My first wedding, the lesson learned.

skyoftexas · 10-07-2015, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

There are a lot of DA primes that cover the full frame circle but are sold as APS-C lenses... the DA 35 2.4, DA 40 Limited, the DA 50 1.8, the DA*55 and the DA 70. Hopefully I haven't forgotten any.

Just as a curiosity, what two primes do you usually go with?

I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm. The 31mm pretty much stays on camera the whole time. I pull out the 21mm (or15mm when it's working correctly) for wider angled shots as needed. I use the 100mm for some telephoto and macro work. The 200mm when space allows. For receptions, I exchange the 77mm for the 70mm because it focuses much faster. As I anticipated when I purchased the 31mm, the 43mm doesn't get used that much except when that focal length is needed. I would use it more at receptions, but it doesn't focus that quickly in those circumstances. I have considered getting the 40mm again. I like the contrasty, photo quality of the DA primes when using flash at receptions. If I ever get my hands on a Pentax FF, I'm sure the 43mm will come back into more significant play.

ChristianRock · 10-07-2015, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by skyoftexas

I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm. The 31mm pretty much stays on camera the whole time. I pull out the 21mm (or15mm when it's working correctly) for wider angled shots as needed. I use the 100mm for some telephoto and macro work. The 200mm when space allows. For receptions, I exchange the 77mm for the 70mm because it focuses much faster. As I anticipated when I purchased the 31mm, the 43mm doesn't get used that much except when that focal length is needed. I would use it more at receptions, but it doesn't focus that quickly in those circumstances. I have considered getting the 40mm again. I like the contrasty, photo quality of the DA primes when using flash at receptions. If I ever get my hands on a Pentax FF, I'm sure the 43mm will come back into more significant play.

Thanks for the insights and your use of the lenses. I'm not going to do weddings anytime soon but I do kids parties sometimes and end up just using my DA 35 2.4 most of the time. Great to hear that the 21 is as wide as you probably need, as I'm eyeing that lens sometime in the future. Either that or a Sigma 17-50... haven't decided yet. I might have to get the 70 as well...

noelpolar · 10-07-2015, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by skyoftexas

I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm. The 31mm pretty much stays on camera the whole time. I pull out the 21mm (or15mm when it's working correctly) for wider angled shots as needed. I use the 100mm for some telephoto and macro work. The 200mm when space allows. For receptions, I exchange the 77mm for the 70mm because it focuses much faster. As I anticipated when I purchased the 31mm, the 43mm doesn't get used that much except when that focal length is needed. I would use it more at receptions, but it doesn't focus that quickly in those circumstances. I have considered getting the 40mm again. I like the contrasty, photo quality of the DA primes when using flash at receptions. If I ever get my hands on a Pentax FF, I'm sure the 43mm will come back into more significant play.

Pretty much what I do as well. I have a Sigma 70-200/2.8 that gets some service.

alexeyga · 10-08-2015, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by redcat

it's very common for Pro wedding shooters ! they want to shoot as much as possible and Raw are just too slow. their job is harder that way though, they have to get the settings & WB absolutely right in field, more stress !!!

I'm perfectly aware of it, actually a good friend of mine makes her living out of weddings and her take on the whole RAW vs JPG issue is like: "Only these who can't photograph for sh@t shoot RAW!!!"

I don't quite agree with it, but I don't argue anymore - in any case she's a lot better at it than I am.

On the other hand, (at least in my experience), higher level camera bodies do tend to suck at JPG. So as far I'm concerned - using a D800 camera to pump out pretty mediocre quality JPGs from it - isn't too bright - no matter how good you are at guessing the exposure and WB.

But then again, as far as clients go - they aren't looking for the best image quality, but for good enough pictures.

And yes - RAW is very time-consuming.

micromacro · 10-08-2015, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by alexeyga

But then again, as far as clients go - they aren't looking for the best image quality, but for good enough pictures.

I'm not sure it's totally true, especially when any guest can deliver good enough pictures these days.
What I learned by feedback that looking good is important for participants. Especially for women. The main question I got from them was "why do I look so ugly on pro's pictures, and look so good on yours?" Well, because of raw plus retouching. Yes, it's time consuming, but that what clients want, imo - to look good.

redcat · 10-08-2015, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by skyoftexas

I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm.

that is the dream team, I might add the DA 15 and it's all it takes for a good session

alexeyga · 10-08-2015, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by micromacro

I'm not sure it's totally true, especially when any guest can deliver good enough pictures these days.
What I learned by feedback that looking good is important for participants. Especially for women. The main question I got from them was "why do I look so ugly on pro's pictures, and look so good on yours?" Well, because of raw plus retouching. Yes, it's time consuming, but that what clients want, imo - to look good.

What I really meant to say - is that for the end user the content is lot more important than technical details. A "bad" SOOC JPG photo with meaning in it - is worth a lot more than a perfectly-developed RAW file that has no emotional value what so ever.

micromacro · 10-08-2015, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by alexeyga

A "bad" SOOC JPG photo with meaning in it - is worth a lot more than a perfectly-developed RAW file that has no emotional value what so ever.

Why raw edited picture should be without emotions, but jpg is emotional? I don't understand.

alexeyga · 10-08-2015, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by micromacro

Why raw edited picture should be without emotions, but jpg is emotional? I don't understand.

Lol, perhaps because the one who was shooting SOOC JPGs has managed to catch the right moment or simply knew what he/she was doing. As oppose to the one who was shooting RAW on his/her fancy camera and who was worried more about things like bokeh rather than what this particular picture is all about.

skyoftexas · 10-09-2015, 09:45 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by alexeyga

I'm perfectly aware of it, actually a good friend of mine makes her living out of weddings and her take on the whole RAW vs JPG issue is like: "Only these who can't photograph for sh@t shoot RAW!!!"

That is clearly either an ignorant statement, or a disingenuous one, and reveals something very telling about the photographer. She is not really that interested in providing the clients with her best work. The link below is from one of my online mentors blog regarding this subject. His work is amazing. Enough said.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/raw-vs-jpg-the-final-discussion/

noelpolar · 10-10-2015, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by alexeyga

Lol, perhaps because the one who was shooting SOOC JPGs has managed to catch the right moment or simply knew what he/she was doing. As oppose to the one who was shooting RAW on his/her fancy camera and who was worried more about things like bokeh rather than what this particular picture is all about.

Why would shooting Raw mean you are not capable of catching the right moment or mean one doesn't know what he/she is doing?

(Couldn't help myself.....)

alexeyga · 10-10-2015, 09:10 AM

Interesting...

Do we need to turn it into another pointless RAW vs JPG discussion?

Why does a rhetorical allusion to a situation where a SOOC JPG photo might have more value than a perfectly-developed RAW photo - generates so much heat?

Hey, I'm all for RAW my-self, but having done weddings and using my dslr gear mostly for sports right now - I can see both sides of the fence. Sorting and editing 2-3k shots is not exactly fun. Even if you only keep every 10th file - it's still 200-300 shot to pump through a RAW converter at the end of the day. I may be happy with the results, but I'm still wishing I could get the same SOOC and use the time saved doing so on something else.

I also occasionally do portraiture where the time is taken to set up pretty much every single shot and I'm more than happy to fine-tune these shots in a RAW converter.

Some people here need to realize that there's a abyss between you taking pics of you kitty and flowers and people who actually do make money with their gear on a daily basis. Out there "good enough" is good enough and if a photographer is good enough to get sell-able JPGs SOOC - why not?

There's no really right or wrong away - it's what (and when) you're comfortable with that matters.

Originally posted by skyoftexas

http://neilvn.com/tangents/raw-vs-jpg-the-final-discussion/

He's clearly better than 99% of posters around here, but "amazing"??? In what sense exactly?

dugrant153 · 10-10-2015, 09:17 AM

It is definitely possible to shoot more documentary style weddings and with a Pentax too. Regardless of equipment, it's a tough job. We wedding photogs make it look easy but it isn't. On top of being technically sound, we need to know how to work with various personalities, setting expectations and delivering on what is essentially a portrait, engagement, uber low-light, uber bright-light, fast-changing-light, ISO 6400 and ISO 80 (in the same room) light, actions happening all around.... AND making clients happy all in between.

When I'm not shooting film, I shoot RAW files and Mastin Labs or Replichrome filters in Lightroom.

Cool that you got to experience the not-easy-ness of a wedding.

Rupert · 10-10-2015, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by micromacro

Why raw edited picture should be without emotions, but jpg is emotional? I don't understand.

Read it again Micro!

I'll take a bad Jpeg or Raw with meaning and emotion over a great Raw with little or no meaning or emotion anytime! Of course, that is not the goal, but ...it happens!

Regards!

micromacro · 10-11-2015, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Rupert

Read it again Micro!

I'll take a bad Jpeg or Raw with meaning and emotion over a great Raw with little or no meaning or emotion anytime!

I still don't get it, WHY that comparison jpg vs raw needs to be related to emotions. If I caught blue jay from close distance flying (you know, they fast!) in raw, sharp and focused, why the heck I'm not able to catch slower emotions on weddings?

