Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-29-2009, 10:02 PM   #1
Senior Member
trishytee's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mandurah Perth
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 221
The undercover wedding Part Two

Well that was pretty daunting. I don't think I got any really good shots. First the celebrant had them facing the sun and I couldn't really intervene. Then my flash seems to have a loose conection and did not fire (no one told me) so many shots have shadows. I also seem to have no sharp focus? I was on the 'green' metering as suggested here. I went onto automatic programme eventually and the one under the tree is 1/180 f11 and I think I was too far away for the flash to make a difference (I had a difuser on. The one near flower bush also autmatic was 1/180 f6.7 and the flash did not fire. (did not know until I loaded them.) I am a little concerned about the lack of sharp focus. Yes, taff and Ash and others I shall get myself a book, and I think a new flash as this one is loose. Seems a shame that when I knew nothing at all about aperatures and such (I heard that) I did a wedding on fully automatic with built in flash and got lovely pictures. Not fair.
Okay, now having probs uploading said pics. After about one hour of "uploading' it tells me my files are too big (jpg) they are4.09mb and 3.36mb. unsure how to solve this. Help

10-29-2009, 10:14 PM   #2
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
Seems to be a lot of issues here.

Firstly, images uploaded to the forum must be less than 1Mb, so just resize them so you don't have to both upload huge images and get everyone who wants to look at them to download huge images (we don't all have speedy unlimited internet connections!). Why not just resize them for web and upload them to your favourite photo hosting site, then link them to your posts?

As for your expectations not being met, I'm afraid to say the gear is not really to blame.
The K-m does not support TTL and so shooting on any auto mode with your TTL only flash is asking for trouble. Shooting at 1/180 at f/11 (at whatever ISO) leaves little for the flash to make a decent contribution to the lighting of the scene - I'd hazard to guess these shots didn't come out all that well...

Saying that you've gotten great results using another camera but not this one is a little short-sighted to be honest. You probably would have come away with MUCH better results if you were just shooting with the camera's on-board flash rather than the 400 (at your stage).

One forum member here does weddings for a living and has very similar gear to you, but knows how to use it well, and therefore gets the results he expects each time. The 400 flash is a professional-grade flash, but it is not P-TTL, so needs extra thought into its use on a modern Pentax dSLR.

Hope this doesn't come hard on you, but you really need to go back to basics before being upset with your equipment. It's what stems a lot of the 'Canikon is better' debates...
10-29-2009, 11:07 PM   #3
Senior Member
trishytee's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mandurah Perth
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 221
Original Poster
Gee whiz you know how to hurt a girl. No it was the same camera, just the on-board flash. Not blaming the equiptment, just my expertise. Except that the flash is loose, I just didn't know it wasn't connecting. And you are right, my shots did not reflect the fact that a flash was used. And I shall work on this. Now I don't have a photo hosting site but shall go in and try to resize them. I'm unsure how but presume I go through photoshop and save as a small image?
10-29-2009, 11:25 PM   #4
Senior Member
trishytee's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mandurah Perth
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 221
Original Poster
photos from wedding

Well I think they are attached. Hopefully I can get some feedback. Go Ash

Attached Images
   
10-29-2009, 11:31 PM   #5
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
QuoteOriginally posted by trishytee Quote
Gee whiz you know how to hurt a girl. No it was the same camera, just the on-board flash. Not blaming the equiptment, just my expertise. Except that the flash is loose, I just didn't know it wasn't connecting. And you are right, my shots did not reflect the fact that a flash was used. And I shall work on this. Now I don't have a photo hosting site but shall go in and try to resize them. I'm unsure how but presume I go through photoshop and save as a small image?
Had no intention of making you feel bad. My apologies.

Everyone is at a different stage of their journey but it's important to know that you don't know and are willing to learn, which you're showing you are. So do well to do the reading and understand the exposure triad, the properties of light and how to use it in photography, and know your equipment.

As for your examples here, they look fine. Seems no flash is evident in the shots, which is no big deal if ambient light is in your favour (and it seems it was here - not too harsh), but a touch of fill flash adds life to the subjects that may appear dull from flat lighting (as with cloudy conditions).

Framing can be improved - #2 in particular has cropped too much on either side of the couple - would have suited horizontal orientation better. Read up on this too - it's a whole lesson in itself.

As you can see there is a vast array of knowledge and skills to photography, and then there's an even more vast set of skills to doing wedding photography.

Keep at it and practice, practice, practice!
10-30-2009, 01:08 AM   #6
Senior Member
trishytee's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mandurah Perth
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 221
Original Poster
The original photo

Thanks Ash, that's much gentler! I have popped in the original, plus one I cropped to get rid of the white light to left. Did it portrait as the groom wanted the tree in shot. Have done a horizontal but of course a tad late for that. My flash was second hand and did not realise until later that the flash is not firing at all times due to a wobbley connection. So although the flashwent off under tree as I was using wide angle I think I was too far away. (did not fire in the one in front of bush) I have lighted the pic in RAW, thank goodness I got that right. I think I shall buy the book mentioned on here. The pic that the author gave the settings for (1/250@f4 ISO400) which nicely blurred the background, I think perhaps ommitted to mention the use of a ND filter as surely it would blow out on those settings? Any pointers on why nothing seems sharp would be appreciated.
Attached Images
   
10-30-2009, 01:15 AM   #7
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
These images would be hard to judge on sharpness since the forum's uploaded pictures do lose sharpness and contrast when posted. They don't look all that bad from my screen, but only you can tell how sharp it really is at 100%.

