# Shooting my first wedding.. Tips



## dimples_giggles_1009 (Apr 2, 2012)

I'm going be be shooting my first wedding Saturday. I'm really quite nervous about it cause that is such a special time for 2 people and I don't want to flunk it up. It's going to be in a church and quite dim lighting. The gear I have to use will be my canon eos 60d with 18-135mm & 50mm 1.8 and attachment flash canon speedlite 430ex II. Any tips/advice to ease the process.

Added note:
(there will be a pro photographer there....) I'm a secondary shooter gaining experience just would like tips from others that have shot weddings before and what you learned.


----------



## russellsheath (Apr 2, 2012)

Haven't ever photographed a wedding dimples but hopefully one day I will. i mainly take photos of family memebers. Check them out here Russell Sheath Photo Blog

I would say keep it simple. And get LOTS of detail shots. The flowers, the favours, the setting etc. All of which build up a fantastic album. Move around lots to get lots of angles too.

Let me know how it goes

Russ xx


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 2, 2012)

Based on what I have seen of your work so far, All I can do is wish you luck! I don't think you are ready! I really hope that the bride and groom know what they are getting!

Especially since you posted this two days ago! 



dimples_giggles_1009 said:


> Have a canon 60D and* i always shoot  on auto mode **hide** never in a different setting.*.. anyone have any  tips or threads to help me venture out and try new things with manual an  changing aperture levels which I only have learned a little about... I  know that can make a world of difference.... I have the fantastic  plastic 50 1.8 & the kit lens that came with my camera 18-135is  & canon speed lite 430ex II
> 
> I mainly shoot pictures of children and couples. ;-)




And you had really better be insured (liability)... because if they sue you... you could be TOAST!


----------



## SCraig (Apr 2, 2012)

A wedding is a very important event for those involved.  It is an event that would be very difficult and expensive to reproduce, and one that, good or bad, they will remember for a long time.  A wedding is also NOT the place to be learning how to shoot one as the first photographer.  You should already know how what to do long before you get there through experience with another photographer.  Asking for tips 5 days beforehand is not a good beginning, it is a recipe for disaster.  I've shot weddings, both as a second camera and a first, and I will never, ever, not for anything in the world do it again.

Shoot absolutely everything in sight.  Everything.  Bracket every single important shot; 2 stops under, 1 stop under, properly metered, 1 stop over, and 2 stops over.  That way you stand a decent chance of one of them being good.  Shoot every family member on both sides several times.  Shoot the kids, shoot the visitors, shoot the clothes, shoot the church, shoot every single thing you can see and then shoot them again.  You are going to have to overcome your lack of experience with sheer overkill in quantity and hope for the best.


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 2, 2012)

Seeing your equipment, you'll need the flash 100% of the time while the 18-135 is mounted, and most, if not all of the time with the 50 f1.8. I strongly urge you to get an L bracket and short flash cable to get the flash off the camera, or you'll be fixing a lot of red-eye in post processing. Also, wherever possible, aim the flash to bounce off the ceiling or whatever, again to reduce red-eye. In most churches, however, you'll have to aim the flash more directly. I'm not sure about the 430 ex ii, but if it has a built-in flip-down diffuser, use that, too, unless you need the 'reach' of a brighter flash.

Be sure to set the flash-menu on your 60D to enable red-eye reduction. That way the flash will give a little mini-flash before the big flash to minimize the red-eye. 

Also, be on the lookout for wall-scounce lighting or other bright 'hot spots' and avoid having them in the picture. I did my first (and last!) wedding as an (ex-)family member, but as 3rd shooter (2 paid pros there) and that and the dim incandescent lighting really caused me problems. Thankfully, the pros KNEW how to take good shots.

Lastly, look through wedding pictures others have posted here and at other web sites and see what they take pictures of. Everything from the bride and groom getting dressed, to closeups of the rings, bride arrival at church and final 'primping', nervous groom, THEN comes the aisle. A couple of shots of each person walking down the aisle, but don't be directly in front of them. Be off to the side a bit. You might want to zoom in from afar with the 18-135, but your flash won't reach that far! During the ceremony, I tried to be as inconspicous as possible. Try not to "interrupt" the "Do you...I do" with a flash! They are shaking already! If you are rock-steady at that point (seated, kneeling), you MAY want to try the 'auto w/no flash' setting on the 60D for a couple shots...but don't expect them to turn out due to yours or their shaking.

And, of course, first married kiss, outside the church, and lots and lots of pix at the reception. 

