# So... At my first wedding



## Dinardy

Today, I shot at a friends wedding to supplement their album and to capture the few memories the hired might not. (setup etc.)
Also to capture my own family.
I made a point to stay clear of bombing the REAL pros shots, and think I did a good job at it (diving out of the way at the mere sight of glass) although my angles composition suffered greatly! 

I have 1,300 pictures to go through. I did however skim quickly through the first couple hundred and found a few I liked, I did B&W conversions on some... I would love to know if they work.

I brought along only Two primes, a 50mm 1.4 and a 85mm 1.8, I was wishing I had something like a 70-200mm and something a bit wider, like a 24mm

C&C welcome as always. I'm not by any means a pro, as my pictures represent.
1.



Edit004-2362 by A A Jones, on Flickr
2.



FlowergirlBW1 by A A Jones, on Flickr
3.



Edit004-2364 by A A Jones, on Flickr
4.



M&amp;MBW2 by A A Jones, on Flickr
5.



NeedaFF by A A Jones, on Flickr

...Bracing for impact, for you wolves out there. This was my FIRST wedding lol.


----------



## Juga

1 and 5 pop out to me. 

I really like number 1. I take it that the hired photogs were doing 'first look' photos and I think you took advantage of a different angle but the dress and shirt aren't white and the background is a bit bright. I really love the angle though.
Number 5 is simple but I like it....maybe because I am a simpleton. Wish those jokers up in the front weren't using their iphone and camera respectively.


----------



## Dinardy

Juga said:


> 1 and 5 pop out to me.
> 
> I really like number 1. I take it that the hired photogs were doing 'first look' photos and I think you took advantage of a different angle but the dress and shirt aren't white and the background is a bit bright. I really love the angle though.
> Number 5 is simple but I like it....maybe because I am a simpleton. Wish those jokers up in the front weren't using their iphone and camera respectively.



That is exactly what they were doing, I was posted behind a tree to the subject right. I tried to retain detail in the dress, I'm going to work on bringing up the whites in 1. 
5 was a last second run through the barn doors and press the shutter button shot, it is one of my favorites too, aside from the noise.


----------



## manaheim

Hey, for a "guest shooter" (in effect), these are great.  You did one of the very key things which is not to have your shots look like you were just shooting when the couple was looking at the other photographer.

I loved #4.  LOVED it.  5 was neat too but the crop is bothering me a little.  Also them not being TOTALLY centered on the chandelier got my attention.  But it's still nice and a nice idea.

2 made me chuckle and then go "awww"...

Really. Nice job.  Honestly I've shot maybe 12 weddings or so, and I don't really think most of my pictures are anywhere near this nice.


----------



## ronlane

Nice job. I think these are good. I like #1 the best followed by #4. From this small sample, I think your friends are going to be really happy with what they get from you.


----------



## paigew

I think you did a great job. I really like #4


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Alright man, please don't take this the wrong way.  I simply want you to start on the right foot especially if you want to do wedding photography.  The most important thing to be successful in wedding photography is how you present yourself among other photographers in your area.

1. I am not sure how involved you were at the wedding, but judging from the # of shots you took.. you were pretty involved.  Sometimes as a main photographer, I don't even take that many shots.  No matter how you put it, more than likely the main shooter was annoyed.
2. If you plan to share this on FB to your friends, take off the signature.  There is nothing more annoying than shooting a wedding and you find out someone already posting the photos from the wedding with "professional" signature on it before you do.  Facebook is usually the #1 source for wedding photographers to get new clients.  If you did that, you kinda stole their glory. Most people just assume the shots you posted are from the official wedding photographer.
3. If it were me, I would not use this wedding on my portfolio.  You were just a guest. I may use it to land my first wedding (as main or 2nd) and say.. hey.. I have not shot a wedding before but here are photos I took as a guest so you can see what I can do.  Showing wedding photos you took as a guest on your portfolio to promote your self is bad etiquette IMO (I assure you a lot of wedding photographers agree with me).

Other than that.. I think you did well.  I am still confused why on earth people would wear baseball caps to attend wedding.