I've not used an ND filter at any of my weddings, it's not a necessity to me as I'm happy for more light rather than less. You would be amiss to assume the settings given in a book apply in any of your situations - each lighting condition commands a different exposure setting, and it's the interplay between aperture, shutter speed and sensitivity that will determine this (all explained in lessons on the exposure triad).

Keep learning and practicing.

10-30-2009, 01:24 AM   #8
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
OK, you're repeating yourself now... I've responded to this post.
10-30-2009, 01:31 AM   #9
Senior Member
trishytee's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mandurah Perth
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 221
Original Poster
Yep, that's why I deleted but are too quick for me. Thanks for all your input Ash, I really appreciate you taking the time. I shall try and find that triad thingy you mention. Might look at the book that is recommended in answer to my earlier post about using flash in day light. Where the fellow gives that mystery setting!! Thanks, I shall return.
10-30-2009, 02:01 AM   #10
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
Regarding framing/cropping, the diagonal method is something I have found extremely useful. (Lightroom supports it with diagonal guides available in the crop selection).
10-30-2009, 03:49 AM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melb. Aust
Posts: 840
it is a nice tree, but what is the subject!! The crop looks good IMO, although I'd leave a fraction more on the bottom to include all the flowers. Matbe it's shot from a little low too.
10-30-2009, 04:55 AM   #12
Senior Member
trishytee's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mandurah Perth
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 221
Original Poster
Thanks Monaro, I will have a fiddle you make a good point. I like the pic better now it's lighter, but I have to say I'm not that keen on the blue flowers, but she loves them so I might clone in some more. What is IMO? Mike I am a little good on photo shop, but what is the diagonal? and I don't have light room. Is it expensive? Thanks for feed back.
10-30-2009, 05:19 AM   #13
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
The diagonal method is explained in the link I provided. Basically it involves placing key elements of your photo on the four lines running at 45 degree angles from the corners.

Here is an example, done with a photo someone here on PF previously posted asking for advice about. I hope they won't mind it re-appearing here:




That shows the original photo, together with the Lightroom crop overlay. You can see the 45 degree diagonal lines running from the corners. Notice the relation of the lines with the eyes and the corner of the mouth. Here is the resultant crop (and contrast enhancement):




And here is another similar example:






"Expensive" is a relative term.....I think Lightroom was expensive. I also think it was the single best photographic purchase I have made.
10-30-2009, 05:26 AM   #14
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,643
One thing I've learned over the years is, it's not about you (or me) and what we like. If she likes blue flowers, then shoot her blue flowers. I wouldn't clone in more than was in the original shot. Just make sure you don't crop flowers out.

As for the missed focus, actually it's spot on sharp from the tree shot above. It's that you focused on the tree. Have a closer look at the image. I'd guess you were in center spot focus mode. The dead center of the image is the tree between their heads. So the auto focus locked on the tree.

The flash is an AF400T (the large one that mounts on the side and uses a cable to connect to the camera)? If so it has 2 different ways to connect to a K20D or K-7. It has a PC socket under the flash head that can connect to the PC socket on the body. Or you can use a 4P cable that plugs in the side of the flash and mounts on the camera's hot shoe.

I have 3 of these flashes and have never once had an issue with them or the cables. I'd get a PC cable to test the flash to camera connection. They are very cheap and a back up is always a good idea.

As for the flash itself, it's all manual shooting but solid, predictable and reliable. I love this unit and take about 75% of my flash shots with it and with a diffuser on the flash head. But it requires a very solid understanding of the exposure and camera/flash controls. Only time I'll use an AF540 is when High sped sync or something similar is needed for more creative stuff.

Last edited by Peter Zack; 10-30-2009 at 09:29 AM.
10-30-2009, 05:29 AM   #15
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,643
I'd agree with Mike that Lightroom is the cheapest piece of expensive software I've ever bought. For what I do and many others, it's ideal. I don't use photoshop all that much these days.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, fire, flash, focus, photography, shots, wedding
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wedding- What can I do with these? Please Help OrenMc Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 10 08-31-2010 06:11 AM
Cheap Wedding Photographer Part II Judge Joe Brown joodiespost General Talk 64 03-15-2010 10:13 PM
People Wedding cwood Post Your Photos! 3 10-23-2009 02:31 PM
First wedding TYOsborn Post Your Photos! 10 05-16-2009 11:17 AM
Wedding by Me JCSullivan Post Your Photos! 3 06-25-2008 10:27 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:22 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top