Lastly, as others have said many times before...be sure to let the bride & groom know in advance you are NOT a pro and that the results may be less than expected.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 2, 2012)

SCraig said:


> A wedding is a very important event for those involved.  It is an event that would be very difficult and expensive to reproduce, and one that, good or bad, they will remember for a long time.  A wedding is also NOT the place to be learning how to shoot one as the first photographer.  You should already know how what to do long before you get there through experience with another photographer.  Asking for tips 5 days beforehand is not a good beginning, it is a recipe for disaster.  I've shot weddings, both as a second camera and a first, and I will never, ever, not for anything in the world do it again.
> 
> Shoot absolutely everything in sight.  Everything.  Bracket every single important shot; 2 stops under, 1 stop under, properly metered, 1 stop over, and 2 stops over.  That way you stand a decent chance of one of them being good.  Shoot every family member on both sides several times.  Shoot the kids, shoot the visitors, shoot the clothes, shoot the church, shoot every single thing you can see and then shoot them again.  You are going to have to overcome your lack of experience with sheer overkill in quantity and hope for the best.



Yea.. 10,000 shots might give you a chance! Got that many memory cards? lol!


----------



## tirediron (Apr 2, 2012)

WHY is there never a wall to hit your head against when you need one?


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 2, 2012)

tirediron said:


> WHY is there never a wall to hit your head against when you need one?



My girlfriend laughed her A$$ off, when she read this! lol!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 2, 2012)

tirediron said:


> WHY is there never a wall to hit your head against when you need one?



Aw.man, that's soooo traditional!!! Come on, move into the modern era...take the heel of one hand, and vigorously SLAM it INTO the forehead. The net effect is the same, and it's also much cooler!!! (And by vigorously, I mean slam the chit out of that forehead!! Make it HURT!!!)


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 2, 2012)

This is going to be a disaster...

My tip is to make sure that the bride, groom, parents, friends, etc know that you fully expect it to be a disaster and that they should expect the same thing.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 2, 2012)

Derrel said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > WHY is there never a wall to hit your head against when you need one?
> ...


You haven't figured out by now I'm a 'traditional' kind of guy?


----------



## SCraig (Apr 2, 2012)

bratkinson said:


> Seeing your equipment, you'll need the flash 100% of the time while the 18-135 is mounted, and most, if not all of the time with the 50 f1.8. I strongly urge you to get an L bracket and short flash cable to get the flash off the camera, or you'll be fixing a lot of red-eye in post processing. Also, wherever possible, aim the flash to bounce off the ceiling or whatever, again to reduce red-eye. In most churches, however, you'll have to aim the flash more directly. I'm not sure about the 430 ex ii, but if it has a built-in flip-down diffuser, use that, too, unless you need the 'reach' of a brighter flash.
> 
> Be sure to set the flash-menu on your 60D to enable red-eye reduction. That way the flash will give a little mini-flash before the big flash to minimize the red-eye.
> 
> ...


You may not be able to use a flash.  Not all weddings allow it so be certain to check beforehand.  The advice to bounce your flash is a good one but make certain that whatever you bounce it off of is white.  The light from the flash will pick up a color tint of whatever it is bounced off.

If you use that 1.8 lens be very, very aware of your depth of field.  At f/1.8 it is going to be very narrow and you are going to have to watch out for it.

If you have to use available light watch your white balance.  The bride paid a lot of money for that wedding gown and she does not want to see it the wrong color in photographs.

That's all I've got.  You are on your own.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 2, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> This is going to be a disaster...


I sincerely hope not, but I'm afraid that there's a LOT of room for things to go wrong.


----------



## Mrgiggls (Apr 2, 2012)

dimples, as you can see, this community regards wedding photography as something akin to a Secret Service agent covering "Tha Man" on a public relations tour of rural Afghanistan.  You better know your bizz-nass LOL

We're really not saying these things to hurtful, we just want you to understand the implications of taking on a wedding.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 2, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > This is going to be a disaster...
> ...



There is a lot more room for it to go wrong than for it to go right.  I've shot around 50 weddings as an assistant and always turn out great shots.  I've shot one on my own 'as a favor' and it was a disaster.

I couldn't even imagine going into that situation with the gear the OP has and the experience she has.  Unfortunately, this will be a disaster.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 2, 2012)

May the light be with you.


----------



## Deo (Apr 2, 2012)

Just try your best, don't afraid to take thousands of shots, and get a shot list to help your organize and not miss any shots.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 2, 2012)




----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 2, 2012)

Deo said:


> Just try your best, don't afraid to take thousands of shots, and get a shot list to help your organize and not miss any shots.



