Colter goes digital

[dtel's wife]

Michael,

The pictures are beautiful. The one of the flower girl is especially pretty.

You have a pm.

Christy

[dbflash]

Michael,

The pictures are great.

I agree with dtel's wife about the flower girl. That is just a awesome picture. That needs to go into your portfolio of some of your best work.

Danny

[colterphoto1]

Thanks for the comments all. I'm with you about the shot of Riley.

Y'know, I was in that dressing area for probably 10 minutes or so. That's about all the time we get because we can't be in there when any girl is actually dressing- so we slow them up horribly.

Anyway, I barely remember taking the photos of Riley. Got one headon, but she was looking at the camera, then another with her at one edge of the frame part silhouette looking at a bridesmaid- that was better. But I saw her perfect curls and cute as button nose and knew there had to be a better one. I must have just stored that in my mind because the view you see is with me in the bathroom with the bride, shooting out into the room (because Riley is backlit) towards the open windows. I had to be very tightly framed for the photo to be exposed correctly (too much window in the frame would throw off the camera meter), and this was taken on a return trip to the dressing room a bit later than the main bunch of photos because I had the 85mm lens on (the shallow depth of field you see).

I don't even remember taking this photo. It was not setup in any way at all. I just grabbed it. I guess the old reactions are coming back.

My old axiom works even better with digitals freedom to shoot 'shoot first, ask questions later'.

Micahel

[Def Leper]

There is nothing like shallow depth of field. Here's the 85mm 1.4 again. One problem with digital is that not only is there more items in focus due to the small target within the camera, but inexpensive zooms frequently only open up to 3.5 or 5.6- which is a tremendous depth of field. Narrowing it gives us a more intense experience with the subject.

Tsk, tsk, please convey accurate information. DOF is a function of aperture and reproduction ratio. A digital camera has exactly the same DOF at a given aperture and reproduction ratio as any other camera. As you note, the problem with getting shallow DOF with many lenses is the small maximum aperture.

In your detail shot of the beaded wedding dress, I don't see anything but disadvantage to using shallow DOF. Most of the shot is out of focus, and if you're trying to show the details, a much smaller aperture setting would work better. Given your closeness to the subject (high magnification) and distance from the background, you could have gottem much more in focus while still dropping out the background.

You might also want to look into Nikon's 85mm Micro tilt/shift lens. You can do some superb selective focus techniques that lend themselves very well to weddings and can't be done any other way.

The firework shot is especially hard to do technically. You'll get better results if you dial in at least -1.5 or -2 stops of flash compensation to keep the flash sensor from averaging the scene (much of which is dark) and burning out the foreground highlights. You have the same problem with the dad-daugher dance shot, badly burned-out foreground highlights because the flash overcompensated for the dark background.

[Mike Lindsey]

There is nothing like shallow depth of field. Here's the 85mm 1.4 again. One problem with digital is that not only is there more items in focus due to the small target within the camera, but inexpensive zooms frequently only open up to 3.5 or 5.6- which is a tremendous depth of field. Narrowing it gives us a more intense experience with the subject.

Tsk, tsk, please convey accurate information. DOF is a function of aperture and reproduction ratio. A digital camera has exactly the same DOF at a given aperture and reproduction ratio as any other camera. As you note, the problem with getting shallow DOF with many lenses is the small maximum aperture.

In your detail shot of the beaded wedding dress, I don't see anything but disadvantage to using shallow DOF. Most of the shot is out of focus, and if you're trying to show the details, a much smaller aperture setting would work better. Given your closeness to the subject (high magnification) and distance from the background, you could have gottem much more in focus while still dropping out the background.

You might also want to look into Nikon's 85mm Micro tilt/shift lens. You can do some superb selective focus techniques that lend themselves very well to weddings and can't be done any other way.

The firework shot is especially hard to do technically. You'll get better results if you dial in at least -1.5 or -2 stops of flash compensation to keep the flash sensor from averaging the scene (much of which is dark) and burning out the foreground highlights. You have the same problem with the dad-daugher dance shot, badly burned-out foreground highlights because the flash overcompensated for the dark background.

Hey Def, what is it with you lately? Don't have anything good to say? Someone piss in your wheaties? What gives?

I used to enjoy reading your posts but I think I'll just ignore them until you lighten up a bit. BTW, are you a photographer by profession? Just curious, because I know he is.