10-10-2015, 09:10 AM	#42
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Interesting... Do we need to turn it into another pointless RAW vs JPG discussion? Why does a rhetorical allusion to a situation where a SOOC JPG photo might have more value than a perfectly-developed RAW photo - generates so much heat? Hey, I'm all for RAW my-self, but having done weddings and using my dslr gear mostly for sports right now - I can see both sides of the fence. Sorting and editing 2-3k shots is not exactly fun. Even if you only keep every 10th file - it's still 200-300 shot to pump through a RAW converter at the end of the day. I may be happy with the results, but I'm still wishing I could get the same SOOC and use the time saved doing so on something else. I also occasionally do portraiture where the time is taken to set up pretty much every single shot and I'm more than happy to fine-tune these shots in a RAW converter. Some people here need to realize that there's a abyss between you taking pics of you kitty and flowers and people who actually do make money with their gear on a daily basis. Out there "good enough" is good enough and if a photographer is good enough to get sell-able JPGs SOOC - why not? There's no really right or wrong away - it's what (and when) you're comfortable with that matters. Originally posted by skyoftexas http://neilvn.com/tangents/raw-vs-jpg-the-final-discussion/ He's clearly better than 99% of posters around here, but "amazing"??? In what sense exactly? Last edited by alexeyga; 10-10-2015 at 03:11 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First Time Wedding!! What I learned.	jaywes	Photographic Industry and Professionals	15	03-25-2015 03:29 AM
Lesson learned...	Steve.Ledger	Pentax K-01	21	04-22-2014 11:33 AM
A Lesson Learned About the Intensity of Camera Enthusiasts	interested_observer	Photographic Industry and Professionals	26	08-17-2013 03:52 AM
24x36 Print Lesson 1 learned	daacon	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	20	10-20-2009 11:32 AM
Battery dies. Lesson learned.	pentax4ever	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	8	07-16-2008 05:35 PM

10-07-2015, 08:53 AM	#31
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156	Originally posted by ChristianRock There are a lot of DA primes that cover the full frame circle but are sold as APS-C lenses... the DA 35 2.4, DA 40 Limited, the DA 50 1.8, the DA*55 and the DA 70. Hopefully I haven't forgotten any. Just as a curiosity, what two primes do you usually go with? I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm. The 31mm pretty much stays on camera the whole time. I pull out the 21mm (or15mm when it's working correctly) for wider angled shots as needed. I use the 100mm for some telephoto and macro work. The 200mm when space allows. For receptions, I exchange the 77mm for the 70mm because it focuses much faster. As I anticipated when I purchased the 31mm, the 43mm doesn't get used that much except when that focal length is needed. I would use it more at receptions, but it doesn't focus that quickly in those circumstances. I have considered getting the 40mm again. I like the contrasty, photo quality of the DA primes when using flash at receptions. If I ever get my hands on a Pentax FF, I'm sure the 43mm will come back into more significant play.

10-07-2015, 12:53 PM	#32
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by skyoftexas I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm. The 31mm pretty much stays on camera the whole time. I pull out the 21mm (or15mm when it's working correctly) for wider angled shots as needed. I use the 100mm for some telephoto and macro work. The 200mm when space allows. For receptions, I exchange the 77mm for the 70mm because it focuses much faster. As I anticipated when I purchased the 31mm, the 43mm doesn't get used that much except when that focal length is needed. I would use it more at receptions, but it doesn't focus that quickly in those circumstances. I have considered getting the 40mm again. I like the contrasty, photo quality of the DA primes when using flash at receptions. If I ever get my hands on a Pentax FF, I'm sure the 43mm will come back into more significant play. Thanks for the insights and your use of the lenses. I'm not going to do weddings anytime soon but I do kids parties sometimes and end up just using my DA 35 2.4 most of the time. Great to hear that the 21 is as wide as you probably need, as I'm eyeing that lens sometime in the future. Either that or a Sigma 17-50... haven't decided yet. I might have to get the 70 as well...

10-07-2015, 05:25 PM	#33
noelpolar Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Goolwa, SA Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by skyoftexas I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm. The 31mm pretty much stays on camera the whole time. I pull out the 21mm (or15mm when it's working correctly) for wider angled shots as needed. I use the 100mm for some telephoto and macro work. The 200mm when space allows. For receptions, I exchange the 77mm for the 70mm because it focuses much faster. As I anticipated when I purchased the 31mm, the 43mm doesn't get used that much except when that focal length is needed. I would use it more at receptions, but it doesn't focus that quickly in those circumstances. I have considered getting the 40mm again. I like the contrasty, photo quality of the DA primes when using flash at receptions. If I ever get my hands on a Pentax FF, I'm sure the 43mm will come back into more significant play. Pretty much what I do as well. I have a Sigma 70-200/2.8 that gets some service.