Just try your best?  You understand that the OP is a person who only uses Auto, has one prime lens, a kit lens, and an entry level flash, right?  No back up gear, no strobes, no way to fire her flash off camera, no modifiers, no experience in bouncing flash, no experience in remote flash, and no experience in weddings...Oh, and by the way, the wedding is this Saturday...

Sure, she should 'try her best'...Yeah, that will work out well.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 2, 2012)

No guts no glory


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 2, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> No guts no glory



No foolish decisions, no lawsuit...

But maybe you are right.  Perhaps, we have the next Annie Leibovitz just waiting to break out into her true role as a master photographer.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 2, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> No guts no glory



One question! Would you let her shoot YOUR wedding?


----------



## IgsEMT (Apr 2, 2012)




----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 2, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > No guts no glory
> ...



You have seen mine.  Can't be worse hahah.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 2, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...



I haven't seen yours...a link, perhaps?  My curiosity is piqued.

Perhaps the better question considering our history is would you have let me shoot it?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 2, 2012)

yours would be 10X better.  Let me find the thread.



Kerbouchard said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 2, 2012)

This thread delivers


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 2, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> This thread delivers



It's lucky Overread is asleep or at work.  He would have locked it before it got started.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 2, 2012)

Hmm.. I thought I posted something about it here.  I guess I only posted it on FredMiranda.

Usagani Photography - Denver, CO | our old wedding photos


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 2, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Hmm.. I thought I posted something about it here.  I guess I only posted it on FredMiranda.
> 
> Usagani Photography - Denver, CO | our old wedding photos



Ouch...Seriously, Ouch.  That hurts to look at.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 2, 2012)

Now you see why I am very opinionated when it comes to wedding photos.


----------



## LawrenceChiu (Apr 2, 2012)

I wouldn't trust anyone to take pictures of wedding if they don't have the following...
- 2 cameras 
- 24-70mm f/2.8
- 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 IS USM
- Tons of backup battery, at least 2
- Multiple SD/Memory cards. You always want to switch them out because if you take it all on one memory card and lose it... uh oh...
- Flash

Best of luck though. You're probably not ready but I hope you're not the only photographer there though.
If there's another pro photographer, ask for tips.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 2, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Now you see why I am very opinionated when it comes to wedding photos.



I have no problem with you being opinionated.  Personally, I rather enjoy the feedback.  On the other hand, and sorry to say this, but even on my worst night, I have never produced anything like that.

Did you pay for that?

Honestly, if I would have got results like that for my wedding, I probably would have sued.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 2, 2012)

LawrenceChiu said:


> I wouldn't trust anyone to take pictures of wedding if they don't have the following...
> - 2 cameras
> - 24-70mm f/2.8
> - 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 IS USM
> ...



I guess you cant trust me.  I don't have those lenses.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 2, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Now you see why I am very opinionated when it comes to wedding photos.
> ...



Yup, around $2000.  Cant remember how much exactly.  I should have sued his ass.  Got him from a bridal show.  These were shot with films though back in 2004.  But they still suck.  My first wedding gig is 10X better than this.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 2, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> LawrenceChiu said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't trust anyone to take pictures of wedding if they don't have the following...
> ...



Honestly, I probably wouldn't.  For a second shooter, looking for specialized shots, I would love to have a person shooting with primes.  As a primary, responsible for getting all of the shots, I would tend to agree with that poster.  A 24-70/70-200 are pretty much essential, IMO.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 2, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...



You should have sued.  

Obviously, you saw the examples from my worst moments, and I still say they were the result of the circumstances and completely outside of my control.  In any case, that was a free gig for a budget wedding.  Had I charged 2k for that, I would be ashamed of myself.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 2, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > LawrenceChiu said:
> ...



LOL.  Maybe back in film days.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 2, 2012)

It is your work.  Does not matter how much you get paid. 



Kerbouchard said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...


----------



## Tee (Apr 2, 2012)

The idea of shooting a wedding scares the bejesus out of me so to the OP, I congratulate you on your courage.  Courage only gets you so far so I hope you have thoroughly prepared for the level in which you shoot at.  You can see these threads coming from a mile away via posting history.  I'm going to miss these threads when I'm away on a 4 month work trip.  I'll be gone when you shoot the wedding so I look forward to catching up in August.  And hopefully you'll be around continuing to improve and learn.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 2, 2012)

George.. George..  Don't ever say this again in front of wedding photographers.  You will get flamed.  There are tons of super talented wedding photographers out there who use primes or hybrid.  In fact, I barely know any good wedding photographers who use 24-70 and 70-200 as their two money lenses.



Kerbouchard said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > LawrenceChiu said:
> ...


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 2, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...


