes, #43 was the one that caught my eye. I'm shooting tomorrow in similar settings hence my question. Looks like you did real well with the available light.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 9, 2011)

On number 43:

That one tickles me because that is the groom's mom, and the guy she is dancing with is a family friend, and it totally looks like he's checking out her butt. LOL.

Anyhoo, normally I use my flash facing backwards (on a 35 mm, close up), but it was so dark that I pointed my flash 2/3s forward.  I use my flash at 2/3 power, as to let some ambient leak in.  Otherwise, especially in this setting, I would have had black backgrounds and washed out ghost like people.

Hope that makes sense.  Like I said, it was a fly by the seat of your pants and constantly adjust kind of reception.  I wish wedding coordinators would stop messing with the lights every 5 seconds.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 9, 2011)

bennielou said:


> Thanks guys!
> 
> Hey Trever,  the lighting is a bit different in each photo.  Some is no flash, all the ceremony is no flash, the couple photos had on camera flash, and the reception was on camera flash.  Which photos would you like to know more about and I can give you more detailed info.
> 
> (BTW, this was the wedding I was talking about being so DARK!  Not really the ceremony itself, but the reception was a cave as far as lighting.  At first they had the lights on, but then they turned them off, and it was lit by candlelight only.  They had covered the tables and a lot of the walls in black fabric, so it sucked out all the flash pretty much.  The walls were yellow, and the ceiling was about 60 foot high and maroon so no bouncing.  It was a TOUGH reception.  There were two videographers there who were also having a ton of problems).



Couple photos...  you state OC flash. Obviously diffused.. bounce card?


----------



## Stanza (Sep 9, 2011)

Nice shots!!  Congrats, keep going!


----------



## tirediron (Sep 9, 2011)

Nice work.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 9, 2011)

Thanks again you guys!

One of the team took the following shot that I hope explain this a bit better.  Thanks to our wonderful team member George, who goes by Kerbouchard on this forum.  (We love us some George!)

They must have turned up the lights for a nano second, because this is Mike and I with our flashes turned half way back.  The diffusers are on the cams, and we are using battery packs to recycle the flash in a hurry.






The rest of the time, we used the flash in this position (indicated by the red slash)





Again, I hope this makes sense!


----------



## bennielou (Sep 9, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks guys!
> ...



Couple shots were taken with the flash turned 1/2 backwards like in the above photo.  These were taken in a hallway, were there was more light, so I didn't need to turn the flash forward at all.  I like to have a lot of color in a photo, and turning my flash 1/2 way back at lower power, or all the way back on occassion seems to get that for me.

It's so funny, because I always have camera savvy guests tell me, "Do you know your flash is turned the wrong way?"  They are surprised when I say "Yes".


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Sep 9, 2011)

Beautiful!!! I hope they always remain as happy as they look right now.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 9, 2011)

I noticed the flash head position immediately in that shot


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 9, 2011)

cool shots, and nice to know about the flash position. 

hehe I like the #8 photo, looks like she is checking herself out


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 10, 2011)

Good stuff.  There are a few in there of mine that I wish you would have deleted(like #40), but overall, great job.  

It was a blast...even if it was in a light sucking cave.  Thanks for sharing and thanks for having me.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 11, 2011)

Do 40 is killer! (IMO)


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 11, 2011)

bennielou said:


> Do 40 is killer! (IMO)



#40 looks like I missed focus.  Nothing looks sharp to me.  I wish I would have nailed it, but that was the story of the night.  It seems like everything and everybody was against us.  I would be about to take the perfect shot and everybody would turn away.  It felt like I was always a split second late on this one.

Also, there was one shot I was surprised not to see.  I thought I nailed the one of the bride kissing her Dad when he was giving her away.  I guess it didn't make the cut?


----------



## twocolor (Sep 12, 2011)

LOVE, LOVE, LOVE!  There are so many emotions captured in this series!  Great job as usual!


----------



## Rockkkkin (Sep 12, 2011)

#26 & 37 are my fav!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 12, 2011)

This is the photo I was talking about...



DSC_2102 by Kerbouchard, on Flickr


----------



## bennielou (Sep 12, 2011)

Thank you so much Twocolor and Rockkkkin!


----------



## bennielou (Sep 12, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> This is the photo I was talking about...
> 
> 
> 
> DSC_2102 by Kerbouchard, on Flickr



George, I don't see a focus problem here.  You did good!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 12, 2011)

bennielou said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > This is the photo I was talking about...
> ...


#40 is the one I thought I had a focus problem.  This picture was one I thought I nailed and was surprised not to see.  Sorry for being unclear.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 12, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



You nailed it my friend.  I would have underexposed in a curves layer but damn those cone lights!


----------



## Diddy2theJJ (Sep 12, 2011)

Wow...great photos! I love looking at you and your team's work. The lighting really strikes me. I'm constantly trying to improve my lighting!


----------

