# Nervous as heck...



## Kerbouchard

So, shooting my first wedding today.  Anybody got any advice?

Updated: Pictures added


----------



## Robin Usagani

You have heard enough from me from the past.  Just kill it!  Keep it simple and take your time.  Dont eat a lot and keep your self hydrated.  I usually only eat powerbar before a wedding gig.  Dont forget to share.  So you are the main photographer?


----------



## Kerbouchard

Schwettylens said:


> You have heard enough from me from the past.  Just kill it!  Keep it simple and take your time.  Dont eat a lot and keep your self hydrated.  I usually only eat powerbar before a wedding gig.  Dont forget to share.  So you are the main photographer?



Yeah...one of those times where I should have just kept my mouth shut.  A girl who works with me(sort of, she's a janitor at the building I run) is getting married.  She had less than $200 and a week and a half to find a photographer.  I knew what she would get with that time frame and budget, so I volunteered.  We haven't even discussed money at this point because when I did mention it, she told me 'she had found another photographer'.  I later found out that she didn't and was just embarassed.

In any case, I'm basically going to take whatever she does give me and buy prints with it.

Anyway, batteries are charged, memory cards are ready, and the bag is packed.  You think it's too late to back out?


----------



## Robin Usagani

Just tell them to tip you whatever.  Dont ask for money.  Nickle and diming a budget wedding is not worth it IMO.  I would probably just give them the files.  Charging them for prints will cause more problem IMO.


----------



## o hey tyler

Don't forget to take the lens cap off.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Schwettylens said:


> Just tell them to tip you whatever.  Dont ask for money.  Nickle and diming a budget wedding is not worth it IMO.  I would probably just give them the files.  Charging them for prints will cause more problem IMO.



I am not charging them for prints.  I am basically going to take whatever her sister does give me and put together an album and hopefully one large print.  We'll see how far the budget goes.  And yes, I do plan on giving her a DVD with the files.  

This is more of a wedding gift than a gig.  I have no intention of nickle and diming this.  There aren't that many nickle and dimes to go around, and she's trying to start a new life.


----------



## Kerbouchard

o hey tyler said:


> Don't forget to take the lens cap off.



I'll try to remember that.


----------



## mishele

You'll do great!! We have all seen your work, you are ready!! Don't forget to let us know how it went tonight!!! :hug::


----------



## Overread

Whatever you do - don't walk backwards!


----------



## o hey tyler

Overread said:


> Whatever you do - don't walk backwards!



It's a terrible idea to shoot weddings if you have absolutely zero situational awareness.


----------



## Kerbouchard

So, basically, don't walk backwards and take the lens cap off...Got it.


----------



## mishele

Please watch the DJ closely.....lol


----------



## Kerbouchard

I was doing some research, and it seems like not walking backwards and taking the lens cap off aren't all that is required.  So, nobody is going to tell me what lens to use or what settings I should use?  This forum is worthless. :thumbdown:


----------



## o hey tyler

I'd use the 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6. Also try P mode, of course it stands for professional.


----------



## Kerbouchard

o hey tyler said:


> I'd use the 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6. Also try P mode, of course it stands for professional.



Finally, some actual advice.  I appreciate it.  I don't have an 18-55, though.  Should I buy one?  Do you think I should use a flash?

Edited to add: It doesn't look like the 18-55 works on my camera.  I'm so confused.


----------



## o hey tyler

Kerbouchard said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd use the 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6. Also try P mode, of course it stands for professional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, some actual advice.  I appreciate it.  Do you think I should use a flash?
Click to expand...


Nah. Incidental light only. Flash is a crutch for people who don't know how to use incidental.


----------



## MacHoot

DJ boobie Drummer....That's halarious!


----------



## Demers18

I don't have any advice to give as I've never shot a wedding or anything serious for that matter lol.

You're going to ROCK it!


----------



## molested_cow

Just don't shake when you press the trigger.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Ok, I think I got it.  P mode, 18-55, no flash, don't walk backwards, don't do the boobie drum thing, try not to shake, and make sure the lens cap is off.  You guys are great.  Thanks for all the amazing advice.


----------



## MacHoot

Just don't get confused......18-55 flash..Don't walk in P.  don't do the boobie drumming backwards. and ALWAYS make sure the lense cap is off!! lol


----------



## Kerbouchard

MacHoot said:


> Just don't get confused......18-55 flash..Don't walk in P.  don't do the boobie drumming backwards. and ALWAYS make sure the lense cap is off!! lol



I'm so screwed.


----------



## rexbobcat

Kerbouchard said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd use the 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6. Also try P mode, of course it stands for professional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, some actual advice.  I appreciate it.  I don't have an 18-55, though.  Should I buy one?  Do you think I should use a flash?
> 
> Edited to add: It doesn't look like the 18-55 works on my camera.  I'm so confused.
Click to expand...


Do you have a 1D series or a 5D? The EF-S lenses (the 18-55mm) ONLY works on APS-C size sensors.

If you were going to use something in that range, I would look at the 17-55mm. It's a bit expensive, but it would be worth it to rent it. I'm not sure I would trust the quality of the 18-55mm for a wedding.


----------



## rexbobcat

Kerbouchard said:


> MacHoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't get confused......18-55 flash..Don't walk in P.  don't do the boobie drumming backwards. and ALWAYS make sure the lense cap is off!! lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm so screwed.
Click to expand...


If you really can't find anything better, get a 50mm f/1.8 and a 24mm f/2.8


----------



## Kerbouchard

rexbobcat said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd use the 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6. Also try P mode, of course it stands for professional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, some actual advice.  I appreciate it.  I don't have an 18-55, though.  Should I buy one?  Do you think I should use a flash?
> 
> Edited to add: It doesn't look like the 18-55 works on my camera.  I'm so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a 1D series or a 5D? The EF-S lenses (the 18-55mm) ONLY works on APS-C size sensors.
> 
> If you were going to use something in that range, I would look at the 17-55mm. It's a bit expensive, but it would be worth it to rent it. I'm not sure I would trust the quality of the 18-55mm for a wedding.
Click to expand...

I have a Nikon.  Do you think I should rent a Canon?  I have to be there in 3 hours, so I don't have a lot of time.


----------



## rexbobcat

Kerbouchard said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, some actual advice.  I appreciate it.  I don't have an 18-55, though.  Should I buy one?  Do you think I should use a flash?
> 
> Edited to add: It doesn't look like the 18-55 works on my camera.  I'm so confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a 1D series or a 5D? The EF-S lenses (the 18-55mm) ONLY works on APS-C size sensors.
> 
> If you were going to use something in that range, I would look at the 17-55mm. It's a bit expensive, but it would be worth it to rent it. I'm not sure I would trust the quality of the 18-55mm for a wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a Nikon.  Do you think I should rent a Canon?  I have to be there in 3 hours, so I don't have a lot of time.
Click to expand...