I don't agree with that.  I think in film days, shooting with primes was probably more important.  Personally, never really that had experience myself, but with modern digital cameras and ridiculous ISO levels, I think it's a lot more flexible to shoot with 2.8 zooms than primes.  On the other hand, you know we have three shooters at every wedding, and at least one is using a prime at the time, so it's kind of a mixture.  Again, only having a single shooter makes things a lot more difficult.



Schwettylens said:


> It is your work.  Does not matter how much you get paid.



In my defense, in that case, it did.  The wedding party placed no value on the photography because _I _placed no value on the photography.  I did it as a favor and the couple placed no value in it.  In any case, I delivered a professional result.  I even took into account some of your advice.  I still am not proud of that _job_ and I will never do it again.  At least not under those circumstances.  As a matter of fact, I lost about $400 on that _job_ because I gave her an album and prints, and that doesn't even begin to cover my time.

Like I said, it was a disaster, and personally, I will never do it again.  My advice to the OP would be the same.  Don't do it.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

I dont shoot with a prime.  I shoot with 2 primes.  The reason I say maybe back in film days is because you want to get the framing right on film.  On digital, you can crop and rotate.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> George.. George..  Don't ever say this again in front of wedding photographers.  You will get flamed.  There are tons of super talented wedding photographers out there who use primes or hybrid.  In fact, I barely know any good wedding photographers who use 24-70 and 70-200 as their two money lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not worried about getting flamed.  I am trying to provide accurate information.  Yes, there are some wedding photographers that are so in demand they can shoot with one lens and _expect_ the bride and groom to love them.  It's more their pretense and superiority that makes them in demand.  They also have back up shooters with other lenses to complete the album.

Personally, I don't know of any wedding photographers that shoot only primes and I don't know of any wedding photographers that shoot with only zooms.  Heck, again, personally, I don't know any top notch wedding photographers that have only one shooter.

I am sure those types are out there, but they aren't the norm, and I'm not worried about getting 'flamed' by them.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> I dont shoot with a prime.  I shoot with 2 primes.  The reason I say maybe back in film days is because you want to get the framing right on film.  On digital, you can crop and rotate.



You could crop and rotate on film, also.  Heck, anything you could do in Photoshop, you could do with film as well.  Crop, rotate, blur, dodge, burn, etc...Those were all darkroom techniques.

And honestly, if I was looking for a wedding photographer, I would pass up a 'prime' purist.  For one, the top zooms of today compete on an even playing field with the primes, and I think primes woud miss too many moments while they were switching lenses.  Not to mention the fact that I don't want or need every photo taken at 1.4.


----------



## TCampbell (Apr 3, 2012)

You can generally use a flash everywhere EXCEPT during the actual ceremony.  Once the father-of-the-bride gives her away, you're done with flash until they're done and walking back out.  During the ceremony you'll appreciate having a fast lens.  An f/2.8 zoom will usually work.  Canon makes a 135mm f/2L.  You'll need a tripod.

Bouncing only works with the ceiling is low and that's almost never the case in a church.  Dual flashes are nice (you'd need a side-lighter to hold the 2nd light ... usually on a monopod) because they wash out each other and leave gentle shadows.  If you've just got the one 430EX, bring spare batteries or you may lose some shots as the batteries get weak and the cycle times get long.

Make sure you get great detail shots of the dress.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 3, 2012)

Here's a thought heh.....    http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...y-pray-new-encouraged-way-shoot-weddings.html


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

George, you are so full of it.  Maybe more action and less talking?  Start shooting well bro.  Trust me, your wedding work still stinks.  Maybe you dont know how to use those 24-70 and 70-200.  Every time you gain respect from me, you say stupid **** again.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> George, you are so full of it.  Maybe more action and less talking?  Start shooting well bro.  Trust me, your wedding work still stinks.  Maybe you dont know how to use those 24-70 and 70-200.  Every time you gain respect from me, you say stupid **** again.



Unless you are following the Visions in White Blog, you have no idea what my wedding work is like.  In any case, I don't care anything about having 'respect' from you.

Now, back on topic, what is it you disagree with?  You don't think people cropped, rotated, dodged, burned, etc in the film days?

Your exact quote:


Schwettylens said:


> I dont shoot with a prime.  I shoot with 2 primes.  The reason I say maybe back in film days is because you want to get the framing right on film.  On digital, you can crop and rotate.



I assure you, they did both cropping and rotating pre-digital.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> George, you are so full of it.  Maybe more action and less talking?  Start shooting well bro.  Trust me, your wedding work still stinks.  Maybe you dont know how to use those 24-70 and 70-200.  Every time you gain respect from me, you say stupid **** again.



