Hello Benson,
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Benson Russell wrote:
> Hello list members,
>
> I've signed up recently and I've been watching the correspondence with
> interest - you're an amazingly knowlegable bunch!
Welcome to the list. Glad to have you around...
>
> I've been asked to take wedding photos by some friends - an informal(ish)
> do, this Saturday. I've got a collection of OM gear that I use
> semi-professionally for magazine work
RUN FOR YOUR LIFE. Find some excuse....I dunno....fake a disease, get a
work injury, fly out to see a remote, dying aunt in Australia on the
morning on the wedding. Failing all that...well, bless you!
Seriously, weddings are tricky things. Yes, the subjects in big white
dresses are rather "difficult" to photograph and definitely defeats all
kinds of automatism in cameras, but that is not the worst....the worst is,
that you know the bride, and probably would like to see her and her
husband again at a later point in time. The last thing you want is to be
known as "ohh, that guy, he's the one who ruined my wedding" :)
And know, that no matter what pictures you take, no matter how good they
are, they will just not be good enough. Brides (and to some lesser extend
grooms) want their wedding to be PERFECT. So, to that end, a lot of very
difficult and complicated arrangements are made, all of which carry an
inheritly very very high risk of going wrong. Seriously...a big white
dress is not the most practical thing for that romantic outdoor wedding
(or for any occation, for that matter) - and the multi-level-cake just
invites some sort of spectacular accident. I would not want to be yet
another element that could go wrong on that day, so I have always avoided
being a photographer at weddings.
No, I am absolutely not against weddings, and I perfectly understand that
they should be PERFECT. After all, the "'till death do us part" thing
kinda implies that it is not something to repeat too often. If I was to
get married, I'd probably want the same, and be very anal about everything
being just right. What I am saying is merely that so much can go wrong
that I would prefer to attend as a guest, leaving the photography to
someone with experience in that specific field of photography (I even
think we have some on the list who do that kind of stuff, no?) - tht
professional then also being the one to blame if it goes wrong, and the
professional not having any relations with the couple, reaching beyond the
bill being paid.
<SNIP - I'll get back to you on woodworking at a later time, if I may. I
have some questions that bridge that topic with photo..>
> I said 'yes' to my friends and ordered 3 rolls of Fuji NPC 160 and two of
> NPZ 800. I've hardly ever used flash, and I'm getting a little gittery about
> the whole thing now... Could someone practical point me in the right
> direction please?
No flash-experience? Uhh...well, just one flash? Hmm.....
I am leaning towards your calling a wedding photographer and offering to
pick up the bill for the "formal" photos, i.e. those in/outside the church
(or wherever the ceremony is taking place) with the priest etc. Would make
for a good gift, in case you are out of other ideas too :)
Then, for the more informal part (the "party" part - but don't tell anyone
that I called it that), you can take the photos of the guests and the
bride and groom enjoying themself. Depending on where it will be (indoor?
outdoor?) you may be able to do with existing light (make sure to get a
film, balanced to the light, then)
>
> This is what I have at my disposal:
>
> OM4Ti, OM2
> F280 flash, Vivitar 283 flash, Miranda 650 OM ded. zoom flash (terrifying!)
> Lumiquest Promax soft box - velcro fix to non OM flashes
> Zuikos: 24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.8 ('made in J'), 100/2.8 (I've been
> disappointed), 135/2.8, 35-70/3.6, 75-150/4
> Tamron 90/2.5 macro (on its way back from the cleaners) I love it...
> Hoya 400/5.6
Well, if you decide to go through with it, then...
Of the above, bring both cameras. Put fresh batteries in both, bring a
pile of extra batteries. I do not know about the flashes - I know only the
280, and since it cannot bounce, probably the softbox is needed.
For lenses, I'd bring the 24, the 50, the 100 and the 135. I would mount
the 50 for the "party pictures" - if there is a dinner, use the 100mm to
be sufficiently discrete and keep sufficient distance.
The 135/2.8 is a nice lens for portraits, but I find it to be a little too
long for taking pictures of "parties".
For any pictures of people close up, avoid anything wider than 50mm - a
wide angle will give a weird perspective to peoples faces if they are
close.
I do not know the other lenses you mention, however I would avoid zooms.
IMO, they do not give enough light and may also just give "an extra
technical thing to forget". With good primes, you may actually make do
with existing light.
I'd probably take a test film with each camera and have it developed
before the ceremony, but that may be getting too late for you. Also, if
you use both bodies regularly, it may not be needed.
> And this is an interesting one: Carl Zeiss Jena 28-80 macro (at the menders
> now, perhaps terminal, but I'd like some feed back on this, LATER please)
> (Incidentals: Sigma 2x tele macro, 7mm man ext, 24mm man ext, rev ring,
> Cokin P holder with bellows + filters etc.)
Filters...hmm....you may want some kind of softener filter, if you are to
be the one to take the picture of the newly wed couple under the blooming
cherry tree (then you also may to invoke powers to change the weather, but
you get the idea.....).
> Slick pro tripod with Manf junior head, Manfrotto monopod with rubber top
> All 2nd hand (bar filters etc), all works!
Tripod, if you are to be the one taking any kind of formal or semi formal
stuff. For casual pictures, any kind of "pod" is too visible and
cumbersome. Go with a faster film there.
>
> They probably want record shots of the non-religious ceremony and then some
> family groups and maybe some candid action/portraits
You may want to check with whoever is performing the ceremony in order to
get permission to be in the "good spot". Also, you may want to check the
facility where the ceremony is to happen. I would probably bring
"stand-ins" for the bride, groom and "person performing the ceremony" in
order to position yourself and figure out how the light works out.
Ohh...and at the ceremony and the following dinner/party/whatever, make
sure to take a LOT of film. Better too many films than too few,
really. Film is cheap - redoing a wedding is not. It gives more to
choose from, and should all the shots be good, then I am sure that the
couple would be more than happy to have lots of memories from their
(hopefully) once in a lifetime experience :)
Keep in mind, though, that I have never done this kind of thing, and the
above were just the thoughts that flew through my head when you mentioned
your assignment.
Good luck!
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|