Oh dang...didn't know that. Okay, um, look at these:

Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens 2137 B&H Photo

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens 2183 B&H Photo Video

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] AF016NII-700

Or, if you still want the 18-55mm:

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Nikkor Lens 2176 B&H Photo


----------



## Kerbouchard

rexbobcat said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a 1D series or a 5D? The EF-S lenses (the 18-55mm) ONLY works on APS-C size sensors.
> 
> If you were going to use something in that range, I would look at the 17-55mm. It's a bit expensive, but it would be worth it to rent it. I'm not sure I would trust the quality of the 18-55mm for a wedding.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Nikon.  Do you think I should rent a Canon?  I have to be there in 3 hours, so I don't have a lot of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh dang...didn't know that. Okay, um, look at these:
> 
> Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens 2137 B&H Photo
> 
> Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens 2183 B&H Photo Video
> 
> Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] AF016NII-700
> 
> Or, if you still want the 18-55mm:
> 
> Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Nikkor Lens 2176 B&H Photo
Click to expand...


Do you think B&H photo can have those to me by 2 p.m.?  Also, I think several of those won't work for my main camera body.  I think 3 out of your 4 are DX lenses.  I guess if the shipping is fast enough, I could possibly use the other ones on my D90, but I don't think they will work on my D700.


----------



## rexbobcat

Kerbouchard said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Nikon.  Do you think I should rent a Canon?  I have to be there in 3 hours, so I don't have a lot of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dang...didn't know that. Okay, um, look at these:
> 
> Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens 2137 B&H Photo
> 
> Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens 2183 B&H Photo Video
> 
> Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] AF016NII-700
> 
> Or, if you still want the 18-55mm:
> 
> Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Nikkor Lens 2176 B&H Photo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think B&H photo can have those to me by 2 p.m.?  Also, I think several of those won't work for my main camera body.  I think 3 out of your 4 are DX lenses.  I guess if the shipping is fast enough, I could possibly use the other ones on my D90, but I don't think they will work on my D700.
Click to expand...



Ah, yeah, the DX lenses won't work on the FX camera.

I'm not sure about 2pm. How far are you from B&H? Is there a store nearby that you could quickly buy atleast the 50mm. It's about the best/cheapest solution.

What lenses do you already have?

Also, if you can, get reflector/diffuser, or something that can be used as a reflector/diffuser.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/358607-REG/Impact_R1132_5_in_1_Reflector_Disc.html

I consider this a mid-day MUST have, because it allows you to have better control over the harsh overhead lighting. And if you want, you can diffuse the light and then use a little fill flash to get that glowing look.


----------



## Kerbouchard

@rexbobcat...Sorry you took this post seriously.  I do appreciate that you were trying to help, but most of my responses have been in jest.  I've shot over 50 weddings.  This just happens to be my first solo.  I have the gear.  I have the experience.  This is just the first without a safety net.  Again, I appreciate your help, but there won't be any lens or flash additions on my part over the next few hours.

This thread was pretty much for entertainment value...just trying to break the tension.  I'll post some pics tomorrow or the next day to show how it turned out.


----------



## pgriz

Actually, Kerbouchard, I think you need to delete your last post, and just link to this thread next time we get another "one of those".  

Another helpful hint in shooting people, is to make sure the sun is behind you so that everyone is well illuminated...

And don't forget to make sure the background is in focus so that we can tell where this occasion was happening, and what the bystanders were doing...


----------



## Derrel

Just relax G!!! You can do it, no sweat. All the pressure is coming from YOU, and TO you...the bride just needs some snaps...You're amply ready...just stay focused, make sure the ISO levels, shutter speeds, and f/stops are all in the "safe" zone, and occasionally check the LCD to make sure everything is still working. I once had the flash synch on a Bronica CONK OUT RIGHT DURING the processional!!! ACK!!!! I had to switch to an entirely new second system in about 5 minutes, and it was locked in the car trunk outside....I LEFT the church, went to the car, and got out the Nikon + bracket + flash backup, plugged in the Quantum cord, and headed back in to the church....zOMG...I shot the first kiss and the walk out with 35mm!!! Perhaps the single most nerve-wracking photographic disaster I have ever encountered..

So, today cannot possibly be any worse than that! Go tear it up man!


----------



## Robin Usagani

You have second shot 50 weddings? Holy cow... You shouldn't be doing budget wedding.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Schwettylens said:


> You have second shot 50 weddings? Holy cow... You shouldn't be doing budget wedding.



I told you the reason I was doing it.  I would like to think you would do the same under the same circumstances.  What should I do?  Just let her get a $200 craigslist photographer who just bought a camera?  Like I said, it's more a wedding gift than a gig.

In any case, too late now.  It's today, and obviously, I am already committed.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Derrel said:


> Just relax G!!! You can do it, no sweat. All the pressure is coming from YOU, and TO you...the bride just needs some snaps...You're amply ready...just stay focused, make sure the ISO levels, shutter speeds, and f/stops are all in the "safe" zone, and occasionally check the LCD to make sure everything is still working. I once had the flash synch on a Bronica CONK OUT RIGHT DURING the processional!!! ACK!!!! I had to switch to an entirely new second system in about 5 minutes, and it was locked in the car trunk outside....I LEFT the church, went to the car, and got out the Nikon + bracket + flash backup, plugged in the Quantum cord, and headed back in to the church....zOMG...I shot the first kiss and the walk out with 35mm!!! Perhaps the single most nerve-wracking photographic disaster I have ever encountered..
> 
> So, today cannot possibly be any worse than that! Go tear it up man!



No processional...the entire thing will be at a restaurant with a J.P.  Actually, that's what worries me the most...not knowing how to make what will be a very budget limited affair look amazing.

Just about everything I have done before was high end.  It wasn't hard to find 'pretty' things.  This one will be a challenge for me.  At this point, I guess I will abandon pretty and just do my best to capture 'her' day to the best of my ability.

In all honesty, that is what I really need advice on.  The rest of the thread was pretty much in jest, but making a budget wedding look fabulous is something I really am worried about.  I'll shoot shallow and fill the frame to minimize distractions.  I will also take overall pictures, but I need to seriously work on not being snobish about what shots to take.  It's the best she can afford.  What I think shouldn't matter.  I need to do my best to capture her day, and not what I think her day 'should look like'.


