So I shot my first wedding yesterday as a second shooter and

File: DSC06379.jpg (388KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1280x1920px

Also this one... I was watching the "pro" who came in to take these photos basically next to him learning and asking questions which he was pretty happy with (i think).

I found that he was basically always shooting wide open so I tried to copy his settings... I dont dig this.. anyways...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:30 18:13:56
Exposure Time	1/3200 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	10.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2955775
Ya, good gear is very important.

> ALSO who the fuck has those good photos after the ceremony at fucking lunch time? Totally just fucking the golden hours out.
A lot of people unless you as photographer advise them how to do it better?

Although you should be prepared to do virtually *anything* at least "okay". Yea, the light sensitive grandpa will just be in his dark corner. Have strobes and a good camera/lens for it, eh.

That said, next time, be the primary photographer and plan the main photos, bring backgrounds and lights and stuff, bring a makeup artist, and do a bunch of shots just right?

>>2955777
Many pros suck. They bring a zoom lens, TTL flash, and shoot anything wide open no preparations. Minimal post and done.

'cause they either don't care or feel they don't really get paid enough to actually care.

Maybe you'll get old and jaded like that too, but for now, at least TRY bringing at least one camera with a nice prime, picking a good aperture and doing good composition, and instruct people to move to better locations if they pick shitty busy backgrounds or poor light.

>>2955777
He looks like he's threatening her.
>where's my money

>>2955783
this

>>2955783
Yep. 7/10 mafia impression.

>>2955781
>TRY bringing at least one camera with a nice prime
What's that good for? I mean, appart from wide angle lenses why should one shoot wider than f/2.8? Perhaps I'm asking since I like to stop down anyway.

>>2955777
TAKE IT OFFF!

>>2955795
Much better subject isolation (crowds at weddings are often distracting), better ability to get a clean high resolution shot, plus dealing with various situations where you don't have good light and no time to get the compensating strobes set up.

There surely are more reasons, but that's just a bunch of them. A FF camera is also often preferable.

>>2955795
Customers have no idea about pictures. Bokeh signalizes professionalism for them. I shoot all my weddings at 1.4-2.8.
Even yesterday I was shooting 1.4 ISO100 1/6000. I hated my life, but if you are able to focus people will love it.

>>2955798
>>2955801
I don't see your points that strict, however, based on ff and qualitative lenses. For weddings, I feel like losing flexibility by using wide apertures, prime lenses or a second body.
I see it as a matter of time and capturing moments. Despite the fact that I stop down, I often miss the focus, even if only little. Despite being mindful, I am too far away or too close to the action. And then I'm missing moments right in moment or through deletion.
Like OP said: >challenging to get usable shots >hard to get quality good shots throughout the day

Based on 5 years of serious photography oriented to competitions and 10+ years overall, lately, I've just shot two weddings. The first with a couple of photographers with precise expectations, the second guys seeing photos as a tiresome must having no expectation at all.
Both of these were unusual for me, because I wanted to aim for their desires and inquired what they imagine.
The photography couple showed these perfect happy emotional photos: sunny day, wide apertures, a tad over exposed and saturated, pastel-colored, great proportions of white available light. The second couple was like you'll know, we do not.
Effectively, I've shot according to my experience, stopping down a bit, using a flashgun corrected to underexpose. I just went for the desired look in my editing and only for the couple shots.
Both couples were very happy with it, the photographers were even amazed by the existing subject isolation and the absence of flashlight/mixed color. I was satisfied too, as I was able to utilize many pictures, resulting in a complete documentation.

Knowing the difference is only visible in direct comparison and then essentially only outside a wide center or wider apertures, now I don't consider a second body and use primes actually only for landscape and architecture. Comparing the Sigma Art primes and the latest Canon 24-70, I freely admit, I see only difference in blurred parts and corners.

>>2955824
>Despite the fact that I stop down, I often miss the focus, even if only little.
Use your AF?

OP has face detection and eye focusing AF. IDK about you - sounds like you shoot with a Canon, but that still allows a point / small AF area to be used.