Mike

[colterphoto1]

Uh, thanks Mike.

Allow me to retort without being too defensive, as I'd hate to have this entire thread removed because it became argumentative.

You are correct with respect to the DOF question. Digital does appear to have greater DOF, possible because of difference between film grain and CCD sharpness. I talked to my digital guru and he says that with film, the out of focus rays striking the chunky film grain does give a more diffuse image than the same lens aperature on a digital camera, because of the way the light is picked up.

This is evidenced by the number of digital photographers shooting at wide open aperatures to attempt to knock the background further out of focus than a 35mm guy shooting at 5.6 or 8 with soft background. Also many digital wedding photogs I know have to nearly constantly use a layer of gaussian blur and mask to help soften the backgrounds because they just 'pop' harder than on film. It'st's not a function of the scientific DOF, but there IS a difference in digital photography.

With regards to the brides dress, it's a quick grab shot at a dusk reception. I saw the light, turned and shot. It's nearly a hip shot, barely time to change settings. I kind of like the shallowness of it, it forces the eye to the upper right quadrant's details instead of wandering aimlessly at all the beads on the back of the dress. Plus it just looks artsy. Let's face it, standard photos turned black and white, sloppy borders, stuff like that just looks trendy and sells these days. I'm not against being artsy and selling photos. Sure, technically it could be better but it's not about how well I sing the notes, it's about SOUL.

Dancing with Dad- Yes its not a perfect balance of light between foreground and background. Have you ever shot this scene? What I have going is flash on camera is a full one stop down, there is a Lumidyne about 10' off my right shoulder putting 100 watt-seconds of light across the dance floor (about F8 at 15 feet) , helping to light background objects and give some modeling to the subjects, AND I'm at probably 1/30 of a sec to help bring the Xmas lights and background up a bit. So try to take this shot in nearly complete darkness (just the bit of light coming off the stage), on a 99% humidity day when autofocus had ceased to work, so manually focused, and I think you'll say that its a magnificent shot with great expression that is pretty durn well lit, all things considered.

WIth the fireworks shot, I have my Metz 45CT1 with lumiquest bounce head tilted down and slightly to the right so as to hit my subjects with all the light. Yes it's a bit overexposed in the foreground. But I'm pretty happy with the blend of light and the steadiness of the 10 second exposure.

This isn't an Alter to Colter Photography. I mean to put up threads of this type to help others. After all Photography is one of the top hobbies in the world, lots of people enjoy it, a few of us are granted the privledge of making a living with it. I'm just trying to spread a little insight without preaching.

This isn't studio perfection. It's weddings 'how freaking fast can you take this picture and try to be artistic while you're sweating buckets'.

You don't have to enjoy my work. I'm cool with that.

Michael

[Marvel]

This isn't studio perfection. It's weddings 'how freaking fast can you take this picture and try to be artistic while you're sweating buckets'.

You don't have to enjoy my work. I'm cool with that.

Michael

I wouldn't do wedding photography for anything. Far worse than a live TV/radio production with musicians who don't know what to do around a microphone, etc. I would be sweating buckets too. Those are the shots you want to grab and you hope they come out okay. At least with the digital you can have a pretty good idea before you leave the location.

Bruce

[colterphoto1]

This isn't studio perfection. It's weddings 'how freaking fast can you take this picture and try to be artistic while you're sweating buckets'.

You don't have to enjoy my work. I'm cool with that.

Michael

I wouldn't do wedding photography for anything. Far worse than a live TV/radio production with musicians who don't know what to do around a microphone, etc. I would be sweating buckets too. Those are the shots you want to grab and you hope they come out okay. At least with the digital you can have a pretty good idea before you leave the location.

Bruce

Yeah, me either Bruce LOL, maybe I'll just STAY HOME today and GO BOATING![ap][<)][ip]

Nah, it's a nice girl who used to assist my fave coordinator. They're good kids and have paid their fee, I guess I'd better show up.

[LarryC]

Michael,

I am even more impressed with your photography after reading your great descriptions of how you did complex lighting and got fast-appearing/disappearing shots, and your displayed depth of professional knowledge in digital vs. film (some things I didn't know). It all makes great sense and made me appreciate your pics even more.