----------



## tirediron

Kerbouchard said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just tell them to tip you whatever.  Dont ask for money.  Nickle and diming a budget wedding is not worth it IMO.  I would probably just give them the files.  Charging them for prints will cause more problem IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not charging them for prints.  I am basically going to take whatever her sister does give me and put together an album and hopefully one large print.  We'll see how far the budget goes.  And yes, I do plan on giving her a DVD with the files.
> 
> This is more of a wedding gift than a gig.  I have no intention of nickle and diming this.  There aren't that many nickle and dimes to go around, and she's trying to start a new life.
Click to expand...

Good on ya'!


----------



## tirediron

Kerbouchard said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have second shot 50 weddings? Holy cow... You shouldn't be doing budget wedding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you the reason I was doing it.  I would like to think you would do the same under the same circumstances.  What should I do?  Just let her get a $200 craigslist photographer who just bought a camera?  Like I said, it's more a wedding gift than a gig.
> 
> In any case, too late now.  It's today, and obviously, I am already committed.
Click to expand...

All the jesting in this thread aside, it's nice to hear about someone willing to help out someone else and not worrying only about the almighty dollar!


----------



## Kerbouchard

tirediron said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have second shot 50 weddings? Holy cow... You shouldn't be doing budget wedding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you the reason I was doing it.  I would like to think you would do the same under the same circumstances.  What should I do?  Just let her get a $200 craigslist photographer who just bought a camera?  Like I said, it's more a wedding gift than a gig.
> 
> In any case, too late now.  It's today, and obviously, I am already committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the jesting in this thread aside, it's nice to hear about someone willing to help out someone else and not worrying only about the almighty dollar!
Click to expand...


Thanks.  I just hope I do a good job.


----------



## tirediron

Kerbouchard said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you the reason I was doing it.  I would like to think you would do the same under the same circumstances.  What should I do?  Just let her get a $200 craigslist photographer who just bought a camera?  Like I said, it's more a wedding gift than a gig.
> 
> In any case, too late now.  It's today, and obviously, I am already committed.
> 
> 
> 
> All the jesting in this thread aside, it's nice to hear about someone willing to help out someone else and not worrying only about the almighty dollar!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I just hope I do a good job.
Click to expand...

Don't we all hope for that?   Here's my prediction:  You're going to come home thinking, "Crap, I should have shot that...." and "Dam, I should have been over there for the...." etc, etc.  You're going to post a few here to good review, and the bride and groom (who are all that matters) are going to be thrilled.   Let me know how close I was, okay?


----------



## Kerbouchard

tirediron said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the jesting in this thread aside, it's nice to hear about someone willing to help out someone else and not worrying only about the almighty dollar!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I just hope I do a good job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't we all hope for that?   Here's my prediction:  You're going to come home thinking, "Crap, I should have shot that...." and "Dam, I should have been over there for the...." etc, etc.  You're going to post a few here to good review, and the bride and groom (who are all that matters) are going to be thrilled.   Let me know how close I was, okay?
Click to expand...


Hopefully, you will be pretty close.  Only exception is Schwetty will tear them apart.  It's all good, though.


----------



## MTVision

tirediron said:
			
		

> All the jesting in this thread aside, it's nice to hear about someone willing to help out someone else and not worrying only about the almighty dollar!



I agree. I think it's very sweet!


----------



## rexbobcat

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> @rexbobcat...Sorry you took this post seriously.  I do appreciate that you were trying to help, but most of my responses have been in jest.  I've shot over 50 weddings.  This just happens to be my first solo.  I have the gear.  I have the experience.  This is just the first without a safety net.  Again, I appreciate your help, but there won't be any lens or flash additions on my part over the next few hours.
> 
> This thread was pretty much for entertainment value...just trying to break the tension.  I'll post some pics tomorrow or the next day to show how it turned out.



I was skeptical lol. I thought I saw you post some photos from a wedding but I get people mixed up on here so I wasn't sure.


----------



## APHPHOTO

Well what lenses do you have? As far as aperture, its kinda hard to tell you what to chose because every situation is different. Most times you going to want to chose a large aperture to isolate the backgrounds. The lenses I would bring are the 70-200 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8 but thats what I have and not knowing what you have is hard to give advice.
Also do you have any external flash equipment? Tripod?  Almost all wedding enviroments have poor lighting so your going to need more than just a camera and lense.


----------



## Robin Usagani

My apology.  Once again I failed to read.  I just saw someone you work with.  Last time I helped someone like this, I got to the wedding and see they have spent **** load of money on other things.  After I delivered the photos, I didnt even get a thanks.  Sure, it wasnt the greatest work but I did it all for free.  So I dont know what I would have done.  I may have done the same thing or maybe get her in touch with other photographers I know in town who are trying to get their feet wet in wedding photography.   So hopefully she deserves the help and it sounds like she does.



Kerbouchard said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I just hope I do a good job.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we all hope for that?   Here's my prediction:  You're going to come home thinking, "Crap, I should have shot that...." and "Dam, I should have been over there for the...." etc, etc.  You're going to post a few here to good review, and the bride and groom (who are all that matters) are going to be thrilled.   Let me know how close I was, okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully, you will be pretty close.  Only exception is Schwetty will tear them apart.  It's all good, though.
Click to expand...

Damn right .  This is assuming you are sharing it .  Now you just set the bar even higher since you told me you have 2nd shoot 50 times!  I have only done 12 (main and 2nd combined).


----------



## FireRescueFL

I hate when I get to all the fun threads a day late! I was gonna recommend that you left the DSLR at home and bring the pro Polariod so you can just hand 'em their photos right then! Also, bring a roll of Scotch tape and you can make them a book before you deliver it!

---Chris


----------



## Kerbouchard

Well, I survived.  Right now all the pictures look blurry.  Hopefully, they won't be as blurry when I sober up.  

Just kidding.  Everything went fine.  Formals sucked because there was literally not one possible background that wasn't distracting.  Everything else was pretty much fine.  Now for the fun part...actually processing an entire wedding.  Wish me luck.


----------



## Demers18

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> Well, I survived.  Right now all the pictures look blurry.  Hopefully, they won't be as blurry when I sober up.
> 
> Just kidding.  Everything went fine.  Formals sucked because there was literally not one possible background that wasn't distracting.  Everything else was pretty much fine.  Now for the fun part...actually processing an entire wedding.  Wish me luck.



That's really good to hear. Have fun processing and looking forward to seeing the results.


----------



## pgriz

Never mind the money - seems like you have some serious karma points coming your way.  I'm sure your work will be very well appreciated.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Well, just got done reviewing them.  I'm seriously disappointed with the formals.  They are lit perfectly, posed well, in focus, etc, etc. with a Craptacular background.  Like seriously, worst ever.  It's hard to even call these 'formals'.


----------



## Demers18

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> Well, just got done reviewing them.  I'm seriously disappointed with the formals.  They are lit perfectly, posed well, in focus, etc, etc. with a Craptacular background.  Like seriously, worst ever.  It's hard to even call these 'formals'.