10-08-2015, 06:44 AM	#34
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Originally posted by redcat it's very common for Pro wedding shooters ! they want to shoot as much as possible and Raw are just too slow. their job is harder that way though, they have to get the settings & WB absolutely right in field, more stress !!! I'm perfectly aware of it, actually a good friend of mine makes her living out of weddings and her take on the whole RAW vs JPG issue is like: "Only these who can't photograph for sh@t shoot RAW!!!" I don't quite agree with it, but I don't argue anymore - in any case she's a lot better at it than I am. On the other hand, (at least in my experience), higher level camera bodies do tend to suck at JPG. So as far I'm concerned - using a D800 camera to pump out pretty mediocre quality JPGs from it - isn't too bright - no matter how good you are at guessing the exposure and WB. But then again, as far as clients go - they aren't looking for the best image quality, but for good enough pictures. And yes - RAW is very time-consuming.

10-08-2015, 07:45 AM	#35
micromacro Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,722 Original Poster	Originally posted by alexeyga But then again, as far as clients go - they aren't looking for the best image quality, but for good enough pictures. I'm not sure it's totally true, especially when any guest can deliver good enough pictures these days. What I learned by feedback that looking good is important for participants. Especially for women. The main question I got from them was "why do I look so ugly on pro's pictures, and look so good on yours?" Well, because of raw plus retouching. Yes, it's time consuming, but that what clients want, imo - to look good.

10-08-2015, 08:14 AM	#36
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	Originally posted by skyoftexas I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm. that is the dream team, I might add the DA 15 and it's all it takes for a good session

10-08-2015, 08:44 AM	#37
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Originally posted by micromacro I'm not sure it's totally true, especially when any guest can deliver good enough pictures these days. What I learned by feedback that looking good is important for participants. Especially for women. The main question I got from them was "why do I look so ugly on pro's pictures, and look so good on yours?" Well, because of raw plus retouching. Yes, it's time consuming, but that what clients want, imo - to look good. What I really meant to say - is that for the end user the content is lot more important than technical details. A "bad" SOOC JPG photo with meaning in it - is worth a lot more than a perfectly-developed RAW file that has no emotional value what so ever.

10-08-2015, 09:16 AM	#38
micromacro Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,722 Original Poster	Originally posted by alexeyga A "bad" SOOC JPG photo with meaning in it - is worth a lot more than a perfectly-developed RAW file that has no emotional value what so ever. Why raw edited picture should be without emotions, but jpg is emotional? I don't understand.

10-08-2015, 09:59 AM	#39
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Originally posted by micromacro Why raw edited picture should be without emotions, but jpg is emotional? I don't understand. Lol, perhaps because the one who was shooting SOOC JPGs has managed to catch the right moment or simply knew what he/she was doing. As oppose to the one who was shooting RAW on his/her fancy camera and who was worried more about things like bokeh rather than what this particular picture is all about.

10-09-2015, 09:45 AM - 1 Like	#40
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156	Originally posted by alexeyga I'm perfectly aware of it, actually a good friend of mine makes her living out of weddings and her take on the whole RAW vs JPG issue is like: "Only these who can't photograph for sh@t shoot RAW!!!" That is clearly either an ignorant statement, or a disingenuous one, and reveals something very telling about the photographer. She is not really that interested in providing the clients with her best work. The link below is from one of my online mentors blog regarding this subject. His work is amazing. Enough said. http://neilvn.com/tangents/raw-vs-jpg-the-final-discussion/

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-10-2015, 03:04 AM	#41
noelpolar Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Goolwa, SA Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by alexeyga Lol, perhaps because the one who was shooting SOOC JPGs has managed to catch the right moment or simply knew what he/she was doing. As oppose to the one who was shooting RAW on his/her fancy camera and who was worried more about things like bokeh rather than what this particular picture is all about. Why would shooting Raw mean you are not capable of catching the right moment or mean one doesn't know what he/she is doing? (Couldn't help myself.....)

10-10-2015, 04:28 PM	#44
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by micromacro Why raw edited picture should be without emotions, but jpg is emotional? I don't understand. Read it again Micro! I'll take a bad Jpeg or Raw with meaning and emotion over a great Raw with little or no meaning or emotion anytime! Of course, that is not the goal, but ...it happens! Regards!

10-11-2015, 03:11 PM	#45
micromacro Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,722 Original Poster	Originally posted by Rupert Read it again Micro! I'll take a bad Jpeg or Raw with meaning and emotion over a great Raw with little or no meaning or emotion anytime! I still don't get it, WHY that comparison jpg vs raw needs to be related to emotions. If I caught blue jay from close distance flying (you know, they fast!) in raw, sharp and focused, why the heck I'm not able to catch slower emotions on weddings?