Larry

[Def Leper]

Hey Def, what is it with you lately? Don't have anything good to say? Someone piss in your wheaties? What gives?

I used to enjoy reading your posts but I think I'll just ignore them until you lighten up a bit. BTW, are you a photographer by profession? Just curious, because I know he is.

Mike

Gosh, after reading your post and re-reading mine, I have to wonder if you got a load of crap with your oatmeal this morning. If you want to completely ignore the topic being discussed and simply flame somebody, use the messaging system. That will help keep you from looking like such a jerk and give me a chance to reply in kind.

With respect to your fifth question, yes, I am.

[Jay481985]

colter what happened to the autofocus??? Why did it fail??? and does it work now?

Also I was wondering Colter, are you one of those brick finger type photographers that tend to hold the trigger down or more of the single shot kinda person? given the low light I understand why for the single shot but if the environment had been more condusive to your shot then would you have?

[Mike Lindsey]

Gosh, after reading your post and re-reading mine, I have to wonder if you got a load of crap with your oatmeal this morning. If you want to completely ignore the topic being discussed and simply flame somebody, use the messaging system. That will help keep you from looking like such a jerk and give me a chance to reply in kind.

With respect to your fifth question, yes, I am.

Well I can see how you like to play the game. I did read the post. It was very condescending on your part, and makes you look like a know-it-all, making it appear as though Michael doesn't have a clue as to what he is doing.

Your last 5 or 6 posts have had nothing good to say. Reread them and you will know what I am talking about. No flame here... just pointing out the facts.

As for me looking like a jerk I have no issue looking at myself in the mirror every morning... not sure you can say the same.

Mike

[jt1stcav]

And I just wanted to enjoy the pics...

Although I'm just an advanced amatuer, I got into wedding photography only because I was asked to by the bride (and all others I shot were by friends and family who asked me if I'd shoot their weddings...it was never my choice). It's hard work indeed (especially by yourself, and I've sweated enough buckets to nearly ruin my last suit), so I admire Michael's dedication to the craft. I never took wedding photography serious enough to get a Mamiya or a Hasselblad, only sticking to 35mm SLRs and associated gear (never had any complaints, though). I guess using digital SLRs for weddings is the acceptable way to go nowadays, with results that are getting closer to medium format images.

But I won't shoot anymore weddings...[]

[Jay481985]

I rememeber reading to match the detail of 35mm film, the digital camera needs to be 50 megapixels or so. The best so far is Canon 16.2 megapixels. The the canon is also the only camera on the market which has a full 35 mm sized sensor. The Hasselblad digital medium format I believe is 30 megapixels but yet again its a medium format so even with that huge sensor for the medium format it still is no where near. But then again most people will not care if it is raw, tiff, or jpeg as long as it can be shot to 4X6 and look good

[filmboydoug]

Michael,

Could you repost the pic you posted of a bride wiping a tear from her fathers eye? I wanted to show that to a friend who was getting married at the time but couldn't find it.[]

doug

[colterphoto1]

colter what happened to the autofocus??? Why did it fail??? and does it work now?

Also I was wondering Colter, are you one of those brick finger type photographers that tend to hold the trigger down or more of the single shot kinda person? given the low light I understand why for the single shot but if the environment had been more condusive to your shot then would you have?

Just got home from another event today.

I don't know why the AF failed last week , but my AF assist lights on two new D200 Nikons failed to work at the same time my buddies 20D Canon bit the dust. We turned them off, switched modes, new batteries, everything we could think of. Best we could come up with was the very nasty humidity after the rain storm. We were outside under a tent. The cameras worked fine on manual though. After drying out, all units worked fine. hmmmm

I almost never use either speed of continuous fire on my candids. I will take multiple shots of the same scene, either waiting for the emotion to increase, slightly change my viewpoint, or let distracting objects get out of the background. Most of mine are with flash, so you have to wait for it to recycle anyway. I do use the Metz 45 series which carry quite a capacitor (Potato-masher type flash bodies), for faster recycle times, but you still can't put it on continuous.

Many of my contemporaries are shooting like 2000 frames per wedding. I'm trying to stick close to my old 'ration', which was 10x 220 rolls in the Hassie (240 exposures) and about 12 rolls of 35mm ( 432 exposures), so normal weddings used to be about 600-700 images.