> And then I'm missing moments right in moment or through deletion.
Uh, deletion? Don't touch your files until you're working on the copy on your computer. SD cards are no problem to not fill or carry more.

>>2955801
Agreed, it's also a matter of reputation and client expectations. Bokeh whoring is about the best you can do for most clients.

>>2955825
>Use your AF?
Sorry, but that sounds naive to me. You sound like you hit every shot at f/1.4, which is certainly not the case.

>deletion
Yes, I mark and delete duplicates (blinking eye,..) and missed shots, at my computer of course. I'm not going to chimp If there is hardly any time anyway.

I throw away 1/3 to 1/2. What's pretty good for pressing the shutter multiple times. The couples got a selection of the rest.

For some reason, this is a disgusting thread. I hate it. Hideous. Go away.

>>2955833
No one cares what you think. Go away.

>>2955795
>What's that good for?
see:
>once it was dark I found it very challenging to get usable shots

>>2955849
No you

File: DSC06388.jpg (346KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1280x1920px

All of these posts are good, I get what most mean. The whole Bokeh creamy background good light makes for a "professional" photo.

Honestly, even though I'm looking at these shots now and thinking I did shit house, I can't wait to go to the next wedding and learn from it.

I think the hardest part is knowing that with funds how it is, shooting with a F1.4 whatever would cost me a whole two weeks wage (probs) so all of these 2.8 lenses I have or the 1.8 50mm will be my "best"...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:30 22:26:29
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	3.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2955830
> Sorry, but that sounds naive to me. You sound like you hit every shot at f/1.4, which is certainly not the case.
No? I was under the impression that one or multiple dual cross-type AF points had no problem hitting exactly.

> What's pretty good for pressing the shutter multiple times
IDK about you, but I switched to medium or fast bursts depending on how many people were present. Worked better and tires my finger less...

>>2955855
Well, the Sigma 30mm and Samyang 85mm f/1.4 aren't too expensive.

But I think it's not quite like FF bokeh, it's just a creamy blur in most cases.

This ~$22 Chinese bokeh kinda looks better:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2062341@N22/pool/with/29823755986/

>>2955864
That leads into my next question, What are peoples thoughts on using a manual focused lens through a wedding? surely you would use it when composing photos are they are still for the shot... but still 1.4 offers razor thin DOF...

ahhh does anyone here have their shitty photos?? hahahaha

>>2955865
> What are peoples thoughts on using a manual focused lens through a wedding?
I'd just use AF most of the time when you shoot the event. It just hits quicker and misses less (even with focus peaking and all that), and you don't have time to review and retake shots in most cases.

Plus I noticed that I had missed more shots than I thought when I actually tried shooting MF only for some days (not usually at weddings).
Despite focus peaking and all that you just get tired and loose concentration or such eventually. Well, that's how it was for me, anyhow. Maybe if you're doing this every day, you'll do better soon?

However, if you do a bunch of posed shots in front of a good background (and maybe even with strobes), do as you prefer. MF will be fine there, but IMO so is EyeAF in the majority of the cases where it works.

>>2955860
Summarized, my post tells it's sufficient (for me even sought) to go having zoom lenses, flash and stopping down, because people will still find great photos, maybe even better ones. That a larger dof allows to select more photos from all photos taken, be it because all persons are within dof or to have photos within tolerance although there's a slightly missed focus.

You are aiming at arguing (not comparing) brands and perhaps you thought I'm in. Probably you'll find my statements apply to every brand.

For people who have not tried it yet I appeal to the human understanding and ask to imagine the effect of little tolerances at thin dof in contrast to wide dof. There are also other circumstances besides the devices.

The last post I made in this direction.

>>2955865
>thoughts on using a manual focused lens through a wedding?

Retarded.

>>2955884
> all persons are within dof
You never want subject isolation to 1-2 people at such a busy event without calling them in an appropriate location? I do. But I guess whatever works for you.

>You are aiming at arguing (not comparing) brands and perhaps you thought I'm in.
You made this pretty crazy statement that AF couldn't hit its target reliably at f/1.4... it can.

>>2955783
>>2955789
>>2955792
Kabedon!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ge7-SP-8JY