What just happened here? I thought you two boys were playing and getting along nicely. Was it what George said about shooting only with prime lenses what made you mad? Would a glass of milk and some cookies make you feel better?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

Nope derrel. Lactose intolerant.  George...  You have no idea how much work that is with cropping, magnifying, rotating film.  Yes, they do that.  You want to argue about manipulating photos too?  Yes they did that with film too.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 3, 2012)

To OP, you having second thoughts yet?


----------



## LaFoto (Apr 3, 2012)

Back when I was still little, I watched my uncle crop and align, and dodge and burn when transferring the negative to the print, and he did that with ease, he simply adjusted the paper on the  tray so the photo would be straight, and changed the position of the negative projector so he'd get a crop on paper, readjusted sharpness and voilà. Which makes me believe it was done as often, and as quickly, and as easily as we can do the same today in our digital "darkrooms". 

Other than that my observation with regards to wedding photography in particular is that apparently it is being given a value in the States that goes far, far, far beyond that given to it in my country, for example. Any time I come across threads like this one, I am in awe. It amazes me to no end what prices are being paid for the wedding photography in addition to anything else that needs to be paid for when you get married! Or maybe it is just me, who I have never been too much into anything "glamorous"?!?!

I guess one thing ,though: you may have successfully bullied this OP out of TPF ...


----------



## Overread (Apr 3, 2012)

Let's give the OP a little time to respond now shall we (according to her profile she's not logged back on since posting). However to dimples your first engagement shots didn't come out all that bad (from what I've seen as a person who isn't mad about portrait photography ). Weddings are a scary time for all and something that tends to end up being blown into crazy standards on the internet (by the time they are finished you'll be expected to make a Nat-Geo standard photo with a strip of film, box and pinhole in a black room whilst riding an elephant backwards before you pass the "standard to shoot a wedding"). 

If its something you're doing as a job and this is just the first I would strongly suggest stepping back and learning a lot lot more and also considering apprenticing/second shooting/interning under an already established photographer. giving you the chance to make your mistakes and learn whilst not risking the wedding itself.
If this is just a once-off for a friend go for it; though consider if there is any chance of you putting money (wedding gift) toward the costs of a pro for the Bride and Groom (though with less than a week this might not be possible). 



Kerb - Schwetty - kiss and make up or something (though I'd appreciate it if the thread could be left on-topic and you make up your differences in private).



Kerbouchard said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > This thread delivers
> ...


 
You guys deliberately wait for me to sleep before starting don't you.....


----------



## LINYBIMMER (Apr 3, 2012)

Mrgiggls said:


> dimples, as you can see, this community regards wedding photography as something akin to a Secret Service agent covering "Tha Man" on a public relations tour of rural Afghanistan.  You better know your bizz-nass LOL
> 
> We're really not saying these things to hurtful, we just want you to understand the implications of taking on a wedding.



I think that the topic of shooting a wedding doesn't belong in the beginners forum, after all it is not a beginners topic - I suspect that the negative tone of all the responses has something to do with an apparent lack of quality photographs shown by the you and your equipment listing. Neither of which appear adequate for the task at hand. OP, if you want advice and/or encouragement I would suggest phrasing your questions a little differently and skipping the part about this being your first wedding shoot. Everybody that gives advice here has always been a Brides/Sports Illustrated/National Geographic/Vogue/Cosmopolitan photographer. 
I would hope that you have been second shooter on a number of occasions; that you in fact have a contract that spells out what will happen if either party is unhappy and that you have professional liability/errors and omissions insurance in the event the pictures don't meet expectations. And I think they won't based on your questions and equipment list.

Good luck and Godspeed - You're going to need it. Unless of course you are the second (or third) shooter or the bride or grooms sister. Otherwise uh-oh.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 3, 2012)

LINYBIMMER said:


> *I would hope that you have been second shooter on a number of occasions; *



You did see where I quoted her previous post about having NEVER taken her camera off of the AUTO setting before, right?   I also agree that a wedding topic definitely doesn't belong in the beginners section.. but we get so many that DO belong there! Frightening!


----------



## LuckySe7en (Apr 3, 2012)

Regardless of what everyone says, she's still going to shoot the wedding.  And 3 days is NOT enough time to learn other modes if she only shoots in auto.  
But Dimples, if you leave it in auto, get ready for some crappy pics.  You might as well grab a point and shoot from one of the guests.  
You might wanna give Tv a try.  At least you can increase shutter speed to eliminate motion blur.  If you're currently trusting the camera to set everything, you might be ok with it choosing your aperture.  Be sure to adjust the iso accordingly.  There are a lot of buttons on your camera, try to learn a couple of them before Saturday.    Good luck.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

LuckySe7en said:


> Regardless of what everyone says, she's still going to shoot the wedding.  And 3 days is NOT enough time to learn other modes if she only shoots in auto.
> But Dimples, if you leave it in auto, get ready for some crappy pics.  You might as well grab a point and shoot from one of the guests.
> You might wanna give Tv a try.  At least you can increase shutter speed to eliminate motion blur.  If you're currently trusting the camera to set everything, you might be ok with it choosing your aperture.  Be sure to adjust the iso accordingly.  There are a lot of buttons on your camera, try to learn a couple of them before Saturday.    Good luck.



What if the aperture blinks when she uses Tv?


----------



## LuckySe7en (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> LuckySe7en said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of what everyone says, she's still going to shoot the wedding. And 3 days is NOT enough time to learn other modes if she only shoots in auto.
> ...



then she misses the shot.  either way she's not ready for what she's getting into.  On second thought, she might wanna play it safe and leave it on auto and deliver crappy photos to the bride and groom.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 3, 2012)

I don't think she will be back to read the replies


----------



## mishele (Apr 3, 2012)




----------



## dimples_giggles_1009 (Apr 3, 2012)

Let me say there will be a pro photographer there too so i doubt ill get sued im not getting paid to do this. she has been a very good friend of mine for quite some time, she wants me to be there as well to take some shots for 2 reasons  1.to gain experience 2.so she has some shots online and doesn't have to wait for 4 weeks to get to see some of her photos from the pro as thats what thy said the wait was..... how will I ever learn unless I try. I appreciate all the helpful advice some of you have given me and as for the others I'm guessing people were hard on you when you were starting up but you didn't learn everything at once in one day and by not practicing.... I'm taking babysteps right now and learning as I go by reading and shooting with my camera. I hope to one day become the photography I want to be and be able to help someone else. **this is a different couple than the engagement session I did** 

I will post pictures after the wedding, and of course C&C welcome as I am growing and might now get every shot perfect but at least I can say I did my best and learn from those mistakes.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 3, 2012)

I think you failed to mention that in your original posting. Go, have fun, do the best you can. At my first wedding we hired a very prominant local .... my favorite shot was one he missed, but my brother had captured on his disposable camera, not kidding...


----------



## gsgary (Apr 3, 2012)

Don't just copy the shot the pro is taking, look for funny interaction between the guests, kids playing and dancing the sort of stuff the pro might miss


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 3, 2012)

Average cost of a wedding photographer in Canada? $2,500..... Lawsuit for doing a ****ty job? $10,000 ++.... Forgetting to mention you were going to be a second and are a friend of the bride.... priceless :thumbup: 

Glad to hear it! Honestly then... bring a lot of memory and take a lot of pictures. As was said: take different pictures than the pro! There is no point of you just take all the same pictures! At the same time: take SOME of the same pictures and see if (S)he will let you compare the shot with them. That way you can see what you did differently and what you could have improved! They will be really really busy; but talk with them every opportunity you get! You never know what they will be able to teach you unless you ask!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

2nd shooting is fun.  Just make sure what you shoot doesnt look like the person is posing for someone else.  That is the on that always bug me.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 3, 2012)

dimples_giggles_1009 said:


> Let me say there will be a pro photographer there too...


Mentioning that little tid-bit in the OP would probably have kept this thread to a page-and-a-half!    Go out there and have fun!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 3, 2012)

tirediron said:


> dimples_giggles_1009 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me say there will be a pro photographer there too...
> ...



Yep, that little bit of information kind of changes everything...

Now that we have that out of the way, my advice would be along the same as the others'.  Take the pics, don't get in the way of the main photographer, if you are going to shoot during the ceremony make sure you and the Pro know what is going on and where you are allowed to be.  Many churches have strange rules about where the pro's can shoot from, and if the officiant confuses you with the pro, you can end up getting him in trouble.

Most of all, remember that you are there to celebrate the day with your friend.  Try to have a little fun and don't let the photography take over the day.

Good luck and have fun.


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Apr 3, 2012)

oooooooh nothing has changed bahaha  I've been gone for a couple of months and come back on and the first post I see is "I'm shooting my first wedding!" 

nothing against you, but I haven't seen your work really to actually say anything about it. But a little advice from me which has probably been said but I didn't read the other pages. OWN OR RENT BACK UP EQUIPMENT! and have a 2nd shooter if possible


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 3, 2012)

She said they have hired pros.  So she has nothing to worry about.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 3, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> She said they have hired pros.  So she has nothing to worry about.



Yeah, when RebeccaAPhotography said nothing has changed since she's been gone, what she meant was she still doesn't read the thread before commenting...