----------



## gaz87

I'm liking #5 alot! Good job


----------



## kathyt

You did a good job. You've got color casts on the dress in #1 and #3. Also, I see some chromatic aberration that can usually be easily fixed in LR. Robin has some good points. I am going to California for a wedding in three weeks, but I wouldn't bring my pro gear to the wedding. I am sure I would get some dirty looks from the photographers, and I just don't want to be expected to shoot. It is something I just don't do.


----------



## tirediron

Robin_Usagani said:


> Alright man, please don't take this the wrong way. I simply want you to start on the right foot especially if you want to do wedding photography. The most important thing to be successful in wedding photography is how you present yourself among other photographers in your area.


Huh?  I always thought the most important thing was to learn the craft and build up your skills leading to a solid portfolio that clients will book on.  I don't really care who else in the trade I impress or don't impress. 



Robin_Usagani said:


> 1. I am not sure how involved you were at the wedding, but judging from the # of shots you took.. you were pretty involved. Sometimes as a main photographer, I don't even take that many shots. No matter how you put it, more than likely the main shooter was annoyed.


You were annoyed.  Okay... that's part of what you paid for.



Robin_Usagani said:


> 2. If you plan to share this on FB to your friends, take off the signature. There is nothing more annoying than shooting a wedding and you find out someone already posting the photos from the wedding with "professional" signature on it before you do. Facebook is usually the #1 source for wedding photographers to get new clients. If you did that, you kinda stole their glory. Most people just assume the shots you posted are from the official wedding photographer.


 If the hired profesional's work is of such a calibre that it's going to be upstaged by the OPs work, the hired gun should probably find a new job!



Robin_Usagani said:


> 3. If it were me, I would not use this wedding on my portfolio. You were just a guest. I may use it to land my first wedding (as main or 2nd) and say.. hey.. I have not shot a wedding before but here are photos I took as a guest so you can see what I can do. Showing wedding photos you took as a guest on your portfolio to promote your self is bad etiquette IMO (I assure you a lot of wedding photographers agree with me).


What????  That makes NO sense!  While they may not be the best images in the world, for a guest-shooter, they're pretty darn decent, and why wouldn't he use them?  In fact, I would venture to say that if you can get a portfolio-worthy image while there as a guest,and not having the luxury of being able to direct the action, that actually shows a superior degree of creativity!


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Whatever John. I gave him my advice being in the industry for 2.5 years. Even when I second shoot, i dont post anything on FB until the main shooter is done. If you cant grasp the idea how this will annoy a wedding photographer, I dont know what to say.


----------



## play18now

Where abouts was the wedding? I also have to respect Robin's points here. It does make a lot of sense to me, and etiquette doesn't always make sense, yet is still observed.


----------



## terri

For me, #2 is the standout shot.   No, it's not the B&G or even part of the main event, but you DID find one of those little "photojournalistic" moments that add to the flavor of the day.   The unhappy little flower girl/ring bearer are always excellent fillers in the wedding album, and you nailed this one.    Even if that's all you handed over, don't diminish the capture!    Feel proud of that one.

And this:   





> You did one of the very key things which is not to have your shots look  like you were just shooting when the couple was looking at the other  photographer.


    +1, this shows you were aware and thinking.    

#s 4 and 5 are also nice moments, and I like the B&W.   I agree with Kathy that you have some color issues, but as we all know you've barely worked these, so we can assume you'll improve on that aspect.   

Take Robin's points to heart.      I don't read them as anything but sound advice.  If you want the chance to do this several more times, which is an excellent way to learn, you want to be gracious and hold back on posting your own shots until the paid guys get their moment in the sun.   If you continue to do this and _you_ are ultimately the top photo-dawg, you will appreciate the same courtesy from the sideline newbie.        I can't think of a better way to ACT like a pro than demonstrate you understand your current position as the sideline newbie, if that makes sense.


----------



## Trever1t

Also for me #2 made me immediately react. Awesome shot, wedding or not.


----------



## Derrel

Photos 2,4,and 5 capture very special moments. yeah, I see the blown highlights on the dress in #4, but it's a lovely slice of time, and the movement is lovely, and the light against dark contrasts work very well. The little girl is crying, and so cute. The couple kissing is a good moment.

I think #5, the bride and groom kissing, as men in baseball caps and people holding up cellphone cameras to capture the moment, is just a splendid candid wedding shot. You have the fancy chandelier (sp?) above them, them kissing, and then all the guests down below. A very 2013 wedding!!! It's just so,so "of this decade".


