A couple of weekends ago today, I had just finished photographing my third wedding. With only three weddings under my belt, one being so long ago as to not be relevant, I am far from a veteran of the wedding shoot, but I'm getting there, closer and closer with every opportunity. This wedding found me more educated than the last, and the next will hopefully not be so far in the future that my experience will not remain beneficial.(Photo to right: Me catching the maiden of honor as my assistant caught me.)
I did one thing at this wedding that I had read about, and the results were good enough that I will defininitely try it again. I set up a photo booth between the receiving line and the reception where I took a quick snap of all the wedding guests. I decided that table shots were a less-than-ideal way to photograph the guests. You always are catching someone with a mouth full of cake, or you have people on the wrong side of the table. You are also always asking someone to move around and do a better job of getting into the picture. I have always sensed that many people in that context consider the photograph to be a violation of their privacy, and if not that, then at least a disturbance of their peace. Circling the reception like a vulture, camera in hand, I feel like the unwanted guest of the wanted guests.
The photo booth was a success with only one slight exception. It was a last minute adaptation and I didn't have the opportunity to create or find a suitable backdrop. Instead, I used a utilitarian one: a wide spot in the hallway on the way to the reception hall. It worked. The controlled environment created some consistency in quality and some control, though you wouldn't believe how differences in skin color and the color of clothing can jerk things around, exposure-wise. There is nothing that will fool you camera's meter better than dark skin. The next time, I'd like to have the classic white backdrop or maybe a nice muslin. We'll see.
I turned a DVD over to the family today. There were 754 images that made the final cut. I could have cut more out, but I was satisfied with what was in that group. I realize that there is no way they will print all, or even most, of that 754, so I am happy with the overkill. Actually, I started editing with almost 1200 images. I had an assistant on this shoot, and between me and her, we were certainly victims of Digital Overkill*. After cutting the ones with soft focus (what a photographer calls those images he took which are out of focus, for whatever reason) and after cutting the ones that seemed particularly bad or unnecessary, I was left with 754 that I was unashamed of. The final word will be when the family reports back, either satisfied or dissatisfied. I will try and get an untainted opinion by not asking what they think, begging for a compliment.
Once again, this wedding shoot proved to be a marathon. I arrived at the church at 10:30am and left at around 5:30pm. Afterward, I let my camera sit untouched for two days, not looking at a single image until then. The culling/editing process took time. Photography is, after all, moonlighting for me, so I don't have huge slabs of time to devote to editing between gigs. Like the tortoise, slow and sure does the job. I finally finished and all that remains is to see if the family is satisfied.
Fingers are still crossed. I am, in all regards, still a novice.
* - Digital Overkill: The tendency to shoot far more exposures than is necessary due to the ease of doing so with a digital camera. With film, photographers tended to be more judicious because of the cost of shooting, processing and printing lots of film. Digital cameras allow us to blast away, typically resulting in huge exposure count.
No comments:
Post a Comment