Here's a little fun math. If I'm at a wedding 10 hours and expose 600 frames, that's one per minute on average, right? At an average shutter speed of 1/30 of second, I only get to record a total of 20 seconds of that 10 hour day. It's pretty critical to push the button at the right moment. To those guys who 'overshoot' I just tell them 'why not just capture the great moments and leave the movies to the video guys!'

Thanks for the compliments Larry and JT.

You haters can go find another thread if you wish. k?

Michael

[colterphoto1]

Michael,

Could you repost the pic you posted of a bride wiping a tear from her fathers eye? I wanted to show that to a friend who was getting married at the time but couldn't find it.[]

doug

Do you know when that was posted here?

[Jay481985]

hmm your average shot is 1/30 of a second, oh wow you have rock steady hands, I used 1/30 only on my hassleblad cause I of the hand position. I usually like 1/60 as its usually the flash sync speed.

As with the photos taken, well there is the whole idea that more is better to find the best one. Like National Geographic, I remember the stat pre digital that they would go through atleast 1000 photos for the front cover and around 100 photos of each picture. That is of the same item per picture just frame bracketed. With the advent of digital I bet alot more now.

[colterphoto1]

1/30 isn't that slow really. I drag the shutter a lot (use slow speed) to bring up the background in mixed lighting situations.

Yesterday was typical. In the church, the reading on the background (at 320 asa for 400 speed film) was f8 at 1/4 of a second. Pretty normal for a church, but the really dark ones read maybe 1 sec. So in order for the alter and back area to be exposed correctly, I would need to set my camera at that speed and use a tripod of course.

The flash lights the people in the foreground and 'freezes' them so even if they move a bit, the ambient light part of the exposure looks still. Then the slow shutter speed allows the fainter light from the background to paint it's image on the film. I want the subjects to 'pop' off the background by being a bit lighter so instead of shooting at 1/4, I'll go to 1/8. That is a bit too slow for me, so let's go one click faster to 1/15. That's right- yesterday's group photos were all taken at 1/15 of a second!

Same situation with candids in a dark reception hall. Flash freezes the dancing subjects, and even handheld, I can hold the camera pretty steady at 1/30 of a second. For a little camera shake/motion blur I'll dial down to 1/8 for some of the shots.

If we're outside or shooting handheld I will use 1/125 or faster, but those occasions are so rare on a wedding day that 1/30 is pretty typical speed.

In terms of the number of photos taken, remember that this is a business. When it cost about $1 each time I pressed the shutter (film, processing, proof print), I sure as heck watched how much film I used, but still took around 600 per Saturday. Now with digital it doesn't 'cost' anything to take a photo, or does it?

Remember that someone has to spend time editing all those images. The client has prepurchased an album package and I intend to upsell a bit, but still lets say maybe 150 images. If I intend to show them 3x that many because I allow them to select the images they want, I'd need to whittle the list down to 450 or so. That's pretty painless if I take 600-900 images. But if I take 2000 on a wedding day like some guys- I would have to throw away 75% of the images I take. Too much pain for me. More images means more hard drives at my office and more memory cards for the session. I don't see anyone giving that stuff away.

Also remember that the camera does have a mechanical shutter still that has a limited lifespan. So each shot is not 'free', the time will come when even the best digital camera will not become outdated in a year, where we will actually wear them out. I just dropped $4 grand on cameras- I don't want to do that again for quite some time.

Is this making any sense?

Michael

[colterphoto1]

On the National Geographic 'bracketing exposures'. Remember that magazines typically selected from transparencies. That type of film is much less forgiving that negative film, because the exposure can't be adjusted during the printing process. So bracketing exposures would make a huge bit of sense for their photographers.

Me, I try to not review my work with the LCD during a wedding. While photographers 'chimp' at their images, their attention is not focused on the event unfolding in front of them. Like in the olden days of film, I must have a firm grasp on my equipment and technique. Weddings are no time for experimenting. I have a polariod back for my Hassie that I use for the occasional test shot in mixed lighting setups. Nowdays the LCD and histogram serve the same purpose. But I still love peeling a beautiful B&W polaroid and just handing it to my assistant to review, knowing that it just kicks A$$! It gives the client a great deal of faith in me that I know what I'm doing and don't have to constantly review my work. Kind of a Zen thing- you just have to believe that the photos will come out.