----------



## frommrstomommy

2, 3 and 5 I really enjoyed. Nice captures!

FWIW, I can see how the hired photog might be upset if you were posting these on FB the very next day with your watermark on them.. I'd lose the watermark if you're going to share them like that.


----------



## Trever1t

Wait, I'm confused. Was the OP working for, under or in anyway connected to the hired photographer? If so, then it is respectful to allow the Pro time to post his images and seek permission to post yours BUT if you are a friend/guest of the couple by all means post your images and put your watermark, why not?


----------



## Buckster

Nice job, OP.

As to the rest of the jibber-jabber in the thread surrounding it, I have my thoughts too:

Unless the hired photographer has a contract that prohibits the shooting and/or posting of others' photos of the event, with or without watermarks, advertising or other identification, I think the hired photographer needs to get over it.  It's pure speculation that the hired photographer even HAS a problem with it, forumite bluster seen every time it comes up notwithstanding.  

If guest shots by x-wacs at weddings are so good these days that the hired photographers need to cringe in fear and get pissed off because someone might see them on Facebook, and presumably demonstrate that the hired photographer probably wasn't worth the money when the guests provide awesome shots for free, then maybe it's time for them to get out of the business, or at least see a shrink about their insecurities.

Welcome to 2013 and the age of social media, like it or not.


----------



## Dinardy

manaheim said:


> Hey, for a "guest shooter" (in effect), these are great.  You did one of the very key things which is not to have your shots look like you were just shooting when the couple was looking at the other photographer.
> 
> I loved #4.  LOVED it.  5 was neat too but the crop is bothering me a little.  Also them not being TOTALLY centered on the chandelier got my attention.  But it's still nice and a nice idea.
> 
> 2 made me chuckle and then go "awww"...
> 
> Really. Nice job.  Honestly I've shot maybe 12 weddings or so, and I don't really think most of my pictures are anywhere near this nice.



Thank you! thats good to hear, the non center chandelier bugs me too...


----------



## Dinardy

ronlane said:


> Nice job. I think these are good. I like #1 the best followed by #4. From this small sample, I think your friends are going to be really happy with what they get from you.



Thanks Ron!


----------



## Dinardy

paigew said:


> I think you did a great job. I really like #4



Thank you Paige!


----------



## Vtec44

Nice shots.  I like the first, third, and fourth.   

As a wedding photographer myself, I also agree with Robin.  If don't understand his points, you haven't shot enough weddings.


----------



## Dinardy

Robin_Usagani said:


> Alright man, please don't take this the wrong way.  I simply want you to start on the right foot especially if you want to do wedding photography.  The most important thing to be successful in wedding photography is how you present yourself among other photographers in your area.
> 
> 1. I am not sure how involved you were at the wedding, but judging from the # of shots you took.. you were pretty involved.  Sometimes as a main photographer, I don't even take that many shots.  No matter how you put it, more than likely the main shooter was annoyed.
> 2. If you plan to share this on FB to your friends, take off the signature.  There is nothing more annoying than shooting a wedding and you find out someone already posting the photos from the wedding with "professional" signature on it before you do.  Facebook is usually the #1 source for wedding photographers to get new clients.  If you did that, you kinda stole their glory. Most people just assume the shots you posted are from the official wedding photographer.
> 3. If it were me, I would not use this wedding on my portfolio.  You were just a guest. I may use it to land my first wedding (as main or 2nd) and say.. hey.. I have not shot a wedding before but here are photos I took as a guest so you can see what I can do.  Showing wedding photos you took as a guest on your portfolio to promote your self is bad etiquette IMO (I assure you a lot of wedding photographers agree with me).
> 
> Other than that.. I think you did well.  I am still confused why on earth people would wear baseball caps to attend wedding.



I was pretty involved. I hope I didn't annoy her too much, the second thanked me for how considerate I was compared to the other dozen people with cameras and camcorders. I have removed all signatures and only shared one on Facebook, in respect of the professionals that shot the event. I made it a priority to not do the exact thing you mentioned. I am simply keeping these on my flickr, to share here and with other photographers. Other than that I wouldn't use anything in my port that I wasn't a primary at. First and foremost, proper etiquette is my priority. Especially in this over saturated area.