They can't be that bad... You should post a few.


----------



## jamesbjenkins

Looking forward to seeing these.  You've done a good job of building my anticipation!


----------



## Sw1tchFX

ProTip: Shoot RAW


----------



## Sw1tchFX

< ProTip for self: Read the entire thread before posting


----------



## Kerbouchard

Demers18 said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, just got done reviewing them.  I'm seriously disappointed with the formals.  They are lit perfectly, posed well, in focus, etc, etc. with a Craptacular background.  Like seriously, worst ever.  It's hard to even call these 'formals'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't be that bad... You should post a few.
Click to expand...


They are that bad.  So, she didn't want formals right after the wedding.  Instead, she wanted to eat first, do the cake cutting, and open the dance floor.  Well, DJ idiot with his inconsiderate wife, out of control kids, and devil lights that look horrible were in full swing by the time the formals started.  Yes, I do mean to say that I was doing formals while the DJ's lighting was on, while people were dancing, and while the DJ's wife was sitting on the stage eating cake.

So, basically, I have two options, I can face away from the DJ and live with splotches of light on every couple, or I can put them in between me and the DJ, over power his lighting, and live with the background(not that there was an alternative in the first place.)  Couldn't go outside, couldn't go into another room...Heck, I might as well have not taken the shots in the first place.

So, basically, I have DJ lighting gear(which is on), pitch black room, can barely see the people I am taking shots of because the DJ's lighting is blinding me, a woman eating cake, a DJ booth, and people and kids running in out of every photo.  

Here is a pull back example just for fun...Obviously, I didn't frame the actual shot like this, but it's a good example of what was there...








Yes, it can be fixed and I know the alternative couldn't(both because of the splotches and the fact people would be squinting into his obnoxious lights, but it still annoys me and it's going to be a lot of work.  Everything else is fine...even with the cake falling over, decoration issues, etc. 

FWIW, yes, I did ask the lady to move.  She moved to get some cake and sat back down.  I also asked the DJ to turn off his lights.  I also asked if I could move a few tables and just use a blank wall.  I also asked if I could move the baloons.  Heck, I even asked if we could do it another room.  No to all accounts.

Honestly, I am sort of debating about whether or not I am even going to bother to fix them.

Like I said, everything else went great.  Getting ready shots are great.  Detail shots are great.  Dancing, cake cutting, ceremony, kiss, etc...all fine.  Formals, on the other hand...different story.


----------



## Derrel

Those are "documentary formals", designed to "capture the true ambiance of the event"...don't sweat it man...you think those festive mylar balloons  and DJ lights make an ugly background? Hah! A few years ago my wife did a similar "freebie wedding for a poor client"...this woman kept pestering her to shoot the wedding,and finally she gave in and agreed...well, it was held at some type of "converted hall" with a low, dark wood-beamed ceiling, with maybe 18-inch deep beams descending down from the ceilings every 10 feet or so, preventing bounce flash. The entire room was paneled in DARK wood, and I mean old, DARK wood paneling that sucked light up like a sponge. Built maybe circa 1910 or so...wood beams like that are not used any more...

And, the walls? Well, they were adorned with mounted deer, elk, antelope, and bear heads, as well as stuffed pheasants, ducks, and geese..and tacky signs with "sayings" on them. And as she said, "the bride's family had one full set of teeth amongst the whole group, and not one of them wanted to be there." She described the decor as "Hillbilly Hell, with taxidermy". Soooo, your wedding background actually looks "okay" to me!!! Yeah, the background is, uh, less than optimal--but seriously--I have actually SEEN worse!!!


----------



## tirediron

Derrel said:


> ... it was held at some type of "converted hall" with a low, dark wood-beamed ceiling, with maybe 18-inch deep beams descending down from the ceilings every 10 feet or so, preventing bounce flash. The entire room was paneled in DARK wood, and I mean old, DARK wood paneling that sucked light up like a sponge. Built maybe circa 1910 or so...wood beams like that are not used any more...
> 
> And, the walls? Well, they were adorned with mounted deer, elk, antelope, and bear heads, as well as stuffed pheasants, ducks, and geese..and tacky signs with "sayings" on them. And as she said, "the bride's family had one full set of teeth amongst the whole group, and not one of them wanted to be there." She described the decor as "Hillbilly Hell, with taxidermy". Soooo, your wedding background actually looks "okay" to me!!! Yeah, the background is, uh, less than optimal--but seriously--I have actually SEEN worse!!!



Yep!  See and shot worse!  I did one a few years back, held in the Empress Hotel (For those familiar, an old CPR hotel in Victoria).  The hotel messed up and double-booked the room that the formals were to be shot in.  All that was available was the the landing on a dark paneled stair-way with VERY highly polished walls and my speedlight siezed up and the head wouldn't swivel properly!  I feel your pain!


----------



## Robin Usagani

Well.. that's how it is sometimes, you will have part of the wedding where you feel it did not turn out great.  Just hope the other stuff is good to compensate.  To me this is an automatic shoot wide open shots with DJ light behind you with bounced flash.


----------



## Kerbouchard

If I shot wide open with the DJ lights behind me, there would have been colored splotches on peoples clothing and faces.  To me, that would have been worse and harder to edit.  I had never understood why some photos would bring a background to a wedding.  Now I know.


----------



## Robin Usagani

I think it would work since they are behind them... but then you can always shoot it wide open with the DJ lights off.  I thought thats why we all buy expensive glasses?


----------



## Kerbouchard

Schwettylens said:


> I think it would work since they are behind them... but then you can always shoot it wide open with the DJ lights off. I thought thats why we all buy expensive glasses?



I must not be explaining myself well.  The DJ would not turn his lights off.  They are the strobe +revolving color devil lights that throw splotches on everything.

If I would have turned them the other way, aside from having TV's and dirty tables in the backgrounds, the splotches would have been on their front and their face.

In any case, that room was just about pitch dark.  I was staring/squinting directly into the lights from the DJ and could barely see the people in the formals in the first place.  

If I would have shot wide open, the DJ's lights would have overpowered everything.  I used the settings I did to make it look like the DJ lights weren't on in the first place.  I'm not sure why you would ever shoot formals wide open or why you would want something like a DJ strobe showing up in your shots.

Honestly, I think you are having trouble understanding this because you can't comprehend somebody trying to take formals in the middle of the dance floor, in a dark room, with people dancing around you, and the DJ's lights on...Because that would be asinine...and you would be right.  Unfortunately, it was my reality.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Well.. good luck with the edit.  You have given them a huge favor and they were not cooperating.  Personally I would just process it and dont even attempt fixing the background.  It sounded like they dont expect much from photography because they put it last on the list.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Schwettylens said:


> Well.. good luck with the edit. You have given them a huge favor and they were not cooperating. Personally I would just process it and dont even attempt fixing the background. It sounded like they dont expect much from photography because they put it last on the list.



