Practicing for Event Photography (CC)

[cherylynne1]

So there wasn't much interest in my self-portrait, lol, but maybe this will be more interesting to you guys?

Some of you know that my ultimate dream would be to be a wedding photographer, but it's also terrifying to me. Maybe in 10-15 years? In the meantime, I'm starting small. This was just a small gathering with some family members from out of town. I was mostly trying to focus on capturing "the moment" and getting my flash to bounce from the best direction possible. The lighting in the house was really terrible, so going without flash at all wasn't really an option.

Anyway, you don't have to do individual critiques, but if I could even get an idea of whether or not I'm moving in the right direction, that would be great! Thank you!

1. DSC09518 by cherylynne1, on Flickr

2. DSC09489 by cherylynne1, on Flickr

3. DSC09457 by cherylynne1, on Flickr

4. DSC09456 by cherylynne1, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

1)Good lighting, but needs more space on the right-hand side of the frame, due to the pointing hands being too close to the so-called short side of the frame. GOOD exposure! GOOD light! I LIKE that the fireplace coals show up--that indicates a slow enough shutter speed to balance the coals! This qualifies as a Little detail, yet it is also something positive to take note of.

2) little boy. Cute pose, the bokeh balls from the lights are nice. If the light play on the table top were to be accentuated in post, it would be elevated, but is still a cute shot based on the cuteness of the child; to his parents, probably a super-favorite type shot. Color toning is a bit filter-y, but this is the Instagram era, so it's still mild. I like the shot!

3)Couch folks: you included the arm of the couch, but cut off the head of the man upper left corner...maybe not the ideal framing, but the cut-off fellow DOES appear to be looking at the man who is the mostly-main-subject. This is a group shot, with four people in it, and the dog's back end... it is a good moment, and looks like the one guy is telling a funny story! They might like this shot!

4)Woman nuzzling dog's face: looks over-exposed, and the door (?) is very bright. A cute moment, a good grab shot, but nothing too spectacular due to the framing and the distractions: this would have been better with a tight, zoomed-in shot with a quality zoom lens, eliminating the man on the right 100%. One large step to the right, and the bright door would have simply disappeared at about 75mm on an FX camera...the angle of view BEHIND the people is alwyas at its narrowest at tele settings, which is a good way to shoot indoor bounce flash shots" from 15 to 25 feet away, with a moderately long focal length for detail shots, whichj is what the woman and dog nuzzling shot ought to be: a detail shot.

 

[cherylynne1]

1)Good lighting, but needs more space on the right-hand side of the frame, due to the pointing hands being too close to the so-called short side of the frame. GOOD exposure! GOOD light! I LIKE that the fireplace coals show up--that indicates a slow enough shutter speed to balance the coals! This qualifies as a Little detail, yet it is also something positive to take note of.

2) little boy. Cute pose, the bokeh balls from the lights are nice. If the light play on the table top were to be accentuated in post, it would be elevated, but is still a cute shot based on the cuteness of the child; to his parents, probably a super-favorite type shot. Color toning is a bit filter-y, but this is the Instagram era, so it's still mild. I like the shot!

3)Couch folks: you included the arm of the couch, but cut off the head of the man upper left corner...maybe not the ideal framing, but the cut-off fellow DOES appear to be looking at the man who is the mostly-main-subject. This is a group shot, with four people in it, and the dog's back end... it is a good moment, and looks like the one guy is telling a funny story! They might like this shot!

4)Woman nuzzling dog's face: looks over-exposed, and the door (?) is very bright. A cute moment, a good grab shot, but nothing too spectacular due to the framing and the distractions: this would have been better with a tight, zoomed-in shot with a quality zoom lens, eliminating the man on the right 100%. One large step to the right, and the bright door would have simply disappeared at about 75mm on an FX camera...the angle of view BEHIND the people is alwyas at its narrowest at tele settings, which is a good way to shoot indoor bounce flash shots" from 15 to 25 feet away, with a moderately long focal length for detail shots, whichj is what the woman and dog nuzzling shot ought to be: a detail shot.

Thank you, Derrel!
1) Yeah, it could maybe have used a little more space, but I was using a 50mm lens, so I'm kind of backed up as much as I could go. Probably my 35mm would have been a better focal length, I was just trying not to be right in everyone's face, plus it seems like bounce flash is a little better when I'm not too close? Maybe that's just me.

2) Haha, yep, that's my son, so it's a super-favorite type of shot for me, hence why it's important to get feedback from people that don't have any connection. I didn't think about that with the color toning...I guess I don't really know what looks filter-y vs. what doesn't. I'm still working on developing my own "style," so I guess that will come in time.