As for the caps. This wedding was very "Country" we were in a barn


----------



## Dinardy

gaz87 said:


> I'm liking #5 alot! Good job



Thanks!


----------



## Dinardy

kathythorson said:


> You did a good job. You've got color casts on the dress in #1 and #3. Also, I see some chromatic aberration that can usually be easily fixed in LR. Robin has some good points. I am going to California for a wedding in three weeks, but I wouldn't bring my pro gear to the wedding. I am sure I would get some dirty looks from the photographers, and I just don't want to be expected to shoot. It is something I just don't do.



Noted on 1 and 3, I will fix those. I brought a single body and two lenses and left my flashgun in the bag. I tried to be considerate as possible, just hoping these land me bigger opportunities.


----------



## Buckster

Dinardy said:


> the non center chandelier bugs me too...


Content-Aware Move Tool in Photoshop = fixed in 5 seconds.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

It is fine really to share it.  They are YOUR photo. Share them! I just think it is a bad idea to share them with your signature. I wasnt trying to argue. I sense some people here think thats all I was trying to do.   Theoratically, they are your photos. You can put whatever watermark or signature you want.  It is up to you how you want to present yourself to other photographers.  When a guess photographer does annoy me, of course I wont show it. The guess is actually a guess and I am just a person B&G hired.


----------



## mrbadwrench

tirediron said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright man, please don't take this the wrong way. I simply want you to start on the right foot especially if you want to do wedding photography. The most important thing to be successful in wedding photography is how you present yourself among other photographers in your area.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  I always thought the most important thing was to learn the craft and build up your skills leading to a solid portfolio that clients will book on.  I don't really care who else in the trade I impress or don't impress.
> 
> 
> 
> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not sure how involved you were at the wedding, but judging from the # of shots you took.. you were pretty involved. Sometimes as a main photographer, I don't even take that many shots. No matter how you put it, more than likely the main shooter was annoyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were annoyed.  Okay... that's part of what you paid for.
> 
> 
> 
> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. If you plan to share this on FB to your friends, take off the signature. There is nothing more annoying than shooting a wedding and you find out someone already posting the photos from the wedding with "professional" signature on it before you do. Facebook is usually the #1 source for wedding photographers to get new clients. If you did that, you kinda stole their glory. Most people just assume the shots you posted are from the official wedding photographer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the hired profesional's work is of such a calibre that it's going to be upstaged by the OPs work, the hired gun should probably find a new job!
> 
> 
> 
> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. If it were me, I would not use this wedding on my portfolio. You were just a guest. I may use it to land my first wedding (as main or 2nd) and say.. hey.. I have not shot a wedding before but here are photos I took as a guest so you can see what I can do. Showing wedding photos you took as a guest on your portfolio to promote your self is bad etiquette IMO (I assure you a lot of wedding photographers agree with me).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What????  That makes NO sense!  While they may not be the best images in the world, for a guest-shooter, they're pretty darn decent, and why wouldn't he use them?  In fact, I would venture to say that if you can get a portfolio-worthy image while there as a guest,and not having the luxury of being able to direct the action, that actually shows a superior degree of creativity!
Click to expand...


I agree one hundred percent. Who cares if the main shooter is annoyed, he got paid didnt he? And like you said, if your shots are better than his, time for him to find a new job!


----------



## pixmedic

I think these are all good shots, more so considering you were staying out of a main photographer AND second shooters way.
contracted second shooting gigs typically allow for posting images you shot, but AFTER a certain period of time, whereas the main photog gets to post them all first. 
All of my second shooting jobs have been like that. I don't really believe it to be a matter of the main photographer not being "good enough", or feeling intimidated...but rather a simple professional courtesy. The main IS your employer for the day, after all. if the OP refrained from posting certain places just out of professional courtesy, whether he NEEDED to or not, I think that was a good showing on his part and is a reflection of his good character. that's how you get more second shooting jobs, not just showing that you can do the technical aspects of photography, but also that you understand and call follow good etiquette, antiquated or no.