Still thinknig about it.  I figure on most of them, I'll just crop tight, even if that does mean cutting off a shoulder or two.  A few that are important, I'll completely process, and everything else just do normal cropping, exposure, sharpening, resize and be done with it.

Looking ahead and back, it was a good experience, and I don't regret it, but it won't happen again.


----------



## Robin Usagani

People ask me why I did this wedding b&w.  My answer was:
1. I was 2nd shooter so I am not trying to please anybody
2. The skiers in the background are too busy.  The all wear very bright colored outfits

So, the easiest way to combat busy colorful background is b&w IMO but probably you should deliver color ones too but if you blog it or put it on your portfolio, b&w would look better.  But I have a feeling you probably wont use these formals on your portfolio anyway.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Well, as promised...here we go.  I haven't really had time to do any real editing, but I wanted to get a few quick versions done just so the bride would have some stuff to share.  You guys get to see 'em first.

1. 



[/URL]
2.



[/URL]

3.



[/URL]

4.



[/URL]

5.



[/URL]

6.



[/URL]

7.



[/URL]

8.



[/URL]

9.



[/URL]

10.



[/URL]

11.



[/URL]

12.



[/URL]

13.



[/URL]

14.



[/URL]

15.



[/URL]

16.



[/URL]

17.



[/URL]

18.



[/URL]

19.



[/URL]

20.



[/URL]

21.



[/URL]

22.



[/URL]

23.



[/URL]

24.



[/URL]

25.



[/URL]


----------



## Josh220

If this had been a more formal wedding I would be more critical of these. But given they weren't cooperating and had a rather ghetto style wedding, I'd say they are getting more than they paid for. 

I would just focus on your poses (both people and items) as well as the subjects (the string in the last one is distracting). For next time, I would make sure everyone in the group shots are looking at you. For the bad backgrounds, pull the person further away from the wall and shoot wide open so you can't even tell what is behind them. When in doubt, blur it out! 

Keep up the good work and keep on practicing!


----------



## Kerbouchard

I pretty much agree.  I wish there would have been more room to move them away from the walls.  I also wish the guests would have at least made an effort to look my general direction during the posed shots.  As far as distracting elements in the frame, well, it is what it is.  Like I said, this was my first, and last, budget wedding.


----------



## pgriz

Given the circumstances, you have extracted the maximum amount of "good" out of a rather poor situation.  Certainly better than many of us could manage.  Can I give you a virtual pat on the back?


----------



## memento

lol @ "ghetto style wedding"


----------



## Trever1t

My 2 cents and let me qualify by saying I don't have too much experience in this arena:

I think they got what they paid for but not much more than that. I think some of the crops are too tight and others wide. The majority look under-exposed and color is washed. Some of the shots are at unusual angles, from too high above the subject for my taste. I am not saying I can do better, just that I wouldn't feel good about this set, regardless of how much I was paid.


----------



## bazooka

pgriz said:


> Can I give you a virtual pat on the back?



How about an internet high-five?  I think you deserve one Ker.  Add this to the invisible dollars you probably made doing this.


----------



## rub

*Please note - this is a real response, not an attack.  I just know that people telling you you did good doesnt help the situation or help you improve. 

I understand the wedding party wasn't as cooperative as you like, but its your role to direct them and control the situation.  In the wedding industry, there will be coulntless times you dont have the ideal location, clients, environment.  You need to be a problem solver, not just pass the buck.

And using the excuse thats its a low budget wedding is just that, an excuse.  

I was expecting more. Sorry   And whats with taking a picture of the dress while in the plastic bad?  Yikes.


----------



## gsgary

Why did you shoot them inside ? if it had to be inside you should have set up a part of the room or found somewhere more appealing,


----------



## camz

Kerb I think they look too flash dominant. On the the getting ready shots, I would've withdrawn all the curtains and let in as much ambient as I can. If possible push the ambient as much as I can and try to use flash power to a minimum, usually for me no greater then 1/32 power -only as a very slight fill (Even though if it means a shallow DOF). My reasoning is that looks like you're using on camera flash(it looks too flat as a main light if your killing the ambient). I would only use flash as a main light only when using OCF. To me, getting the right bounce flash ratio is more difficult than going OCF as you constantly move around - Those darn angles and colour casts from the walls/ceilings are a pain to deal with. It's just too much to think about and you don't want miss the moments. 

I think you need to put aside atleast 1-2 hours just for the bride and groom for their portrait session. These are the pictures that usually go in the album and the ones that generate the most revenue. These golden hours as in ($$$$) or portfolio material. That 1-2 hours to me is more than half of the work for the wedding day as you need to preplan poses, location, lighting, equipment etc. Everything else is just documenting. If you don't designated that time for them, you won't get good images. 

Someone once asked me "Why are my client engagment pictures much better then my client wedding pictures?" Simple answer.... It's the lens time you give your couple during the engagement doesn't compare to the lens time you give them during the wedding. 

Good luck kerb!


----------



## rub

Camz I completely agree about the over use of flash and you gave some great tips. We can't always get that quality time with the bride and groom - if all you have is 5 mins, you have to make it count.  I think this was probably a very rushed wedding.


----------



## camz

rub said:


> Camz I completely agree about the over use of flash and you gave some great tips. *We can't always get that quality time with the bride and groom - if all you have is 5 mins, you have to make it count*. I think this was probably a very rushed wedding.



Yeah I agree couples are bewildered when I mention this, but I do give them a heads up before they sign the contract. I tell them to alot that time or else their investment won't be worth anybody's time. I pitch that way and they tend to cooperate. I ask for a minimum of 1 hour and in that golden hour is the majority of what will go on their walls and in their album.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Believe me, you guys aren't the only ones who wish it would have went different.

When I first agreed to the wedding, I sat down with her, gave her a list of what we need to do, explained what kind of room is ideal for getting ready, explained how I would like time to take formals of her and her bridesmaids before the wedding, explained the time we needed. 

We also agreed to meet up at the restaurant to take engagement sort of photos and to scope out the site. She canceled the first meeting, rescheduled. Canceled the second, and then said we would just have to do it on her wedding day. We were supposed to do the formals right after the ceremony. I had everything set up and she then said she wanted to eat dinner first.

As I said earlier in the thread, I asked if we could move tables, the answer was no. I asked if we could go outside, the answer was no. I asked the DJ to move, the answer was no. I repeatedly asked people to pay attention and look at me...we saw how that turned out.

