Which Do You Prefer?

[Speed]

Taken at a wedding this weekend.

First shot was taken at f2.8.

Second shot was taken at f8.

Third shot was taken at f16.

Yes, I was experimenting.

For those who might care:

N80, Sigma 28-70 f2.8, Porta 160 NC, SB-28 on a stroboframe.

[Axle]

I would have to say f2.8 because the shot over all is much brighter and you can see where the bride is.

[another view]

First one definately. What shutter speed did you use? You should be fine handholding in a case like this at 1/30 with any focal length on that lens. Nobody's moving, so you don't have to worry about motion blur. At 2.8, the groom in the BG will be out of the depth of field, so if there's a little camera shake it really won't matter. But you could also use a tripod (although taking the time to set one up is sometimes a luxury...). Another option would be to use ISO400 film, that will lighten the background too. I usually used Portra 400NC set at 250.

Was this a trick question about voting for the D2X? Tell Dawn I said it's OK.

[mtbbrian]

f/2.8!
You see the background and the groom.
Brian

[Speed]

I would have to say f2.8 because the shot over all is much brighter and you can see where the bride is.

The f 2.8 shot was my preference as well. But the wife really liked the f 8 shot. She liked how the groom was still recognizable as such, but he was definitely in the background.

Maybe it's a woman thing? Where's Nat and Adina and Penny? How about Liz and Cowgirl and Lara? Let's get some women in here....

[Speed]

First one definately. What shutter speed did you use? You should be fine handholding in a case like this at 1/30 with any focal length on that lens. Nobody's moving, so you don't have to worry about motion blur. At 2.8, the groom in the BG will be out of the depth of field, so if there's a little camera shake it really won't matter. But you could also use a tripod (although taking the time to set one up is sometimes a luxury...). Another option would be to use ISO400 film, that will lighten the background too. I usually used Portra 400NC set at 250.

Was this a trick question about voting for the D2X? Tell Dawn I said it's OK.

Again, we're on the same wavelength. I'm telling you, great minds think alike!!!

I don't remember the shutter speed, but it was probably 1/60th second.

Ironically, part of why I liked the f 2.8 shot was that the groom was well illuminated, but slightly OOF. Dawn didn't like it because you could see the curtains they used to cover the instruments on the platform. She also liked that the groom was much less prominent in the f 8 version.

I'm a Fuji man at heart. I LOVE the colors and the pastel look I get with NPH. I'm guessing it's Fuji's version of Porta 400NC.

I liked Kodaks Gold 100 when I could get it at Wal Mart in the multi-pack. But they dropped it, and I can't find it anywhere around here. B&H carries it, but it's a lot more than I used to get it for. Now the only Kodak film I use is Porta 160NC. Absolutely gorgeous film. I've tried Fuji's NPS, which is also 160 speed, and it's great stuff, but Porta 160 NC beats it in the color department IMHO.

"Was this a trick question about voting for the D2X? Tell Dawn I said it's OK."

I love you man! Really, I do! I did mention that Dawn bought me a motorcycle for Fathers Day? Did I also mention that she bought us a boat on my brother's birthday? (July 2nd. My brother sold it to us for about half of what it was worth. He's getting his new boat today.) I'm not even thinking about mentioning getting a D2X unless I win the lottery. But I do appreciate the sentiment my friend! :-D

[Speed]

f/2.8!
You see the background and the groom.
Brian

Seeing the background was one of Dawn's reasons for not liking the f 2.8 version. They had put black curtains up to cover the instruments, and they showed up in the f 2.8 version. I liked the f 2.8 version because you could see the groom clearly, but he was slightly OOF. Guess women see things diferently than men.

Thanks for participating my friend! Hope you have a great weekend.

[Lara]

Hiya Bob. Here I am.

I voted before reading any posts. I chose the f2.8 stop because the groom is not lost in the darkness.

I can see your wifes point about the curtains though. Tough background.

[Speed]

Hiya Bob. Here I am.

I voted before reading any posts. I chose the f2.8 stop because the groom is not lost in the darkness.

I can see your wifes point about the curtains though. Tough background.

You are a sweetheart for doing this!