Obviously, the OP was not the second shooter and was just shooting as a guest, but I think it is great that he ACTED as if he was a hired shooter and gave ground to the main and the second.
I agree with Robin. Who cares if the main shooter is annoyed? the OP should if he wants to do this kind of work for other photographers in his area. This job is all about professional courtesy, and if you are known to not give a crap about other working photographers, it gets around, and noone will want you to work for them.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Lol.. Nowhere i posted I said something about being intimidated.


----------



## Dinardy

tirediron said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright man, please don't take this the wrong way. I simply want you to start on the right foot especially if you want to do wedding photography. The most important thing to be successful in wedding photography is how you present yourself among other photographers in your area.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  I always thought the most important thing was to learn the craft and build up your skills leading to a solid portfolio that clients will book on.  I don't really care who else in the trade I impress or don't impress.
> 
> 
> 
> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not sure how involved you were at the wedding, but judging from the # of shots you took.. you were pretty involved. Sometimes as a main photographer, I don't even take that many shots. No matter how you put it, more than likely the main shooter was annoyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were annoyed.  Okay... that's part of what you paid for.
> 
> 
> 
> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. If you plan to share this on FB to your friends, take off the signature. There is nothing more annoying than shooting a wedding and you find out someone already posting the photos from the wedding with "professional" signature on it before you do. Facebook is usually the #1 source for wedding photographers to get new clients. If you did that, you kinda stole their glory. Most people just assume the shots you posted are from the official wedding photographer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the hired profesional's work is of such a calibre that it's going to be upstaged by the OPs work, the hired gun should probably find a new job!
> 
> 
> 
> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. If it were me, I would not use this wedding on my portfolio. You were just a guest. I may use it to land my first wedding (as main or 2nd) and say.. hey.. I have not shot a wedding before but here are photos I took as a guest so you can see what I can do. Showing wedding photos you took as a guest on your portfolio to promote your self is bad etiquette IMO (I assure you a lot of wedding photographers agree with me).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What????  That makes NO sense!  While they may not be the best images in the world, for a guest-shooter, they're pretty darn decent, and why wouldn't he use them?  In fact, I would venture to say that if you can get a portfolio-worthy image while there as a guest,and not having the luxury of being able to direct the action, that actually shows a superior degree of creativity!
Click to expand...


I do in fact appreciate this reply.


----------



## Dinardy

play18now said:


> Where abouts was the wedding? I also have to respect Robin's points here. It does make a lot of sense to me, and etiquette doesn't always make sense, yet is still observed.



Kelley Farms hosted this wedding!


----------



## MK3Brent

Some serious focus issues, and some bad chromatic aberrations in some shots. (Noticed when looking at the native resolution of the images. 

Get your focus nailed down tight, and you'll do just fine.


----------



## Dinardy

terri said:


> For me, #2 is the standout shot.   No, it's not the B&G or even part of the main event, but you DID find one of those little "photojournalistic" moments that add to the flavor of the day.   The unhappy little flower girl/ring bearer are always excellent fillers in the wedding album, and you nailed this one.    Even if that's all you handed over, don't diminish the capture!    Feel proud of that one.
> 
> And this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did one of the very key things which is not to have your shots look  like you were just shooting when the couple was looking at the other  photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> +1, this shows you were aware and thinking.
> 
> #s 4 and 5 are also nice moments, and I like the B&W.   I agree with Kathy that you have some color issues, but as we all know you've barely worked these, so we can assume you'll improve on that aspect.
> 
> Take Robin's points to heart.      I don't read them as anything but sound advice.  If you want the chance to do this several more times, which is an excellent way to learn, you want to be gracious and hold back on posting your own shots until the paid guys get their moment in the sun.   If you continue to do this and _you_ are ultimately the top photo-dawg, you will appreciate the same courtesy from the sideline newbie.        I can't think of a better way to ACT like a pro than demonstrate you understand your current position as the sideline newbie, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...


Thank you! Yes I'll upload my edits here soon.
I take all generally reasonable advice to heart here. Positive or not!


----------



## Dinardy

Trever1t said:


> Also for me #2 made me immediately react. Awesome shot, wedding or not.