This isn't a cop out. Heck, I agree with the criticisms. I feel the same way. The unusual angles mentioned are a matter of what was behind them. The tight crops are also a result of the surroundings. The flashed look is a result of _not_ wanting to balance flash with ambient. My choices _were_ deliberate, even if it was choosing the lesser of two evils. Doesn't make the critiques any less right, just that I personally think the alternatives would have been worse.

As far as taking control of the situation, I will fully admit that I did not. It wasn't for a lack of trying, though.

I do appreciate all the input, though. Like I said, I'm not happy with the way any of it went.


----------



## CMfromIL

@Kerbouchard,

I think given the circumstances the pictures turned out as well as they could have, better infact that I was expecting based on the info.  No one died, you don't have to put these in your portfolio for future client viewings (unless you have a 'what not to do' folder), and in hindsight your favor probably means far more to the bride than it will ever mean to you.

I liked the ring picture the best.  Very elegant.


----------



## camz

Kerbouchard said:


> Believe me, you guys aren't the only ones who wish it would have went different.
> 
> When I first agreed to the wedding, I sat down with her, gave her a list of what we need to do, explained what kind of room is ideal for getting ready, explained how I would like time to take formals of her and her bridesmaids before the wedding, explained the time we needed.
> 
> We also agreed to meet up at the restaurant to take engagement sort of photos and to scope out the site. She canceled the first meeting, rescheduled. Canceled the second, and then said we would just have to do it on her wedding day. We were supposed to do the formals right after the ceremony. I had everything set up and she then said she wanted to eat dinner first.
> 
> As I said earlier in the thread, I asked if we could move tables, the answer was no. I asked if we could go outside, the answer was no. I asked the DJ to move, the answer was no. I repeatedly asked people to pay attention and look at me...we saw how that turned out.
> 
> This isn't a cop out. Heck, I agree with the criticisms. I feel the same way. The unusual angles mentioned are a matter of what was behind them. The tight crops are also a result of the surroundings. The flashed look is a result of _not_ wanting to balance flash with ambient. My choices _were_ deliberate, even if it was choosing the lesser of two evils. Doesn't make the critiques any less right, just that I personally think the alternatives would have been worse.
> 
> As far as taking control of the situation, I will fully admit that I did not. It wasn't for a lack of trying, though.
> 
> I do appreciate all the input, though. Like I said, I'm not happy with the way any of it went.



Tough sistuation Kerb. I guess it would be different if they paid you full price. If they've invested a few thousand towards your services they probably would start to pay attention to your lead. 

I don't see it as a cop out, I think every wedding photographers has been in your shoes. I guess the lesson learned here is a matter of service value which they didn't. Cancellations, "No's", etc etc by the bride and other parties. It's weird how that works, the more they pay the more they listen. The less they pay, the less they listen. 

When I was at $900-1200 doing like 30-40 weddings a year, man bridezilla galore,drama queens, tardiness, unorganized venues etc etc. All the issues and all the problems. My prices were super cheap for our area. Trust me I know the feeling.

Edit: I want to emphasize that it's not a demographics factor but a value of service(how much they've invested).  

Brush it off...lesson learned.


----------



## Josh220

If I may, can I ask that you show us examples of other weddings you have shot that aren't "low budget" and uncooperative? I am curious about the quality of your work in an ideal wedding to see if your assessment has validity?


----------



## Derrel

"Flash dominant"? What??? Of course they're flash dominant...look at that BLACK ceiling, and the TINY LIGHTS...the place was a black hole....there's no ambient light even worth shooting for...solution? Shoot all-flash,. Flash as Main Light. Shoot "flash" "Flash". Full-flash. Slow-synch flash. Rear-curtain synch flash. TTL flash. e-TTL Flash. FLash. Flash. FLASH!

This was a simple wedding in a dark, low-budget location. They got sharp, clear, well-focused pictures. FAR, far better than what friends would have done with camera phones or P&S cameras. They payed $200, which they could barely afford. THey got a hell of a deal. The bride looked pretty. The groom looked good. The girls in the wedding party looked pretty. They will look at the pics a lot in the next few months, and then, less and less and less as the years go by. This wasn't a "rich Daddy and Mommy, Bride's Magazine" wedding on any count--dress, cake, location, planning, logistics, tables ,food/catering, wedding party, friends, family. I think the bride and groom got a good value, some good pics, and a fair and accurate representation of the wedding that THEY ACTUALLY WANTED, and which they actually HELD.

I by the way, gave you an internet high-five above in Bazooka's post...I think a lot of people are confusing this kind of a wedding with the storybook weddings we see on TV.


----------



## Robin Usagani

It is a hard venue, I give you that.  The walls are bright colored, the ceiling is black. But I still think there are ways to have shot these much better given the circumstances. Even the getting ready shot is lacking.  You need to tell a story.  I use this photo as an example.  The bounced flash is horrible.  I am guessing you used some kind of stoffen or fong dong.  You are not really showing the person on the back fixing her hair.  It just look like she is smiling and has a weird hairdo.  You need to go wide with a better angle.  Show what the girl on the back is doing.  Not every picture you need to see the bride's face.  I am telling you, the stuff you did on this wedding, you do it on your other weddings too.  I have said it before that you (or cindy) shoot too many from standing elevation.  Be more creative with your angles.  You also need to mix your flash better with ambient OR not use it at all in some cases.  To me the dress shot is horrible.  It would have looked better if you had blown out the window and either not use flash or use flash just a tiny bit.  











I thought it is a little ironic you said "What should I do? Just let her get a $200 craigslist photographer who just bought a camera? ".  When I see this, I see a $200 CL photographer work, and not someone who has shot 50 weddings.  I have seen many weddings where the ceremony took place in someone's living room and the photographer manage to make it look wonderful.


----------



## e.rose

Derrel said:


> "Flash dominant"? What??? Of course they're flash dominant...look at that BLACK ceiling, and the TINY LIGHTS...the place was a black hole....there's no ambient light even worth shooting for...solution? Shoot all-flash,. Flash as Main Light. Shoot "flash" "Flash". Full-flash. Slow-synch flash. Rear-curtain synch flash. TTL flash. e-TTL Flash. FLash. Flash. FLASH!
> 
> This was a simple wedding in a dark, low-budget location. They got sharp, clear, well-focused pictures. FAR, far better than what friends would have done with camera phones or P&S cameras. They payed $200, which they could barely afford. THey got a hell of a deal. The bride looked pretty. The groom looked good. The girls in the wedding party looked pretty. They will look at the pics a lot in the next few months, and then, less and less and less as the years go by. This wasn't a "rich Daddy and Mommy, Bride's Magazine" wedding on any count--dress,cake,location,planning,logistics,tables,food/catering,family. I think the bride and groom got a good value, some good pics, and a fair and accurate representation of the wedding that THEY ACTUALLY WANTED, and which they actually HELD.
> 
> I by the way, gave you the internet high-five above...I think a lot of people are con fusing this kind of a wedding with the storybook weddings we see on TV.