3) Yes, that cut off head really frustrated me, lol. I liked the "moment" when my cousin was being all over-dramatic, but I wish I could have fit my brother's whole face in the picture, rather than the couch and the dog. Just a case of not paying attention to the background. Hopefully I'll develop more of that with more practice.

4) Yeah, I originally was trying to get some of the interactions between the couple, but her husband is a bit camera-shy, I think. I agree about stepping to the right, not only for the reasons you mentioned but also because I could have gotten more of her face in the shot. I might still be able to crop it down a bit, but it won't fix the door in the background or the angle I'm at in comparison to her.

Anyway, thank you so much for all of your comments! You're always so insightful and helpful.

 

[Derrel]

No, you are totally right: bounce flash is typically easier when one is not "too close". it's usually best to have the bounce hit the ceiling about half-way between the camera and subject, or perhaps a little bit closer than half-way, so the 15-25 foot range is usually easiest to work in a normal indoor, living room type scenario. if you are TOO close to the people, getting a decent, even bounce can be tricky or impossible.

Here is a less-color-toned look at your D.S.:

White sclera; lights hitting the table look a bit more colorful. More neutral colors. Better? Depends on who's seeing the shot!

As far as seeing things in the background, or missing things, there are some easy solutions. Easy solution is to shoot loose, then crop later, at the computer; at one time frowned up, this shooting strategy has become more and more possible as we've moved from 4MP to 8Mp to 12MP,and now to 18 or 24 or even 36 million pixels! The second tip is about missing stuff: One tip I would suggest was one I read 40+ years ago, from a man heralded as one of America's best photography teachers, David Vestal. Vestal suggested that the photographer scan the frame, deliberately, moving the eye around the whole of the outside of the frame, looking at the background, looking for background things that might spoil the shot, before pressing the shutter. If one does this in a counter-clockwise manner, or clockwise, does not seem to matter, but it DOES work, or at least it did for me. This is a way to slow down a bit, but it also can work to speed things up, by causing you tro PRE-frame things, to get the frame straightened up and envisioned, properly, and then to be ready to shoot once the subject is shown clearly, and in a good way.

I think some of the older strategies of how to frame up and compose make a lot of sense; now that frames are low-cost, or free, we tend not to approach the process of "Making a photograph" with the same level of discernment as we did when each finished print cost us 50 cents--or the price of a gallon of milk , back in the days when I learned the Vestal trick.

 

[cherylynne1]

No, you are totally right: bounce flash is typically easier when one is not "too close". it's usually best to have the bounce hit the ceiling about half-way between the camera and subject, or perhaps a little bit closer than half-way, so the 15-25 foot range is usually easiest to work in a normal indoor, living room type scenario. if you are TOO close to the people, getting a decent, even bounce can be tricky or impossible.

Here is a less-color-toned look at your D.S.:View attachment 134900

White sclera; lights hitting the table look a bit more colorful. More neutral colors. Better? Depends on who's seeing the shot!

As far as seeing things in the background, or missing things, there are some easy solutions. Easy solution is to shoot loose, then crop later, at the computer; at one time frowned up, this shooting strategy has become more and more possible as we've moved from 4MP to 8Mp to 12MP,and now to 18 or 24 or even 36 million pixels! The second tip is about missing stuff: One tip I would suggest was one I read 40+ years ago, from a man heralded as one of America's best photography teachers, David Vestal. Vestal suggested that the photographer scan the frame, deliberately, moving the eye around the whole of the outside of the frame, looking at the background, looking for background things that might spoil the shot, before pressing the shutter. If one does this in a counter-clockwise manner, or clockwise, does not seem to matter, but it DOES work, or at least it did for me. This is a way to slow down a bit, but it also can work to speed things up, by causing you tro PRE-frame things, to get the frame straightened up and envisioned, properly, and then to be ready to shoot once the subject is shown clearly, and in a good way.

I think some of the older strategies of how to frame up and compose make a lot of sense; now that frames are low-cost, or free, we tend not to approach the process of "Making a photograph" with the same level of discernment as we did when each finished print cost us 50 cents--or the price of a gallon of milk , back in the days when I learned the Vestal trick.

You know, looking back at mine in comparison to yours, it really does look warm. I mean, I tend to make portraits a little warmer than "true" neutral, but this one is maybe exceptionally so. Probably halfway inbetween your version is mine is where I'd actually like to be.

And yes, the biggest advantage I've found in going from a 16mp camera to 24 mp is the cropping ability. I'm not super fussy about resolution in general (or at least I try not to be, but I am a bit of a gear nerd) but I love that I can crop 60% of the frame and still be able to print about 8x10. I should try that technique, of looking all the way around the camera. It just seems so hard when I'm focused on a thousand other things, plus trying to capture "the moment." I really think that at this point, I just need practice. I need the habit of seeing problems in the background to just become second nature. This is why no gear or class can replace experience when it comes to photography (in my opinion.) Photographers that have been doing this for 20+ years just have instincts that us newbies can't even begin to hope for.

Anyway, thank you again, especially for taking the time to re-edit the picture! It really helped me to understand what you were saying.

 

[Derrel]

I "burned in" the color on the table top surface, to sort of play up the colors and the presence from the bokeh balls in the background. As far as color in photos: it is now 2017...many people have grown tired of strict color guidelines, and regular folks (non-photographers) are often very enchanted by color toning that strikes a fanciful note. I myself matured in my tastes, and can handle color that's not 100% color-accurate. No Macbeth Color Checker fixations from me.

As far as being a "newbie"; you will get better. You have a modern, 24 MP d-slr camera, and you understand how much cropping ability that gives you. And I promise you, if you try the David Vestal scanning the edges of the frame method for a few months, you will soon become very good at literally SEEING those background issues, and avoiding them, or anticipating them. Photography is not all that difficult, and with some deliberate attention payed to this one, single fundamental, you'll get much better at framing up shots that are free of background issues, and that are in general, just "better shots".

The beginner's tendency is to focus in on the main subject, and to shoot, and only later, to discover things that detract from the end picture. The David Vestal method emphasizes an old-fashioned, film-era approach to setting up the shot in a much more deliberate way, with a second or two devoted to really looking, all around the entire frame, and asking yourself, "Is there stuff I need to eliminate here?"

 

[cherylynne1]

Oh, yeah, I can see the difference in the table as well. That's a good idea, I should try that. And I have noticed that many of the photographers I admire, in particular Elena Shumilova, use color more like a painter would. But I feel like I should get a good grip on getting perfect white balance before I venture out too far. Learn the rules before you break them, right?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing, focusing too much on the subject. I do a little better with planned shoots, but with this kind of "on the move" photography I still have a lot to learn. Thank you for your confidence in me!

 

[OGsPhotography]

Nice set!

Derrel gave some great advice. Your looking in the right direction.

Dont wait ten years to follow your dream. Write out a plan and go for it!

In ten years you will look back and be glad you didnt wait. The years will fly by, do it while you can!

be like Nike. Just do it.

 

[cherylynne1]

Nice set!

Derrel gave some great advice. Your looking in the right direction.

Dont wait ten years to follow your dream. Write out a plan and go for it!

In ten years you will look back and be glad you didnt wait. The years will fly by, do it while you can!

be like Nike. Just do it.

Haha, thank you! Well, maybe I won't wait ten years, but I don't feel ready now. I still stress out so much before even planned photoshoots, I'd probably have a heart attack if I tried to do a wedding. I think I love the genre too much in some ways, so if I can't step in and do the work of a photographer that charges $3k-5k, I don't want to do it at all.

That being said, I live in a fairly rural, poor area. I'm sure opportunities will come where the family has a total wedding budget of less than $500 and cell phone pics will be their only memories. Those are places where I can get some practice in. I may not be Roberto Valenzuela, but I'm definitely better than an iPhone 7.

Well, okay, the iPhone 7 has that fancy dual camera. But hey, at least I'm better than an iPhone 6!

 

[OGsPhotography]

Aspire to charge 5k sure, but you have to start somewhere.

I charged 400$ for my first. They spent 600 on food... very low budget wedding but we made it work.

If the Total budget is 500 Dont do it theyvwill rob you! LoL

Every couple has a budget. Certainly some are paying 3-5k on photography, but the majority, I could be wrong here, as I haven't researched enough, are going to be paying 1-2k total for photos, in my ( poor) area.

 

[cherylynne1]

Aspire to charge 5k sure, but you have to start somewhere.

I charged 400$ for my first. They spent 600 on food... very low budget wedding but we made it work.

If the Total budget is 500 Dont do it theyvwill rob you! LoL

Every couple has a budget. Certainly some are paying 3-5k on photography, but the majority, I could be wrong here, as I haven't researched enough, are going to be paying 1-2k total for photos, in my ( poor) area.

Don't I have to do a few for free? I mean, I don't even know if I'm at all capable of shooting a wedding. I might completely freak out and end up with nothing useable. Don't I need a few "practice" weddings first, preferably for people that can't pay anyone anyway?

 

[OGsPhotography]

recommended is to second shoot a few weddings. Free if you have to. If you cant land that with a decent photog, just do it, take on a wedding. Practice first, study, have a plan, try to execute it.

No wedding goes exactly as planned, plan for that!

 

[Derrel]

A few questions for the beginner in photography might be as follows:

How long have you been involved in 'serious' photography? How much reading, studying, learning, and practicing have you put in? Do you have an idea of what some of the industry best practices are? Can you go into a situation and come out with usable images? Have you bought any books about photo topics? Have you studied photography methods? Do you follow any competent professonal shooters and their on-line YouTube channels or blogs? Can you competently post-process your images in a good manner? Do you have a mentor who can show you things, and teach you? ( I do not know the answers to these questions in relation to you, BTW.)

There seems to be less and less interest in getting into photography as a payed job than there was eight or nine years ago; seemingly, the influx of people flooding in has slowed, dramatically, and there seems to be fewer blogs and YouTuber outlets from working pros. More people selling tutorials and courses.

If you think you might, "freak out and come up with nothing usable" it sounds like you need some strategies from somebody more experienced, or you need to better understand the How-To aspects for events. This is not rocket science. But there are some simple best practices.

 

[cherylynne1]

I tried looking into second shooting once, because it actually sounds like the perfect kind of job for me. I get to be at the wedding, take the best pictures I can, but the major pressure is on somebody else. But there aren't any wedding photographers in my city that I have much respect for (if I'm being honest, there aren't any photographers I admire at all, regardless of genre.) I tried looking into photographers with the largest city that's close, but man, those guys do not seem to like competition. There are just too many of them out there, and they're pretty cutthroat with each other (all rumors, I admit) because it is such a poor area and expensive weddings are so rare. So they're not really interested in helping newbies. I can ask around a little more, though.

Anyway, we'll see. My cousin's wedding is in May, and they definitely hired a real photographer after I emphasized to them that I would not be up to par, lol. But I'm hoping to get a few shots here and there while their photographer is in another area, so maybe I can get a feel for how it would be.

 

[cherylynne1]

A few questions for the beginner in photography might be as follows:

How long have you been involved in 'serious' photography? How much reading, studying, learning, and practicing have you put in? Do you have an idea of what some of the industry best practices are? Can you go into a situation and come out with usable images? Have you bought any books about photo topics? Have you studied photography methods? Do you follow any competent professonal shooters and their on-line YouTube channels or blogs? Can you competently post-process your images in a good manner? Do you have a mentor who can show you things, and teach you? ( I do not know the answers to these questions in relation to you, BTW.)

There seems to be less and less interest in getting into photography as a payed job than there was eight or nine years ago; seemingly, the influx of people flooding in has slowed, dramatically, and there seems to be fewer blogs and YouTuber outlets from working pros. More people selling tutorials and courses.

If you think you might, "freak out and come up with nothing usable" it sounds like you need some strategies from somebody more experienced, or you need to better understand the How-To aspects for events. This is not rocket science. But there are some simple best practices.

To be fair, every single time I've gone to a photoshoot I was 90% positive that I would freak out and have nothing usable, and it hasn't happened yet. But I'm just so afraid that it could. Not sure if I'm just a worrywart or if I just suffer from a real lack of self-confidence. Or maybe both.

Since I got into photography around four years ago, not a single day has gone by that I haven't studied something photography related. I do own multiple books, and I've checked many more out from the library, and I can't even count how many hours I've spent watching YouTube videos or following critiques on forums. But I just worry that knowledge doesn't equal quality, and that I'm better at critiquing than I am at creating. That's why I just want to stay on the forums instead of actually going out and making a business.

However, things are starting to get away from me. For instance, at the end of this month the almonds will blossom for two weeks, and everyone wants family pictures. I've done zero outreach, and I already have six photoshoots scheduled. They're all because I did one family last year, and people that saw those photos want me to do them this year. I personally don't think I'm good enough for that...I mean, I don't think I'd pay me...but on the other hand, I don't know of anyone else around here that's better, unless they want to pay travelling costs for someone from the next city over. And even some of those are pretty terrible and charge ridiculous fees.

I don't know exactly what you mean by best practices, but I have read a lot about weddings and how to prep for them. Things like going before, finding the best areas for light, testing exposure using white and black objects so you can properly expose for both bride and groom in a given situation, having a list of shots ahead of time, etc., etc. So if that's what you mean, then yes, I have vague ideas. I just wish I could shoot a couple dozen weddings for practice with no real expectations, I guess.