----------



## ghostdog (Apr 3, 2012)

This thread is an example of what's wrong with internet forums.  People are anonymous and faceless, so they feel empowered to communicate and interact with others in ways they absolutely would not do in person.  I'm sure half of you wouldn't communicate like this in person, and the other half of you probably take horrible shots yourself and don't realize how bad your own photography stinks.  The OP may be a novice and may need a lot more work, but there was no reason for so many of you to have responded in this manner.  There is clearly rudeness here for the sake of rudeness - masked as honest criticism.  The OP never mentioned anything about this being any sort of an attempt at a professional shoot, and being posted under the beginners forum, I have no clue why so many of you just assumed this in first place.  It was like a flurry of irrational group think.  Nevertheless, it's like this everywhere, on any forum, for any topic.  You'll have your pompous, elitist know-it-all's, and just plain d* bags make their own assumptions and lay down their wrath upon anyone whom they feel are less worthy.  This forum mentality really gets old.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 3, 2012)

ghostdog said:


> This thread is an example of what's wrong with internet forums.  People are anonymous and faceless, so they feel empowered to communicate and interact with others in ways they absolutely would not do in person.  I'm sure half of you wouldn't communicate like this in person, and the other half of you probably take horrible shots yourself and don't realize how bad your own photography stinks.  The OP may be a novice and may need a lot more work, but there was no reason for so many of you to have responded in this manner.  There is clearly rudeness here for the sake of rudeness - masked as honest criticism.  The OP never mentioned anything about this being any sort of an attempt at a professional shoot, and being posted under the beginners forum, I have no clue why so many of you just assumed this in first place.  It was like a flurry of irrational group think.  Nevertheless, it's like this everywhere, on any forum, for any topic.  You'll have your pompous, elitist know-it-all's, and just plain d* bags make their own assumptions and lay down their wrath upon anyone whom they feel are less worthy.  This forum mentality really gets old.



And the OP...


dimples_giggles_1009 said:


> I'm going be be shooting my first wedding Saturday. I'm really quite nervous about it cause that is such a special time for 2 people and I don't want to flunk it up. It's going to be in a church and quite dim lighting. The gear I have to use will be my canon eos 60d with 18-135mm & 50mm 1.8 and attachment flash canon speedlite 430ex II. Any tips/advice to ease the process.



She gave us no reason to believe whe wasn't 'shooting her first wedding Saturday'.  If she had said whe was going to be taking some photos at a wedding she was going to, the thread would have been much different.

In any case, I find it ironic that this was your first post.  I wonder which forum member decided to create a new account just to post this rant.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 3, 2012)

ghostdog said:


> This thread is an example of what's wrong with internet forums.  People are anonymous and faceless, so they feel empowered to communicate and interact with others in ways they absolutely would not do in person.  I'm sure half of you wouldn't communicate like this in person, and the other half of you probably take horrible shots yourself and don't realize how bad your own photography stinks.  The OP may be a novice and may need a lot more work, but there was no reason for so many of you to have responded in this manner.  There is clearly rudeness here for the sake of rudeness - masked as honest criticism.  The OP never mentioned anything about this being any sort of an attempt at a professional shoot, and being posted under the beginners forum, I have no clue why so many of you just assumed this in first place.  It was like a flurry of irrational group think.  Nevertheless, it's like this everywhere, on any forum, for any topic.  You'll have your pompous, elitist know-it-all's, and just plain d* bags make their own assumptions and lay down their wrath upon anyone whom they feel are less worthy.  This forum mentality really gets old.



Winning first post, noob!


----------



## Richb1888 (Apr 3, 2012)

ghostdog said:
			
		

> This thread is an example of what's wrong with internet forums.  People are anonymous and faceless, so they feel empowered to communicate and interact with others in ways they absolutely would not do in person.  I'm sure half of you wouldn't communicate like this in person, and the other half of you probably take horrible shots yourself and don't realize how bad your own photography stinks.  The OP may be a novice and may need a lot more work, but there was no reason for so many of you to have responded in this manner.  There is clearly rudeness here for the sake of rudeness - masked as honest criticism.  The OP never mentioned anything about this being any sort of an attempt at a professional shoot, and being posted under the beginners forum, I have no clue why so many of you just assumed this in first place.  It was like a flurry of irrational group think.  Nevertheless, it's like this everywhere, on any forum, for any topic.  You'll have your pompous, elitist know-it-all's, and just plain d* bags make their own assumptions and lay down their wrath upon anyone whom they feel are less worthy.  This forum mentality really gets old.



Lol


----------



## tirediron (Apr 3, 2012)

ghostdog said:


> This thread is an example of what's wrong with internet forums.  People are anonymous and faceless, so they feel empowered to communicate and interact with others in ways they absolutely would not do in person.  I'm sure half of you wouldn't communicate like this in person, and the other half of you probably take horrible shots yourself and don't realize how bad your own photography stinks.  The OP may be a novice and may need a lot more work, but there was no reason for so many of you to have responded in this manner.  There is clearly rudeness here for the sake of rudeness - masked as honest criticism.  The OP never mentioned anything about this being any sort of an attempt at a professional shoot, and being posted under the beginners forum, I have no clue why so many of you just assumed this in first place.  It was like a flurry of irrational group think.  Nevertheless, it's like this everywhere, on any forum, for any topic.  You'll have your pompous, elitist know-it-all's, and just plain d* bags make their own assumptions and lay down their wrath upon anyone whom they feel are less worthy.  This forum mentality really gets old.


 Welcome to TPF - generally when one is new to a group, one sits back and watches and avoids passing judgement until one knows how things work.  Looking forward to your second post.


----------



## dimples_giggles_1009 (Apr 3, 2012)

It's still my first wedding that im shooting (even though there will be a pro there) and I just asked for tips from others that have done weddings and things they have learned from them, not if I do a bad job from my lack of experience what's going to happen....


----------



## tirediron (Apr 3, 2012)

dimples_giggles_1009 said:


> It's still my first wedding that im shooting (even though there will be a pro there) and I just asked for tips from others that have done weddings and things they have learned from them, not if I do a bad job from my lack of experience what's going to happen....


What I do:  Know what is going to happen, when it's going to happen, and where it's going to happen.  Be there well in advance, and be aware of the situation.  There are two schools of thought, but mine is:  Before the ceremony starts, introduce yourself to the pro(s) and explain what you're doing, and if there are any areas/places/times that he wants you to avoid (eg he may have already staked out his spot for the signing of the register and if you unknowingly step in front of him, in the time it takes him to tell you to move, he's missed the shot.  Double, triple and quadruple check your gear, settings etc, the night before.  Batteries charged, sensor clean, cards formatted...  wear quiet shoes with lots of grip so that youc an move around during the ceremony and be assured of not slipping.

Good luck!


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Apr 3, 2012)

AhHHHH I see! Wel first off have a good time girlie! Sorry for the post! I normally do read the whole thread but got lazy hahahaha!


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 3, 2012)

dimples_giggles_1009 said:


> It's still my first wedding that im shooting (even though there will be a pro there) and I just asked for tips from others that have done weddings and things they have learned from them, not if I do a bad job from my lack of experience what's going to happen....




a wedding isn't something you want to screw up for somebody, and with the amount of unexperinced people going out there and shall i say ruining someones photos to make a few bucks people tend to try and give you the warning signs and the what can happen and the worst case scenarios so people will realise that they shouldn't be doing it.  there is a huge diffrence in shooting this wedding with pros doing the real job. and you shooting this wedding by yourself with the gear you have.  as said. if you would have pointed out they have pros shooting the wedding 90% of the answers would have been totally diffrent.


----------



## megdagooch (Apr 4, 2012)

When I shoot weddings it makes me crazy when I am trying to get a shot and others step in behind me or next to me and "flash" my picture.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 4, 2012)

ghostdog said:


> This thread is an example of what's wrong with internet forums.  People are anonymous and faceless, so they feel empowered to communicate and interact with others in ways they absolutely would not do in person.  I'm sure half of you wouldn't communicate like this in person, and the other half of you probably take horrible shots yourself and don't realize how bad your own photography stinks.  The OP may be a novice and may need a lot more work, but there was no reason for so many of you to have responded in this manner.  There is clearly rudeness here for the sake of rudeness - masked as honest criticism.  The OP never mentioned anything about this being any sort of an attempt at a professional shoot, and being posted under the beginners forum, I have no clue why so many of you just assumed this in first place.  It was like a flurry of irrational group think.  Nevertheless, it's like this everywhere, on any forum, for any topic.  You'll have your pompous, elitist know-it-all's, and just plain d* bags make their own assumptions and lay down their wrath upon anyone whom they feel are less worthy.  This forum mentality really gets old.




********, anything i say on here i would say to their face, if you don't like it clear off


----------



## printsnpaints (May 24, 2012)

For starters, make sure you take many shots of the important moments like the walk down the aisle of the groom, the whole entourage and the bride, the cord, veil, the kiss, the cake slicing, etc. It is best to have many shots available so you have a lot of options to choose from in case some don't turn out well. Take lots of photos of the couple specially the bride.


----------