Honestly... I agree.

Quite frankly calling it a "ghetto wedding" is bull****.

Not everyone is rich enough to throw a TLC style wedding.

Why everyone thinks that weddings have to be stylized to a tee and totally glamorized is beyond me.

I hate weddings.

They're so materialistic.

People lose sight of the fact that weddings are about two people getting *married*... about a (hopefully) life-long commitment two people are about to make to each other... not about who can outdo the Joneses.

This couple did what they could, on the budget that they could as far as the ceremony and decor was concerned.  Would it make wedding of the year?  Probably not.  But who CARES?

I hate to say it... and as much as *I* valued the photography at my wedding... and while there are many people that *do*... some people just don't *care* what it looks like as long as there is a record of the day.

Clearly they didn't care what was in the background seeing as Kerb tried to offer them options and they didnt' take any of them.

Coming from a C&C standpoint... sure... there's a lot that needs to be fixed, but I really see no point in criticizing that which he couldn't control.

I agree with Derrel here, honestly.

The bride didn't pay him anything (as far as I read), and it was a gift to the bride, so there was no loss on her end.  Only gain.

Had she paid $3,000 for his services... yeah, there might be cause for concern... but that wasn't the case.

I'm sure the couple was happy with what they got, considering their alternative option was no photographer at all.  So good job doing the best you could have done with the situation.

And those of you calling it a "ghetto wedding"... shame on you for judging those who can't afford to (or just don't see the point in) spending THOUSANDS of dollars on a 4 hour party.


----------



## Josh220

There's a difference between not caring and blatantly ignoring/blowing off your photographer. 

Within the definition of ghetto lies, "low-class, cheap, or inferior." It was not meant in an offensive manner, but a statement of fact. Interpret it as you see fit, but the accuracy is more than substantial. 

P.S. I have been gone for over a year and your first post directed at me is to say my comment is bullish*t? You got mean!


----------



## fsquare

The same people who complain about not having the money for a "TLC" type of wedding are those same people who spend $7 on a pack of smokes and $20 on a case of beer daily. Some people find value in having a more posh wedding. There is nothing wrong with doing it either way. The reason they paid the OP nothing or $200 is not because they couldn't afford it, it's because they didn't VALUE it. Where there's a will there is a way. I'm not rich but when I look back at my own wedding i'm glad i spent a few more bucks to do it the way I thought right. Call me materialistic all you want I guess but some of us only get that chance once in a lifetime.


----------



## e.rose

Josh220 said:


> You got mean!



I've been.  

Defining the definition of "ghetto" as "low-class, cheap, and inferior" isn't any better than just flat out calling it ghetto.

Clearly they're not of the upper class... so I'll give you that.

Clearly they're not of wealth, so they didn't spend much, so their wedding was cheap... I'll give you that too...

However, INFERIOR... compared to what?  OTHER peoples' weddings?  Why should there be a comparison?  This is what they wanted, what they felt was right for them.  Why should it be considered inferior to other's weddings?  Because they didn't have an ice sculpture?  :greenpbl:

Calling other people's weddings things like "tacky", "ghetto", "ugly", etc... has been something that has irritated me since I joined a wedding forum back when I first got engaged.

I've never liked the idea of girls (or guys) sitting around bitching about how appalled they were that so-and-so's linens weren't ironed... or that they didn't have an open bar... or that they did a... what is it called... money dance?

Or that they had their wedding in a fire hall or an Elks Lodge some how made it trashy.

Like I said, the majority of weddings center around materialistic shiz, and I hate that... because, in my humble opinion, that's not at all what it should be about.

I mean if you've got the money to go nuts... but all means go nuts, but not everyone does.

It's just a pet peeve.

I still love you though, don't worry. :hug::


----------



## rub

I dont care if they didnt pay for the services, got married in front of a blue tarp, arent wanting to be blogged about and submitted to magazines. Its not about how much you spend, but about sharing your life with the one you love.  Maybe if I had seen some candids of laughter and tears and emotion, it would have changed my view of the images.  I guess it just looks like a job with no emotion involved.  And maybe there wasnt due to the fact that the clients seemed to not care about the photography at all. I have no issue with the wedding, I just wish there was more FEELING in the images.  

Kerb I am sorry they didnt appreciate you or your direction - unfortunately it really shows in the work.  And yes, it will be a big lesson learned on booking based on the client/photographer relationship, rather than the bank account or dayplanner.

I do look forward to seeing your next solo wedding though.


----------



## Josh220

An ice sculpture sure would have "class-ied" up their wedding...


----------



## e.rose

fsquare said:


> There is nothing wrong with doing it either way.



THAT.  is exactly my point. :sillysmi:

It's just that people who choose NOT to spend a lot, get crap for it.

That irritates me.

Like I said to Josh, if you have the money, go for it, but there's no reason you should be beat down because you don't.

I didn't have a "TLC" style wedding either.

I chose not to.

I also chose to cut areas of my budget to be able to *afford* our photographer... and like you, I'm glad I did, however, not everyone *does* value that... which I did mention... which was clearly the case with this couple... which I also mentioned... the fact that they just wanted the day *recorded*... which brings me back to the reason I said that Kerb did the best he could with it given the circumstances.  

Now we're just going in circles.

::spins around wildly with arms spread wide:: :lmao:


----------



## e.rose

rub said:


> I dont care if they didnt pay for the services, got married in front of a blue tarp, arent wanting to be blogged about and submitted to magazines. Its not about how much you spend, but about sharing your life with the one you love.  Maybe if I had seen some candids of laughter and tears and emotion, it would have changed my view of the images.  I guess it just looks like a job with no emotion involved.  And maybe there wasnt due to the fact that the clients seemed to not care about the photography at all. I have no issue with the wedding, I just wish there was more FEELING in the images.



THAT... I totally agree with.

You're comment wasn't what I was referring to when I was talking about how the wedding looked.  But this statement I agree with.  That he COULD have done better with... capturing the emotion of the day.

100% agree. :thumbup:

EDIT:  Fixed typo.  "your comment was" was supposed to say "your comment WASN'T.


----------



## e.rose

Josh220 said:


> An ice sculpture sure would have "class-ied" up their wedding...


----------



## Josh220

e.rose said:


> It's just that people who choose NOT to spend a lot, get crap for it.
> 
> That irritates me.
> 
> Like I said to Josh, if you have the money, go for it, but there's no reason you should be beat down because you don't.
> 
> I didn't have a "TLC" style wedding either.
> 
> I chose not to.



I never meant that there is anything wrong with those who don't value the pictures from their wedding, or just don't want to spend a fortune on that aspect. What I meant, in regards to this wedding specifically, is that just because you don't want to spend a lot doesn't mean you have to blatantly disregard the photographer that you did hire. These people were uncooperative and made it difficult. 

That being said, there is a massive market for people re-creating their wedding to get proper pictures... Regrets, anyone?


----------



## e.rose

Josh220 said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just that people who choose NOT to spend a lot, get crap for it.
> 
> That irritates me.
> 
> Like I said to Josh, if you have the money, go for it, but there's no reason you should be beat down because you don't.
> 
> I didn't have a "TLC" style wedding either.
> 
> I chose not to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never meant that there is anything wrong with those who don't value the pictures from their wedding, or just don't want to spend a fortune on that aspect. What I meant, in regards to this wedding specifically, is that just because you don't want to spend a lot doesn't mean you have to blatantly disregard the photographer that you did hire. These people were uncooperative and made it difficult.
> 
> That being said, there is a massive market for people re-creating their wedding to get proper pictures... Regrets, anyone?
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking specifically about people not valuing wedding photography... I was talking about people not wanting to dump money into a wedding as whole.  

But yeah... they DID make it difficult... which I never disagreed with... that was never my point other than to say that Kerb did what he could *because* they were difficult.    Which was an entirely different point than the one I was trying to make in reference to "ghetto" weddings.  

Still going in circles.  I'm getting dizzy now.  :lmao:


----------



## bentcountershaft

I just wanted to pop in and say good job on remembering the lens cap.


----------



## camz

Derrel said:


> "*Flash dominant"? What??? *Of course they're flash dominant[/B]...look at that BLACK ceiling, and the TINY LIGHTS...the place was a black hole....there's no ambient light even worth shooting for...solution? Shoot all-flash,. Flash as Main Light. Shoot "flash" "Flash". Full-flash. Slow-synch flash. Rear-curtain synch flash. TTL flash. e-TTL Flash. FLash. Flash. FLASH!
> 
> This was a simple wedding in a dark, low-budget location. They got sharp, clear, well-focused pictures. FAR, far better than what friends would have done with camera phones or P&S cameras. They payed $200, which they could barely afford. THey got a hell of a deal. The bride looked pretty. The groom looked good. The girls in the wedding party looked pretty. They will look at the pics a lot in the next few months, and then, less and less and less as the years go by. This wasn't a "rich Daddy and Mommy, Bride's Magazine" wedding on any count--dress, cake, location, planning, logistics, tables ,food/catering, wedding party, friends, family. I think the bride and groom got a good value, some good pics, and a fair and accurate representation of the wedding that THEY ACTUALLY WANTED, and which they actually HELD.
> 
> I by the way, gave you an internet high-five above in Bazooka's post...I think a lot of people are confusing this kind of a wedding with the storybook weddings we see on TV.



I'll have to disagree with you there bud. Look at images 1-9 were there was clearly ambient spill yet the flash was too dominant. Also look at images 8 and 9 you can see via reflection that the curtains were closed. Therefore there could've been more ambient used. I was talking about the getting ready shots if you read my post.

The venue is a different story. Too me as much as possible minimal flash whenever you can = more detail and less power used.


----------



## Josh220

e.rose after this thread: 





On a more relevant note, was there at least a soft box or diffuser of some sort on the flash, since it could not be bounced?


----------



## e.rose

Josh220 said:


> e.rose after this thread:
> ::insert video::





Pretty much.    :hug::


----------



## Robin Usagani

erose loves me so much, she named her cat Robin.


----------



## e.rose

Schwettylens said:


> erose loves me so much, she named her cat Robin.



TECHNICALLY...

His first name is Fruitcakes.

That was my brother's doing.


----------



## Derrel

Crappy ambient light versus well-exposed flash? My choice would be flash. Just because there is "light" coming in through windows doesn't mean it's worth shooting by that light...it's often more of a hassle than it's worth...I don't agree that the getting ready shots are too flash dominant...the entire idea is that he *is* shooting with *flash*. The phrase too flash dominant presumes that ambient light is better or would have been better, and that less flash would have been a better approach. I just don't see it that way. 

Of course, shot #2, of the bride in her dark,wrinkle, tank-style undershirt, with the blue hair band...and the hot specular highlights on her cheeks...that WOULD be the photo that Schwettylens selected to harp on, in light of his well-knoiwn animosity toward Kerbouchard's abilities...THAT shot does suck, big-time. And the flash looks bad in that one.


----------



## camz

Man Kerb...is your mind ready to explode yet? LOL


----------



## Compaq

I'm not capable to give critique in any way, but I do enjoy the fork that's possible stuffed down into an uneaten piece of cake in the last shot


----------



## MacHoot

I had to google fong dong. I thought Schwitty lost his marbles. lol


----------



## Kerbouchard

camz said:


> Man Kerb...is your mind ready to explode yet? LOL



No, it's all good.  To be honest.  I would have liked to do things a lot differently.  I do agree with many of the critiques.  My only gripe is that a few people are assuming that it was a mistake or poor shooting technique, when, IMO, it was choosing the least bad choice.

As far as the shots, these were kind of a selection from throughout the night.  It wasn't my intention to make these perfect or to say they were.  There is a reason 'qe' is at the end of the filename.  Stands for quick edit...as in did some crops, a few exposure adjustments, a batch resize, and an upload. 

My intention was just to share some examples of what was by far, the most challenging wedding I have shot.

I'll take what you guys have said into account for my actual edits, and I appreciate the feedback.

Oh, and FWIW, there is no money.  A few of her friends, and I, are going to chip in to make her an album...That's pretty much it.


----------



## DiskoJoe

Kerbouchard said:


> I pretty much agree.  I wish there would have been more room to move them away from the walls.  I also wish the guests would have at least made an effort to look my general direction during the posed shots.  As far as distracting elements in the frame, well, it is what it is.  Like I said, this was my first, and last, budget wedding.



You only do "budget" jobs for friends that you know. Of course I say this and I have a gig coming up soon similar to this. Its for a girl that works with my wife. But I hope they class it up some. I plan on doing an engagement shoot with them so I can get to know them better and they can see how I work. Its very important they know how you work. 

Now as for your pics I would go with schwetty and see how some bw renders come out. I can almost guarantee the end product will look better then in color especially the shots where the background is a bit too dark from the flash. I really like bw for wedding shots. Very timeless and classic.

And she really should not have let her brides maids pic out their own dresses. Sheesh!


----------



## cgipson1

DiskoJoe said:


> And she really should not have let her brides maids pic out their own dresses. Sheesh!




Those shoes! Yeccchhh!


----------



## Trever1t

what shoes??????


----------