The background wasn't the greatest. Very dark, and the metal poles holding them showed through at places. But you work with what you've got.

Thank you again for your input. It is very much appreciated!

[Lara]

My pleasure.

[Liz]

Speed,

I voted 2.8 mostly because I LOVE the look on the groom's face. This is the first thing I noticed (after the bride, of course). That look of love says it all! You can't see that in the other images.

Just another thought. You could use the 2.8. Then you could crop one of the other photos where the bride is more prominent. You could crop out everything but the bride. Or you could crop out everything but the bride from the waist/flowers up. Or you could just crop for a portrait of just her face - because it is so beautiful.

You did a great job, Speed. Sorry I'm late in replying.

The f 2.8 shot was my preference as well. But the wife really liked the f 8 shot. She liked how the groom was still recognizable as such, but he was definitely in the background.

Maybe it's a woman thing? Where's Nat and Adina and Penny? How about Liz and Cowgirl and Lara? Let's get some women in here....

[adina]

Here I am!

I'd go with the first, because you can see the groom, which is how I like this type of shot. As far as the curtains go, a bit of ps and this wouldn't even be an issue. I'd lasso the bride and groom, invert and vignette.

Or, you could crop this so that it's just above the grooms head, and eliminate that stuff all together.

[Speed]

Speed,

I voted 2.8 mostly because I LOVE the look on the groom's face. This is the first thing I noticed (after the bride, of course). That look of love says it all! You can't see that in the other images.

Just another thought. You could use the 2.8. Then you could crop one of the other photos where the bride is more prominent. You could crop out everything but the bride. Or you could crop out everything but the bride from the waist/flowers up. Or you could just crop for a portrait of just her face - because it is so beautiful.

You did a great job, Speed. Sorry I'm late in replying.

I was wondering if the preference for the f 2.8 version was a man thing, or if everyone preferred that one. Aparently, most photographers do prefer that version.

Dawn preferred the f8 version, so I wanted to get some other women's perspectives. Thank you for sharing yours!

[Speed]

Here I am!

I'd go with the first, because you can see the groom, which is how I like this type of shot. As far as the curtains go, a bit of ps and this wouldn't even be an issue. I'd lasso the bride and groom, invert and vignette.

Or, you could crop this so that it's just above the grooms head, and eliminate that stuff all together.

Cropping the shot is a great idea. I should try it, and run that one by Dawn. :-)

Of course, some guassian blur on the curtains would also help, and I could clone out the stands....

Great ideas all. Thank you for your input. I do appreciate it!

[Speed]

Dear Speed:

Liz is 100% right on about the groom's look of love in that first shot and Adina is 100% right on about what to do to get the most bang for the buck out of that first shot.

Adina said: I'd lasso the bride and groom, invert and vignette. Me too!

Hope this helps.

My Best to You,
Penny

For your words of wisdom. You are such a sweetie (as are all the ladies here at PR!)

OK, I know of the lasso tool, and I'm familiar with the vignette, but what pray tell, does it mean to invert? Are you referring to reversing them - putting him on the left and her on the right? Please excuse my PS ingorance, but I don't use it much, and I definitely haven't taken the time to become anywhere as proficient as you have.

Thank you again for your comments. They are appreciated as always.

[adina]

Rather than using ps's vignette (if it has one) I lasso the area I want, go to select > inverse, and then feather it around 200-250. Then I adjust the levels, which darkens or lightens the selected area.

By inversing the selection, it switches to selecting everything else except what you've lasso'd. So if you lasso the bride and groom, it would deselect them and select everything else.

[Speed]

Rather than using ps's vignette (if it has one) I lasso the area I want, go to select > inverse, and then feather it around 200-250. Then I adjust the levels, which darkens or lightens the selected area.

By inversing the selection, it switches to selecting everything else except what you've lasso'd. So if you lasso the bride and groom, it would deselect them and select everything else.

Thanks Adina. It makes it sound so easy now!

I haven't had/made the time to really play with PS enough to get proficient with it. Little things, simple things, and I haven't tried them...yet.

Thank you for the short lesson. I'll have to play with it and see what I can come up with.

Here's my first attempt at it. This will definitely take some work to get the hang of it.