Thanks, she was actually not feeling well with a temp of 101. She really shined during the ceremony and held out to the last dance. What a trooper


----------



## Dinardy

Derrel said:


> Photos 2,4,and 5 capture very special moments. yeah, I see the blown highlights on the dress in #4, but it's a lovely slice of time, and the movement is lovely, and the light against dark contrasts work very well. The little girl is crying, and so cute. The couple kissing is a good moment.
> 
> I think #5, the bride and groom kissing, as men in baseball caps and people holding up cellphone cameras to capture the moment, is just a splendid candid wedding shot. You have the fancy chandelier (sp?) above them, them kissing, and then all the guests down below. A very 2013 wedding!!! It's just so,so "of this decade".



Thank you Derrel! Its always nice reading your responses


----------



## Dinardy

frommrstomommy said:


> 2, 3 and 5 I really enjoyed. Nice captures!
> 
> FWIW, I can see how the hired photog might be upset if you were posting these on FB the very next day with your watermark on them.. I'd lose the watermark if you're going to share them like that.



Watermark wasn't stamped on non flickr images, I don't want to step on any toes.


----------



## Dinardy

Vtec44 said:


> Nice shots.  I like the first, third, and fourth.
> 
> As a wedding photographer myself, I also agree with Robin.  If don't understand his points, you haven't shot enough weddings.



Thanks!


----------



## terri

Dinardy said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also for me #2 made me immediately react. Awesome shot, wedding or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, she was actually not feeling well with a temp of 101. She really shined during the ceremony and held out to the last dance. What a trooper
Click to expand...


Oh, my word...poor little girl.   She really was a trooper!


----------



## Dinardy

MK3Brent said:


> Some serious focus issues, and some bad chromatic aberrations in some shots. (Noticed when looking at the native resolution of the images.
> 
> Get your focus nailed down tight, and you'll do just fine.



Well... it is a D7000 lol 

I have had auto focus issues on this body, I find when using manual focus I get more consistent results.


----------



## Vtec44

Dinardy said:


> Well... it is a D7000 lol
> 
> I have had auto focus issues on this body, I find when using manual focus I get more consistent results.



Have you done a focus check on the body and lenses?  My D7000 with close to 50k clicks focuses perfectly.


----------



## play18now

Dinardy said:


> play18now said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where abouts was the wedding? I also have to respect Robin's points here. It does make a lot of sense to me, and etiquette doesn't always make sense, yet is still observed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kelley Farms hosted this wedding!
Click to expand...


That's out in Bonney Lake isn't it?  Beautiful spot.  Again well done.


----------



## Dinardy

Thank you ALL for your very insightful replies. I have updated the original post with Two edits, I'm off to work!


----------



## Dinardy

Vtec44 said:


> Dinardy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... it is a D7000 lol
> 
> I have had auto focus issues on this body, I find when using manual focus I get more consistent results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done a focus check on the body and lenses?  My D7000 with close to 50k clicks focuses perfectly.
Click to expand...


I haven't sat down and done a controlled test. But with correct exposure, good aperture and shutter speed with good lighting, it was pretty hard to get it sharp where I wanted it with my 35mm. I would like to think I am using good technique, but maybe not. 
It ended up going back to Nikon for calibration and adjustment... Came back better without as much tuning in camera needed. But I gave up and sold that lens. 
So far, my 85mm has been the sharpest and produced most consistent results, although I haven't fine tuned it yet. 
Is there a test you personally would recommend? I have read and reviewed most, I just don't have the time lately.


----------



## Vtec44

Do this test Jeffrey Friedl&#039;s Blog » Jeffrey?s Autofocus Test Chart and use AF fine tuning to adjust for each lens.


----------



## Dinardy

Vtec44 said:


> Do this test Jeffrey Friedl&#039;s Blog » Jeffrey?s Autofocus Test Chart and use AF fine tuning to adjust for each lens.



Awesome, thanks!


----------



## Dinardy

Bump for C&C on the edits please!


----------



## Juga

I think you did a fine job...to me the dress still looks a bit gray but that may be the monitor I am using. You did a fine job.


----------



## kim_kennedy

Hi..To capture those beautiful wedding shots is not an easy task. Really great efforts by you. Thanks for sharing such beautiful wedding pics.


----------



## aaronho

The first photo would look great in B/W post processing. Truly a wonderful capture, keep up the good work!


----------



## manaheim

Zombie thread!


----------

