first time at a wedding this past weekend

[matt62485]

had a buddy of mine ask me if id come take some extra shots for his sisters wedding. ofcourse i did this for free as i have no experience whatsoever. with my lack of equipment, i did what i could, and shooting a wedding is something ive never done and didn't know what to expect. the lighting was much dimmer than i expected in the ceremony/reception, im still working on those pics, but overall i took about 1200 on the wedding day. i feel that i definitely would have benefited some from a better camera, the d40 just doesnt seem to react to low lighting situations very good. i tried to keep the iso minimal bc it gets really noisy. i also tried to bounce my hotshoe mounted sunpak flash without creating lots of glare

i havent showed them these few, overall im not sure how i feel about them.

another friend of theirs showed up with a d300 and about 4grand worth of lens, with some nice primes/f1.4 as well, but said his sb600 and his sb800 were broke, so i was the only one with a flash that was "on camera", no pressure... no pressure at all

give me your thoughts, and what i could improve.

i had a terrible time with the lighting, as far as focus is concerned i struggled pretty bad

 

[sobolik]

I do some weddings. There is nothing wrong with theses photos. They would make the final cut of the ones I take. The only thing I might do is straighten out the horizontal of the last one. I especially favor taking photos of people taking photos so well done at that one as well.

I think you need to work on a different attitude if you are going to do weddings. Give yourself a break. You are shooting targets of opportunity and not studio work. You take what the situation gives you and do the best you can.

As far as your noisy comment. That is why the camera engineers developed high ISO. You can get the shot where as otherwise you would not. Besides when printed at the common size it don't matter much anyway. It is usually the photographers who concerns themselves with the tech matters while others just ooh and aah over the little kid dancing.

I think 150 dim reception shots made the final cut of the last wedding Not once did I hear the technical critiques we photographers obsess over. I did hear "make sure you do my kids weddings" and "does he have a business card" "we loved all of them" (760 photos)

I did one wedding with a Nikon D-50. Here are some comments by a reviewer: "The only limit to the D50's picture quality is the photographer, not the D50. The D50 is fantastic at high ISOs, giving completely smooth and clean images at ISO 800." and "As far as I know, the D50 has been discontinued. It is replaced by the superior D40," Nikon D50

ps while doing the wedding with the D50 I noticed all the secondary phtographers and their big dollar equipment (no doubt taking the advice of people on photoforums recommending big money fast glass and big money cameras and other big money toys) After it was all said and done the wedding party said they liked mine the best. I repeat the quote "The only limit to the D50's picture quality is the photographer, not the D50." Likewise your camera did a fine job - I mean YOU DID!

 

[keethjon]

Your pictures are pretty good. As far as the low light, that is common in wedding halls and churches. Just make sure your flash is lighting the main subjects properly. Also, you can try using a tripod in low light scenes where there is very little movement such as at the church alter. Keep practicing. Weddings can be a good source of income if you get pretty good at it.

Keith Jones
Easy Basic Photography

 

[Derrel]

Pretty good considering the slow glass you used and the low-spec body. Being limited to f/3.5 to f/5.6 indoors makes focusing VERY much harder than it needs to be. If you had used a better lens, like a 17-55 f/2.8, you'd no doubt have had a much easier time of getting focus quickly and easily. Lower-light shooting indoors is one place where the kit-level lenses with their slow apertures and minimalistic AF-S focusing systems really do put the photographer at a disadvantage compared to the shooter using a pro-level body and higher-end glass.

 

[swedberg311]

I dont think they are bad at all, and if they were paying you for these im sure they would still love them, you have to be positive to get a positive result.

 

[matt62485]

thanks for the input folks. i figure i may invest in a few faster lens then work my way torwards a body, it may be of bigger benefit, would you think?

also, im trying to just be realistic, i think i did OK for a first time but im not 100% satisfied, though... i never am.

would a d300s be sufficient for a "pro-level" body?

 

[ghache]

thanks for the input folks. i figure i may invest in a few faster lens then work my way torwards a body, it may be of bigger benefit, would you think?

also, im trying to just be realistic, i think i did OK for a first time but im not 100% satisfied, though... i never am.

would a d300s be sufficient for a "pro-level" body?

d300s is perfect for any type of photography imo.

have a look at the d7000.

 

[matt62485]

thanks for the input folks. i figure i may invest in a few faster lens then work my way torwards a body, it may be of bigger benefit, would you think?

also, im trying to just be realistic, i think i did OK for a first time but im not 100% satisfied, though... i never am.

would a d300s be sufficient for a "pro-level" body?

d300s is perfect for any type of photography imo.

have a look at the d7000.

i have, im not sure on this. wonder how it would stack up against say the d90 or d300. got to do some more research.

 

[sobolik]

thanks for the input folks. i figure i may invest in a few faster lens then work my way torwards a body, it may be of bigger benefit, would you think?

also, im trying to just be realistic, i think i did OK for a first time but im not 100% satisfied, though... i never am.

would a d300s be sufficient for a "pro-level" body?

Pro bodies are designed survive avalanches and bombs. Unless you plan on abusing the equipment then get a D-90 or D-7000 and catch a few priceless videos as well.

It often appears to me that many people think that if they buy the expensive equipment then they will succeed. But they can't quite get the wallet out to release the large sums of money. So they go on the photo forums to get others to talk them into feeling better about it. If you want to feel good then go ahead and spend a fortune. Disreguard all the experienced phtographers that say the equipment don't produce great photos, photographers do. By all means spend a huge sum on a few faster lenses.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

It often appears to me that many people think that if they buy the expensive equipment then they will succeed. But they can't quite get the wallet out to release the large sums of money. So they go on the photo forums to get others to talk them into feeling better about it. If you want to feel good then go ahead and spend a fortune. Disreguard all the experienced phtographers that say the equipment don't produce great photos, photographers do. By all means spend a huge sum on a few faster lenses.

:shock:
:lmao:
:roll:

 

[tirediron]

equipment don't produce great photos, photographers do. By all means spend a huge sum on a few faster lenses.

While I agree that the body doesn't make a huge amount of difference to the final product, I would submit that faster lenses do. Let's compare the 55-200 at 200mm (f5.6) to the 70-200 at 200mm (f2.8). Assume a dimly lit venue where flash isn't permitted and say, arbitrarily, that the shooter with the 55-200 can attain a maximum shutter-speed of 1/30 of a second. With IS/VR/SR/WHATEVERTHEHECKYOUWANTTOCALLIT on your lens, hand-holding at 200mm is doable, BUT is it going to freeze the movement of say a quick dance? Doubt it, whereas the 70-200 with it's 2 stop larger max aperture not only gives you better selective focus, it let's you use a 1/125 shutter-speed.

 

[matt62485]

yea the other guy photographing had a 70-200/f2.8 and let me put it on my body to check it out before the action started and man that sucker was shweet. then i looked it up... and damn its expensive.

so if anyone had to choose, d7000 or d300s?

 

[matt62485]

I think you need to work on a different attitude if you are going to do weddings. Give yourself a break. You are shooting targets of opportunity and not studio work. You take what the situation gives you and do the best you can.

i just saw this (i guess you ninja edited after i had read ur original post). i try not to be negative persay, but more so realistic, however on here i tend to give myself the worst critique, in preparation for what others may say however, being my first experience shooting a wedding, i was pretty nervous... but hopefully now i know what to expect i can come back with a more positive outlook :mrgreen::blushing: