[PIC_THREAD] Weddings

mrk said:
If the Sigma 50 1.4 is keeping my jaw firmly on the floor most of the time then I'm gonna need to insure my face when I get the 35mm :p
Click to expand...

I found I need to take a different approach with the 35mm.
It's not going to melt away backgrounds like the 50 or 85 etc. instead I use it to show context, while softening the background a little. However it's not long enough allot of the time and needs and 85 to compliment it.

A 50 is pretty much the middle ground, and works great of your using one lens, but I found it would never get used if I had the choice of a 35 or 85 as the 35 was better for showing context, and the 85 was better for subject isolation.
 
Yeah my plan is as mentioned in the other thread, to get the 35, sell the 50 and get the 85. The 35 by all counts gives a different feel to the image. Granted the bokeh isn't as creamy standing the same distance from the subject but the subject stands out more in a different way, almost 3D like. I like that view and seeing samples from 35mm on full frame and on film it's the fl I think that will give my images that bit more specialness.

As you say, the 85 for isolation thereafter.

Primarily the end goal is to rely on the 35 for 90% of shots in general, the 17-40L will be for all Urbex work and anything where I want perspective and the 85 for solo portraits and long range.

All this bears on the new 35 Sigma being a cut above the 50 in terms of IQ and optically matching the Canon L but obviously much cheaper.
 
cokebottles said:
Ive got the iPhone app! :p

Saw some youtube videos on it and it stuck in my mind. I need to re-implement my Lightroom workflow shortly (to coincide with pc upgrade) and I plan on seeing if there is someway I can trial it perhaps. Looks interesting.
Click to expand...

I had never heard of it until RL mentioned it. It looks pretty interesting, but I would want to tone down the effect a little.
 
An Exception said:
Kul-Waheeda-117.jpg
Click to expand...
A nice set but this one stands out in its own right for me, cracking portrait.
 
Agreed, great set. Those eyes are incredible. I can't help thinking though that a tad more dof might be nicer to get the facial features a bit more but hard to tell without something to compare against.
 
First time I've uploaded any work on here.
Here's a few from this weekends wedding : Andy & Kelly at Crewe Hall, Staffordshire.

I don't really like the idea of putting stuff online without a watermark.
1)
IMG_0477.jpg

2)
IMG_1629.jpg

3)
IMG_1275.jpg

4)
IMG_1422.jpg

5)
IMG_0319.jpg

6)
IMG_1482-1.jpg

7)
IMG_0356-Edit-2.jpg

8)
IMG_0340.jpg

9)
IMG_0395-2.jpg

10)
IMG_1440.jpg

11)
IMG_1612.jpg

12)
IMG_1668.jpg

13)
IMG_1661.jpg

14)
IMG_1701.jpg
 
:) For me I make it clear that one style I don't cover is selective colouring. I've done it once before but it just didn't feel right so now I mention it at the booking consult and that's the end of that!
 
I join in on the tutting. Rings the 90s style of "look I've got Photoshop" and won't pass the test of time, which really is one of the purposes for wedding coverage.

Whenever we get videography requests for things such as marryokes we simply turn down the business outright because it's not our brand and we know they're not our clients.
 
It's not something I do. However at the final meeting before the wedding the bride told me that she'd seen a picture she really wanted. So she wanted her red adult bridesmaids and turquoise car in colour on a B&W shot. I guess I should have given some advise then but I just went with this edit as it wasn't so obvious but would still give her the style she really liked.
 
I quite like selective colouring. A friend who got married in May asked to have a few shots processed that way. Come to think of it, I've not seen the pro photos to see how they turned out, but I did indulge her with a few of my own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom