Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wedding work with the Fuji S2 pro

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 9:58:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm a newspaper reporter/photographer who has shot 28,000 frames with his S2
in the past 19 months. I am branching out into wedding photography, and have
a half dozen booked this summer.

I have heard differing opinions as to what modes to shoot in.

For my news work, it is almost all fine jpg, 3024 wide, with auto white
balance, high colour, hard tone, hard sharpening. Occasionally, i will shoot
4256 wide, when i know I will need more detail and the ability to crop.

I have found that my camera is consistently 1/2 fstop dark via the histogram
and the results on screen, so I consistently shoot +1/2 fstop exposure
compensation.

Most of my flashwork is done with the SB 28 pointed straight up, with the
bounce card extended. I typically have it sent on automatic at f8, with the
camera set on f5.6 or f6.7 aperature metering. This seems to get the best
results for most of my work. Recently I have started using a stroboframe
quickflip with a SC-17 cord, with ok success. It's a real hassle for
vertical shots.

My ISO is almost always 800, often 1600 except when I use flash. Noise is
not a factor for news work, but can be for weddings.

My experience with RAW is next to zero.

I am picking up two 300ws aurora strobes in short order.

My wedding business plan is to charge a decently high flat rate, the client
gets copies of the disks and can make whatever prints they want from there.
The photos will of course be editted. I will not charge a per-print rate,
nor do I put together an album. You pay your fee, you get your disks, have
fun.

So, my questions are:

1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high amount of
storage space and slower shooting times, especially to write? One person
tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I should shoot in jpg in the
setting I normally use. He has a camera studio/store and shoots with two
S2s. i currently have only one 512 card, and want to keep the number of
cards I use to a minimum. As well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb each,
as far as i can determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.

2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?

3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I looking
at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.

4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with the S2?
I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a guy get by with
using the histogram until I can afford a light meter? (As you can guess, I
have no experience with a light meter. They aren't that useful or convenient
for news photography)

5.What ISO do most people yuse for their wedding work - in the chapel,
portraiture, reception, etc.? Why?

Any help, criticism, etc, would be appreciated.

Brian Zinchuk
brian.zinchukNOSPAM@sasktel.net

Remove the NOSPAM to email me

More about : wedding work fuji pro

Anonymous
February 27, 2005 9:58:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1124r6d9matqj70@corp.supernews.com>, Brian Zinchuk
<brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> wrote:

> 1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high amount of
> storage space and slower shooting times, especially to write? One person
> tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I should shoot in jpg in the
> setting I normally use. He has a camera studio/store and shoots with two
> S2s. i currently have only one 512 card, and want to keep the number of
> cards I use to a minimum. As well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb each,
> as far as i can determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.

RAW is the way.

> 2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?

Not those who know what they're doing.

> 3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I looking
> at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.

600? JEEZ! Be discriminating.

> 4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with the S2?
> I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a guy get by with
> using the histogram until I can afford a light meter? (As you can guess, I
> have no experience with a light meter. They aren't that useful or convenient
> for news photography)

Maybe you're getting into something you shouldn't?

> 5.What ISO do most people yuse for their wedding work - in the chapel,
> portraiture, reception, etc.? Why?

The lower the better...
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 11:13:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:270220051753540681%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <1124r6d9matqj70@corp.supernews.com>, Brian Zinchuk
> <brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
>> 1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high amount
>> of
>> storage space and slower shooting times, especially to write? One person
>> tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I should shoot in jpg in the
>> setting I normally use. He has a camera studio/store and shoots with two
>> S2s. i currently have only one 512 card, and want to keep the number of
>> cards I use to a minimum. As well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb
>> each,
>> as far as i can determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.
>
> RAW is the way.

Why?
Specific reasons, please

>
>> 2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?
>
> Not those who know what they're doing.
>

This is a common thing with the S2. www.digitalphotographers.com forums are
full of it.


>> 3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I
>> looking
>> at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.
>
> 600? JEEZ! Be discriminating.

I easily shoot 200 at a longer news event. I shoot the whole wedding, from
the bride getting ready, to the chapel, protraiture, and reception. 600 is
not high


>
>> 4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with the
>> S2?
>> I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a guy get by with
>> using the histogram until I can afford a light meter? (As you can guess,
>> I
>> have no experience with a light meter. They aren't that useful or
>> convenient
>> for news photography)
>
> Maybe you're getting into something you shouldn't?

constuctive criticism is appreciated. flames are not. How many news photogs
have the time to run out and put an incident light meter in front of the
burning car they are shooting a picture of?

Typically, handheld meters aren't very useful in news.

>
>> 5.What ISO do most people yuse for their wedding work - in the chapel,
>> portraiture, reception, etc.? Why?
>
> The lower the better...

yes, I understand that. I'm looking for specifics.

thanks for your respons.

Zinchuk
Related resources
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 12:16:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian Zinchuk" <brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> writes:

> I'm a newspaper reporter/photographer who has shot 28,000 frames
> with his S2 in the past 19 months. I am branching out into wedding
> photography, and have a half dozen booked this summer.
>
> I have heard differing opinions as to what modes to shoot in.

I'm an amateur, doing some semi-pro work including 3 weddings in the
last year or a bit that I've used my S2 at, so I hope my experience
will be of some use to you.

> For my news work, it is almost all fine jpg, 3024 wide, with auto
> white balance, high colour, hard tone, hard
> sharpening. Occasionally, i will shoot 4256 wide, when i know I will
> need more detail and the ability to crop.
>
> I have found that my camera is consistently 1/2 fstop dark via the
> histogram and the results on screen, so I consistently shoot +1/2
> fstop exposure compensation.

I use mostly manual exposure, but yeah, the camera really likes to
make sure I don't blow the highlights, so I often end up shooting
higher than it would have picked.

I normally have my camera set for no alteration, and plan to do all
that myself in post-processing. This is at least partly my amateur
orientation -- I'm not doing lots of large events, so the time I spend
at my computer afterwards isn't a key part of my work schedule. I can
see the benefit of having the shots come out of the camera more ready
for final use in high-volume work.

> Most of my flashwork is done with the SB 28 pointed straight up,
> with the bounce card extended. I typically have it sent on automatic
> at f8, with the camera set on f5.6 or f6.7 aperature metering. This
> seems to get the best results for most of my work. Recently I have
> started using a stroboframe quickflip with a SC-17 cord, with ok
> success. It's a real hassle for vertical shots.

Needing to request .5-1 stop more exposure on auto is about right in
my experience. I'm using mostly an SB-80, but I wouldn't expect a
difference on this. I was taught about bouncing off the ceiling
around 1973, I think, and it's still one of the most valuable
techniques I've learned. And the built-in fill card is great and I
use it too.

The flash performance is one of the biggest drawbacks I've found with
this camera -- especially since TTL flash working so well was such a
treat previously. (I actually end up working with the flash on manual
a lot of the time as well.)

In fact, this is one of two reasons I've used *both* film and digital
at the weddings I've done recently. The excellent TTL flash
performance of an SB 28 on my Nikon N90 is very valuable when things
move quickly. (The other reason is to have two lenses mounted and be
able to switch really quickly; and since it's often an extreme wide I
want, the film camera helps with *that* too).

> My ISO is almost always 800, often 1600 except when I use flash. Noise is
> not a factor for news work, but can be for weddings.

Yes, I think you'll need to use 400 or slower and flash for most
wedding situations. I find 400 very acceptable for candids, and use
something slower for the posed shots.

> My experience with RAW is next to zero.

It's pretty wonderful -- for the shots you're going to spend time
working on in your "digital darkroom". Actually, it's also wonderful
for the shots you don't have time to get right in the field, since it
leaves a lot more room for later adjustment. Trouble is, the slow
write times are a problem for exactly the situation where I need the
room for later adjustment. So far I use raw for more posed shots, and
architecture and food and such.

(Remember that you can still shoot a burst of 7 in raw, that isn't
decreased. Actually, the longer delay to see the "preview" annoys me
more when shooting raw.)

> I am picking up two 300ws aurora strobes in short order.

Good lighting on group shots and especially bride/groom portraits is
important. I don't know the brand, but 300ws is plenty of power.

> My wedding business plan is to charge a decently high flat rate, the
> client gets copies of the disks and can make whatever prints they
> want from there. The photos will of course be editted. I will not
> charge a per-print rate, nor do I put together an album. You pay
> your fee, you get your disks, have fun.

That's very attractive from your point of view. I'm not sure the
people prepared to do all their own handling after the initial shoot
are going to want to pay the decently high flat rate -- but I do
weddings as a small sideline and my exposure to what people will
tolerate in pricing is pretty limited. Good luck with it!

> So, my questions are:
>
> 1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high
> amount of storage space and slower shooting times, especially to
> write? One person tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I
> should shoot in jpg in the setting I normally use. He has a camera
> studio/store and shoots with two S2s. i currently have only one 512
> card, and want to keep the number of cards I use to a minimum. As
> well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb each, as far as i can
> determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.

You'll need more cards of course. I think trying to keep number of
cards "to a minimum" is a really bad choice. Of all the little things
to choose to save money on, it's one of the ones that will have the
biggest impact on your final results.

Generally, converting RAW to 3k 8bit works out well -- because you did
the big adjustments in the raw converter. So you don't have to deal
with 70mb for each one, anyway.

I shoot jpeg for the candids. I shoot sometimes RAW, sometimes jpeg,
for the posed/group shots, depending on how much control I have of the
lighting, how confident I'm feeling, and what size prints the client
wants.

> 2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?

Yes.

> 3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I looking
> at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.

I notice Randall saying that's too many frames. Baloney, for a
wedding. I've shot that many just at the reception sometimes.

I can do batch RAW conversions using the Photoshop RAW plugin, and I
do. I may set paramaters for a batch of photos (one situation or
setup usually) and do them this way. Then, working with the results,
I *may* go back and re-convert a single picture if the first
parameters weren't good enough. This is essentially shooting raw for
the ability to rescue shots I fluffed in the field. For weddings
that's a key activity of course. I imagine your news photo experience
has taught you what the client says if you come back without key
pictures!

The big batches of conversions, hundreds of pictures, can take many
hours. If you can kick them off and go do other things it's not so
bad. Still, that's the biggest argument against RAW.

> 4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with
> the S2? I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a
> guy get by with using the histogram until I can afford a light
> meter? (As you can guess, I have no experience with a light
> meter. They aren't that useful or convenient for news photography)

A light meter doesn't add anything to what the camera can do for you.
I've got one, that I used to use with my studio lighting and film
cameras, but with the S2 I never take it out. The histogram gives you
a LOT more information than the light meter ever will, and it's always
exactly right (exactly matches what your camera will be capturing).
If I'm working with the subjects already on the set, I just tell them
I'm doing "technical tests" so they won't worry about my shooting
"pictures" without telling them what to do.

(I'm using three White Lightning ultra-zap 1600 heads, which are
660ws. It turns out they're too powerful; I use them turned to lowest
power (and they have a 5-stop range) a lot. Your 300ws pair should be
very useful for weddings.)

Other than that, studio lighting works great with the S2 in my
experience.

> 5.What ISO do most people yuse for their wedding work - in the chapel,
> portraiture, reception, etc.? Why?

100, 160, 200 for anything I set up studio lighting for. Sometimes
those if I'm using just bounce flash for formal portraits and groups,
too. Because I can, because the shooting rate is slow, because the
difference might show in bigger prints. If I *had to* go to 400 for
these in one case I wouldn't panic, it'd be okay, but I'm not
comfortable doing it as my normal practice.

400 for candids shot with flash. It's plenty good enough for candid
size. (And I usually run it through Noise Ninja these days, too).
400 because the extra range of the flash, shorter recycle, and longer
battery life is worth the essentially invisible difference in a 4x6 or
even 5x7 print.

800 or 1600 as needed. If I have to shoot the ceremony available
light, for example. Being able to without sweating about it is
great.

Good luck with your branching out!

(A portfolio selection of my people photos is at
<http://dbpromo.dd-b.net/photography/people/&gt;; the site is still under
development, but the people photos are there anyway.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 1:06:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:13:01 -0600, "Brian Zinchuk"
<brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> wrote:

>yes, I understand that. I'm looking for specifics.

The nature of your questions indicate that you have little or no
experience with either wedding photography, or any other type of
photography where an intimate knowledge of your equipment is needed.
I would sugest that you find a wedding photographer you can apprentice
yourself to for a while, to get a feel for the craft.
No offence intended, but news photography and wedding photography have
little in common besides a camera.
If you think an editor is a taskmaster, you've yet to see a bride's
mother in full attack plumage! :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 2:23:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> 4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with the
> S2? I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a guy get by
> with using the histogram until I can afford a light meter? (As you can
> guess, I have no experience with a light meter. They aren't that useful or
> convenient for news photography)

FYI you don't don't use a light meter to shot studio style strobe lights
anymore During the set up I shot a 18% grey card positioned right where
subject will be. The strobes power is adjusted so you have a spike right in
the center of the histogram. After getting the spike in the center I also
use that image to do a custom white balance. I use a Canon camera and it is
better to balance off grey card. I am not sure of how the S2 would react to
that but if anything it will at least give you the perfect exposure. I
normally use 100 ISO if lights give me the power needed to get the desired
exposure of main light. I usually set my fill light to be f2.8 and my main
2/1 or 3/1 ratio (f5.6 or f8) but that depends on lighting effect or depth
of field I am looking for in the shot. For candids indoor with flash on
strobo frame I usually shot 400 ISO. Hope that is helpful. You being a news
photographer you candids should be great as all that is documenting the
event as if news. Good Luck.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 2:25:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:vg95211174efn4s32mh9suj13jc090flb0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:13:01 -0600, "Brian Zinchuk"
> <brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
>>yes, I understand that. I'm looking for specifics.
>
> The nature of your questions indicate that you have little or no
> experience with either wedding photography, or any other type of
> photography where an intimate knowledge of your equipment is needed.
> I would sugest that you find a wedding photographer you can apprentice
> yourself to for a while, to get a feel for the craft.
> No offence intended, but news photography and wedding photography have
> little in common besides a camera.
> If you think an editor is a taskmaster, you've yet to see a bride's
> mother in full attack plumage! :-)
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"

I don't know about that. I make my living knowing my camera gear intimately,
so I'll try not to take too much offence.

You'll find when interviewing people as a reporter, it's best to play dumb
and let people explain things to you like you're a 8 year old. They are
flattered, and you get a more clear explanation most times.

In this neck of the woods (small town western Canada), there is precious
little opportunity to apprentice. This is a sideline, not full time. There
is a market here for that type of work, for the people who can't or won't
pay $1500 for a wedding photographer.

I have shot several weddings, typically as the 'extra photographer.' In most
cases, my work was much better than the 'pro' people paid $1200+ for. So i'm
pretty confident. Studio work is different, yes, but unlike news, you have
the chance to recreate a good portion of your work, if you must.

Ticked off cops carry guns, and I'm still able to do my job. No bullet holes
yet.

Anyhow, do you have any specific advice for use of the S2 pro?
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 2:46:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2ekf1fk67.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> "Brian Zinchuk" <brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> writes:
>> I have found that my camera is consistently 1/2 fstop dark via the
>> histogram and the results on screen, so I consistently shoot +1/2
>> fstop exposure compensation.
>
> I use mostly manual exposure, but yeah, the camera really likes to
> make sure I don't blow the highlights, so I often end up shooting
> higher than it would have picked.
>
> I normally have my camera set for no alteration, and plan to do all
> that myself in post-processing. This is at least partly my amateur
> orientation -- I'm not doing lots of large events, so the time I spend
> at my computer afterwards isn't a key part of my work schedule. I can
> see the benefit of having the shots come out of the camera more ready
> for final use in high-volume work.
>

For newspaper work, it's critical. Time is of the absolute essence most of
the time. Almost all of my work has no post-processing work done or needed,
save cropping and the occasional pulling of a curve.



>> Most of my flashwork is done with the SB 28 pointed straight up,
>> with the bounce card extended. I typically have it sent on automatic
>> at f8, with the camera set on f5.6 or f6.7 aperature metering. This
>> seems to get the best results for most of my work. Recently I have
>> started using a stroboframe quickflip with a SC-17 cord, with ok
>> success. It's a real hassle for vertical shots.
>
> Needing to request .5-1 stop more exposure on auto is about right in
> my experience. I'm using mostly an SB-80, but I wouldn't expect a
> difference on this. I was taught about bouncing off the ceiling
> around 1973, I think, and it's still one of the most valuable
> techniques I've learned. And the built-in fill card is great and I
> use it too.
>

I've tried the lumiquest pocket bounce, but my success has been quite
limited. Other than its size being a hassle, it almost seems like I simply
cannot make enough compensation for it. Things are always dark. So it
doesn't get used to much.


> The flash performance is one of the biggest drawbacks I've found with
> this camera -- especially since TTL flash working so well was such a
> treat previously. (I actually end up working with the flash on manual
> a lot of the time as well.)
>

I've gone to A flash mode because i find the TTL on the S2 is not half as
good as my old F70. With my F70, you had to try hard to take a bad flash
picture. On the S2, that is not the case. Dark background's, overexposed
forgrounds. Yuck. Slow rear curtain sync helps, and i use it on the tripod
whenever possible.

> In fact, this is one of two reasons I've used *both* film and digital
> at the weddings I've done recently. The excellent TTL flash
> performance of an SB 28 on my Nikon N90 is very valuable when things
> move quickly. (The other reason is to have two lenses mounted and be
> able to switch really quickly; and since it's often an extreme wide I
> want, the film camera helps with *that* too).
>
>> My ISO is almost always 800, often 1600 except when I use flash. Noise is
>> not a factor for news work, but can be for weddings.
>
> Yes, I think you'll need to use 400 or slower and flash for most
> wedding situations. I find 400 very acceptable for candids, and use
> something slower for the posed shots.
>

Thank you.

>> My experience with RAW is next to zero.
>
> It's pretty wonderful -- for the shots you're going to spend time
> working on in your "digital darkroom". Actually, it's also wonderful
> for the shots you don't have time to get right in the field, since it
> leaves a lot more room for later adjustment. Trouble is, the slow
> write times are a problem for exactly the situation where I need the
> room for later adjustment. So far I use raw for more posed shots, and
> architecture and food and such.
>
> (Remember that you can still shoot a burst of 7 in raw, that isn't
> decreased. Actually, the longer delay to see the "preview" annoys me
> more when shooting raw.)
>
>> I am picking up two 300ws aurora strobes in short order.
>
> Good lighting on group shots and especially bride/groom portraits is
> important. I don't know the brand, but 300ws is plenty of power.
>

That's what I'm hearing. an 800 is way too much. Aurora has a good deal for
the 2 300 ws strobes with umbrellas. $1000 Canadian.

>> My wedding business plan is to charge a decently high flat rate, the
>> client gets copies of the disks and can make whatever prints they
>> want from there. The photos will of course be editted. I will not
>> charge a per-print rate, nor do I put together an album. You pay
>> your fee, you get your disks, have fun.
>
> That's very attractive from your point of view. I'm not sure the
> people prepared to do all their own handling after the initial shoot
> are going to want to pay the decently high flat rate -- but I do
> weddings as a small sideline and my exposure to what people will
> tolerate in pricing is pretty limited. Good luck with it!
>

When you tell them, $20 for an 8x10, or $4 at the lab with your own disk,
they get over that real fast.

Most of my clients want to be able to email, make web pages, etc. This lets
them do that.


>> So, my questions are:
>>
>> 1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high
>> amount of storage space and slower shooting times, especially to
>> write? One person tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I
>> should shoot in jpg in the setting I normally use. He has a camera
>> studio/store and shoots with two S2s. i currently have only one 512
>> card, and want to keep the number of cards I use to a minimum. As
>> well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb each, as far as i can
>> determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.
>
> You'll need more cards of course. I think trying to keep number of
> cards "to a minimum" is a really bad choice. Of all the little things
> to choose to save money on, it's one of the ones that will have the
> biggest impact on your final results.
>

Ok, I can buy that. My plans are for another 4 GB, either 2x2 GB or 4 x 1
GB. Maybe a digital Ipod or coolwalker in the future.

> Generally, converting RAW to 3k 8bit works out well -- because you did
> the big adjustments in the raw converter. So you don't have to deal
> with 70mb for each one, anyway.
>
> I shoot jpeg for the candids. I shoot sometimes RAW, sometimes jpeg,
> for the posed/group shots, depending on how much control I have of the
> lighting, how confident I'm feeling, and what size prints the client
> wants.
>

Less confidence = more raw, I take it?


>> 2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?
>
> Yes.
>
>> 3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I
>> looking
>> at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.
>
> I notice Randall saying that's too many frames. Baloney, for a
> wedding. I've shot that many just at the reception sometimes.
>
> I can do batch RAW conversions using the Photoshop RAW plugin, and I
> do. I may set paramaters for a batch of photos (one situation or
> setup usually) and do them this way. Then, working with the results,
> I *may* go back and re-convert a single picture if the first
> parameters weren't good enough. This is essentially shooting raw for
> the ability to rescue shots I fluffed in the field. For weddings
> that's a key activity of course. I imagine your news photo experience
> has taught you what the client says if you come back without key
> pictures!
>
> The big batches of conversions, hundreds of pictures, can take many
> hours. If you can kick them off and go do other things it's not so
> bad. Still, that's the biggest argument against RAW.
>

Ahhh. ok. So make sure the wife has another computer to play on then.

I'm used to shooting lots. Hit the shutter release and hold. This will fill
my card very quickly in RAW, even a 2 GB. I guess that's my biggest concern,
that and workflow time.

>> 4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with
>> the S2? I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a
>> guy get by with using the histogram until I can afford a light
>> meter? (As you can guess, I have no experience with a light
>> meter. They aren't that useful or convenient for news photography)
>
> A light meter doesn't add anything to what the camera can do for you.
> I've got one, that I used to use with my studio lighting and film
> cameras, but with the S2 I never take it out. The histogram gives you
> a LOT more information than the light meter ever will, and it's always
> exactly right (exactly matches what your camera will be capturing).
> If I'm working with the subjects already on the set, I just tell them
> I'm doing "technical tests" so they won't worry about my shooting
> "pictures" without telling them what to do.
>

So basically, fill the histogram left to right, and boom, not much need for
light meter? Is that essentially what you're saying?



> (I'm using three White Lightning ultra-zap 1600 heads, which are
> 660ws. It turns out they're too powerful; I use them turned to lowest
> power (and they have a 5-stop range) a lot. Your 300ws pair should be
> very useful for weddings.)
>


Thank you very much for all your info! This is exactly what I'm looking for.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 10:58:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian Zinchuk" <brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> writes:

> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:270220051753540681%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> > In article <1124r6d9matqj70@corp.supernews.com>, Brian Zinchuk
> > <brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high amount
> >> of
> >> storage space and slower shooting times, especially to write? One person
> >> tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I should shoot in jpg in the
> >> setting I normally use. He has a camera studio/store and shoots with two
> >> S2s. i currently have only one 512 card, and want to keep the number of
> >> cards I use to a minimum. As well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb
> >> each,
> >> as far as i can determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.
> >
> > RAW is the way.
>
> Why?
> Specific reasons, please

With RAW you typically get 12 bits of color instead of 8. This allows for more
dynamic range to catch the white highlights of the brides dress and the black
tones of the groom's tux. During post processing, you can decide on the tone
curve to use in converting to 8 bit formats (or if your printer is setup for
it, to use 16 bit TIFF). Even if you don't have the high dynamic range of
white/black, with RAW you are more able to recover from shots being under and
overexposed.

Remember, unlike newsphotos that people typically only look at for a day or so,
and you are limited by the quality of the output equipment, in wedding photos,
people will be looking at it for many years down the road, and the better the
quality of prints can mean more reorders (though I suspect the days where a
wedding photographer makes most of his income from prints is coming to an end).
I suspect the amount of post processing that an average wedding photographer
does is probably going to be overwhelming at first.

In terms of memory, while my CompactDrive is pretty fast at uploading cards, I
would expect in a wedding type situation unless you have an assistant who is
not shooting, you really need to have enough memory to hold double the shots
you want to take (besides a portable disk drive like the CompactDrive has the
possibility of losing all of the pictures if the disk stops working). Even so,
I would try to make sure I get backups as soon as possible, so that you don't
have a single point of failure. I suspect the S2 is old enough that it can
only take 2 gig cards, but they have gotten a lot cheaper.

Remember, Murphy (as in Murphy's Law) loves weddings. If you are going to do
it seriously, you need redundant equipment for everything (camera, flash,
memory cards, batteries). It doesn't have to be the same brand, but it helps
since you don't have to mentally keep switching gears between different button
and menu layouts.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 1:01:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian Zinchuk" <brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:m2ekf1fk67.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
>> "Brian Zinchuk" <brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> writes:

>>> Most of my flashwork is done with the SB 28 pointed straight up,
>>> with the bounce card extended. I typically have it sent on automatic
>>> at f8, with the camera set on f5.6 or f6.7 aperature metering. This
>>> seems to get the best results for most of my work. Recently I have
>>> started using a stroboframe quickflip with a SC-17 cord, with ok
>>> success. It's a real hassle for vertical shots.
>>
>> Needing to request .5-1 stop more exposure on auto is about right in
>> my experience. I'm using mostly an SB-80, but I wouldn't expect a
>> difference on this. I was taught about bouncing off the ceiling
>> around 1973, I think, and it's still one of the most valuable
>> techniques I've learned. And the built-in fill card is great and I
>> use it too.
>
> I've tried the lumiquest pocket bounce, but my success has been quite
> limited. Other than its size being a hassle, it almost seems like I simply
> cannot make enough compensation for it. Things are always dark. So it
> doesn't get used to much.

It's interesting that that produces *exposure* differences. I don't
like the pocket bouncer because it doesn't soften the light enough, or
move it far enough away from the camera anyway, though.

>> The flash performance is one of the biggest drawbacks I've found with
>> this camera -- especially since TTL flash working so well was such a
>> treat previously. (I actually end up working with the flash on manual
>> a lot of the time as well.)
>
> I've gone to A flash mode because i find the TTL on the S2 is not half as
> good as my old F70. With my F70, you had to try hard to take a bad flash
> picture. On the S2, that is not the case. Dark background's, overexposed
> forgrounds. Yuck. Slow rear curtain sync helps, and i use it on the tripod
> whenever possible.

Yes, I use M or A mostly, gave up on TTL with the S2. Which, as I
say, is a great shame, because TTL was wonderful with my Olympus and
Nikon film gear.

>>> My wedding business plan is to charge a decently high flat rate, the
>>> client gets copies of the disks and can make whatever prints they
>>> want from there. The photos will of course be editted. I will not
>>> charge a per-print rate, nor do I put together an album. You pay
>>> your fee, you get your disks, have fun.
>>
>> That's very attractive from your point of view. I'm not sure the
>> people prepared to do all their own handling after the initial shoot
>> are going to want to pay the decently high flat rate -- but I do
>> weddings as a small sideline and my exposure to what people will
>> tolerate in pricing is pretty limited. Good luck with it!
>
> When you tell them, $20 for an 8x10, or $4 at the lab with your own disk,
> they get over that real fast.
>
> Most of my clients want to be able to email, make web pages, etc. This lets
> them do that.

Yes, mine want that last part also. But I find them sometimes *not*
wanting to deal with finding pieces and assembling a nice album, for
example. While at the same time objecting to high print prices.
Well, anyway, you've obviously thought about it and talked to people,
and it's a reasonable idea. And my experience is quite limited. Hope
it works out!

>>> So, my questions are:
>>>
>>> 1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high
>>> amount of storage space and slower shooting times, especially to
>>> write? One person tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I
>>> should shoot in jpg in the setting I normally use. He has a camera
>>> studio/store and shoots with two S2s. i currently have only one 512
>>> card, and want to keep the number of cards I use to a minimum. As
>>> well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70 mb each, as far as i can
>>> determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.
>>
>> You'll need more cards of course. I think trying to keep number of
>> cards "to a minimum" is a really bad choice. Of all the little things
>> to choose to save money on, it's one of the ones that will have the
>> biggest impact on your final results.
>
> Ok, I can buy that. My plans are for another 4 GB, either 2x2 GB or 4 x 1
> GB. Maybe a digital Ipod or coolwalker in the future.

That's getting useful, yes. Shooting mostly jpeg+film, I get by on
1.5 gig (though I usually manage to find a way to dump the cards
between posed shots and reception shots), so another 4GB should put
you at a decently comfortable level (my 1.5 gig really isn't adequate,
I spend too much time worrying about it or finding ways to work around
it).

>> Generally, converting RAW to 3k 8bit works out well -- because you did
>> the big adjustments in the raw converter. So you don't have to deal
>> with 70mb for each one, anyway.
>>
>> I shoot jpeg for the candids. I shoot sometimes RAW, sometimes jpeg,
>> for the posed/group shots, depending on how much control I have of the
>> lighting, how confident I'm feeling, and what size prints the client
>> wants.
>
> Less confidence = more raw, I take it?

Yes, exactly.

>>> 3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I
>>> looking
>>> at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.
>>
>> I notice Randall saying that's too many frames. Baloney, for a
>> wedding. I've shot that many just at the reception sometimes.
>>
>> I can do batch RAW conversions using the Photoshop RAW plugin, and I
>> do. I may set paramaters for a batch of photos (one situation or
>> setup usually) and do them this way. Then, working with the results,
>> I *may* go back and re-convert a single picture if the first
>> parameters weren't good enough. This is essentially shooting raw for
>> the ability to rescue shots I fluffed in the field. For weddings
>> that's a key activity of course. I imagine your news photo experience
>> has taught you what the client says if you come back without key
>> pictures!
>>
>> The big batches of conversions, hundreds of pictures, can take many
>> hours. If you can kick them off and go do other things it's not so
>> bad. Still, that's the biggest argument against RAW.
>>
>
> Ahhh. ok. So make sure the wife has another computer to play on then.
>
> I'm used to shooting lots. Hit the shutter release and hold. This will fill
> my card very quickly in RAW, even a 2 GB. I guess that's my biggest concern,
> that and workflow time.

Yes, it will. I haven't tried working with *that* big a pile of raws
myself. But it gives you a LOT of room to pull out that fantastic
candid that you only had time for one shot of and the exposure is way
off. 90% of the time the jpeg would give you identical results, but
that 10% can be important.

>>> 4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with
>>> the S2? I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a
>>> guy get by with using the histogram until I can afford a light
>>> meter? (As you can guess, I have no experience with a light
>>> meter. They aren't that useful or convenient for news photography)
>>
>> A light meter doesn't add anything to what the camera can do for you.
>> I've got one, that I used to use with my studio lighting and film
>> cameras, but with the S2 I never take it out. The histogram gives you
>> a LOT more information than the light meter ever will, and it's always
>> exactly right (exactly matches what your camera will be capturing).
>> If I'm working with the subjects already on the set, I just tell them
>> I'm doing "technical tests" so they won't worry about my shooting
>> "pictures" without telling them what to do.
>
> So basically, fill the histogram left to right, and boom, not much need for
> light meter? Is that essentially what you're saying?

Pretty much, for an ordinary scene. If you've spent any time in
photoshop you already have a pretty good idea what histograms should
look like for different kinds of scenes. Mostly you want full range,
and want to be careful of any blown highlights or blocked shadows, but
on high-key setups you actually *want* a solid overexposed zone and
may have very little in the bottom 1/4 of the space, and so forth for
other unusual scene types.

>> (I'm using three White Lightning ultra-zap 1600 heads, which are
>> 660ws. It turns out they're too powerful; I use them turned to lowest
>> power (and they have a 5-stop range) a lot. Your 300ws pair should be
>> very useful for weddings.)
>
> Thank you very much for all your info! This is exactly what I'm looking for.

Good, glad I could help.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:03:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:25:07 -0600, "Brian Zinchuk"
<brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> wrote:

>
>"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
>news:vg95211174efn4s32mh9suj13jc090flb0@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:13:01 -0600, "Brian Zinchuk"
>> <brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>
>>>yes, I understand that. I'm looking for specifics.
>>
>> The nature of your questions indicate that you have little or no
>> experience with either wedding photography, or any other type of
>> photography where an intimate knowledge of your equipment is needed.
>> I would sugest that you find a wedding photographer you can apprentice
>> yourself to for a while, to get a feel for the craft.
>> No offence intended, but news photography and wedding photography have
>> little in common besides a camera.
>> If you think an editor is a taskmaster, you've yet to see a bride's
>> mother in full attack plumage! :-)
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> Change "g" to "a"
>
>I don't know about that. I make my living knowing my camera gear intimately,
>so I'll try not to take too much offence.
>
>You'll find when interviewing people as a reporter, it's best to play dumb
>and let people explain things to you like you're a 8 year old. They are
>flattered, and you get a more clear explanation most times.
>
>In this neck of the woods (small town western Canada), there is precious
>little opportunity to apprentice. This is a sideline, not full time. There
>is a market here for that type of work, for the people who can't or won't
>pay $1500 for a wedding photographer.
>
>I have shot several weddings, typically as the 'extra photographer.' In most
>cases, my work was much better than the 'pro' people paid $1200+ for. So i'm
>pretty confident. Studio work is different, yes, but unlike news, you have
>the chance to recreate a good portion of your work, if you must.
>
>Ticked off cops carry guns, and I'm still able to do my job. No bullet holes
>yet.
>
>Anyhow, do you have any specific advice for use of the S2 pro?
>
>
No, I don't use one.
Good luck!

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 8:14:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian Zinchuk" <brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> wrote in message
news:1124vhechvpjp10@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> 600? JEEZ! Be discriminating.
>
> I easily shoot 200 at a longer news event. I shoot the whole wedding, from
> the bride getting ready, to the chapel, protraiture, and reception. 600 is
> not high
>

I've never shot half that many at a wedding! If you take 600 you run the
risk of information overload. Far better to discriminate and give then max
150 great pics from an all day shoot, correspondingly fewer if, eg, you
don't do the bride's house or the 'fun' part of the reception, eg, granny
making a fool of herself.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 10:33:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Des Perado" <des@per.ado> wrote in message
news:38h1tpF5obdleU1@individual.net...
>
> "Brian Zinchuk" <brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net> wrote in message
> news:1124vhechvpjp10@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> 600? JEEZ! Be discriminating.
>>
>> I easily shoot 200 at a longer news event. I shoot the whole wedding,
>> from the bride getting ready, to the chapel, protraiture, and reception.
>> 600 is not high
>>
>
> I've never shot half that many at a wedding! If you take 600 you run the
> risk of information overload. Far better to discriminate and give then
> max 150 great pics from an all day shoot, correspondingly fewer if, eg,
> you don't do the bride's house or the 'fun' part of the reception, eg,
> granny making a fool of herself.


Wedding stylers are differen the world over. Here in my part of the Uk, an
average is 40-70 shots for a wedding party of 30-80 guests, of which 20-30
are used in an album.
Since moving to digital i can take over 100 shots easily, but quality will
always get you more sales and bookings after the wedding than quantity.
I must say if i reached 600 shots in a wedding i would wonder what i had
done wrong, apart from spending too much time at the event!

Simon



>
>
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:44:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian Zinchuk wrote:
> I'm a newspaper reporter/photographer who has shot 28,000 frames with
his S2
> in the past 19 months. I am branching out into wedding photography,
and have
> a half dozen booked this summer.
>
> I have heard differing opinions as to what modes to shoot in.
>
> For my news work, it is almost all fine jpg, 3024 wide, with auto
white
> balance, high colour, hard tone, hard sharpening. Occasionally, i
will shoot
> 4256 wide, when i know I will need more detail and the ability to
crop.
>
> I have found that my camera is consistently 1/2 fstop dark via the
histogram
> and the results on screen, so I consistently shoot +1/2 fstop
exposure
> compensation.
>
> Most of my flashwork is done with the SB 28 pointed straight up, with
the
> bounce card extended. I typically have it sent on automatic at f8,
with the
> camera set on f5.6 or f6.7 aperature metering. This seems to get the
best
> results for most of my work. Recently I have started using a
stroboframe
> quickflip with a SC-17 cord, with ok success. It's a real hassle for
> vertical shots.
>
> My ISO is almost always 800, often 1600 except when I use flash.
Noise is
> not a factor for news work, but can be for weddings.
>
> My experience with RAW is next to zero.
>
> I am picking up two 300ws aurora strobes in short order.
>
> My wedding business plan is to charge a decently high flat rate, the
client
> gets copies of the disks and can make whatever prints they want from
there.
> The photos will of course be editted. I will not charge a per-print
rate,
> nor do I put together an album. You pay your fee, you get your disks,
have
> fun.
>
> So, my questions are:
>
> 1. Should I shoot in RAW? if so, why? is it truly worth they high
amount of
> storage space and slower shooting times, especially to write? One
person
> tells me yes, shoot all raw, the other no, I should shoot in jpg in
the
> setting I normally use. He has a camera studio/store and shoots with
two
> S2s. i currently have only one 512 card, and want to keep the number
of
> cards I use to a minimum. As well, converting RAW to TIF is like 70
mb each,
> as far as i can determine. That makes a lot of disks for me to burn.

You can use raw for posed shots of the bridal party and generational
shots. It is not really necessary when covering the other parts of the
wedding like when bridesmaids are walking down the aisle or at the
reception.


>
> 2. Does everyone else have the consistent underexposure like I do?

I shot with the S2 Pro for two years and found it to be finicky in a
variety of situtations. Always shot a little warmer than I would've
liked - slower to write to the card, but then again it's an older
camera. I've since moved it to backup status after purchasing the Nikon
D-70.

>
> 3. What sort of workflow do you do if using RAW? How much time am I
looking
> at, per shot? I expect 600 frames a wedding, maybe more.

I've read some of the previous comments about how many pictures to take
at a wedding. You shoot what you feel is necessary to get what you
want. I don't know what kind of experience levels the other submitters
have, but here in Southern California the number of shots taken by a
photographer, who's all digital, can range anywhere from 150 to 2000!
Of course, the guys who shoots around 2000 charges roughly $5000.00 for
a wedding (I'm sure that will generate some kind of flame). Don't
second guess yourself. A combination of photojournalistic style and
posed shots will add up. While I still have one of my Nikon film
cameras at every wedding I haven't shot with it since 2002.

>
> 4. What are the hazards/pitfalls with using strobes + umbrellas with
the S2?
> I assume a light meter is a really good thing, but can a guy get by
with
> using the histogram until I can afford a light meter? (As you can
guess, I
> have no experience with a light meter. They aren't that useful or
convenient
> for news photography)

If you have time to use a light meter use it, but how much time will
you have to set up a full umbrella configuration? All depends on the
wedding site.


>
> 5.What ISO do most people yuse for their wedding work - in the
chapel,
> portraiture, reception, etc.? Why?

If the church, or venue, do not allow flash then it's a fast ISO. If
you're shooting in some of those catholic churches where the only light
is from stained glass windows - and the ceremony is 30 minutes before
sundown..well, what can I say? This is where you get to be creative.

I shoot mostly between 100 and 200 ISO for almost everything.

>
> Any help, criticism, etc, would be appreciated.

You're asking questions to learn. In a later post you said you shot
second camera at some weddings so I've probably already states the
obvious to you.

Brett
!