Monthly Archives: July 2011

\\

The Headlock of Last Resort

0

A couple last shots from Nicole and Scott’s wedding. I love sitting on the floor, getting down at eye-level with the chronologically unadvanced members of the party. This particular little guy was really not that big of a fan of his tux (in fact, spent most of the reception in a t-shirt printed with the words “Soy el jefe” in the shape of a tie), and boy did he squirm as he was surrounded by black tuxes and intent on stuffing him into the same.

And I just like the moment of the second shot; room crowded with the party, moments before being introduced to the reception, and her face is a picture of calm. Plus, I think there’s a little optical illusion here, making the groomsman look like he is in a room with a five-foot ceiling.

 

\\

Oh, my.

0

A few more from Nicole and Scott’s wedding. That first shot? That’s catching an expression. I must confess to having staged the third one, though, but just kinda sort of.

 

\\

Congratulations, Nicole and Scott!

, , , , , , 0

I had the chance to work with Felix Chea Photography a couple weeks ago, shooting a wedding at the Curtis Center in Center City. Or maybe it’s in Olde City. One way or the other, the Curtis is a fantastic wedding venue, and the only shame to being a photographer there is the fact that you are not a guest and so don’t get to dive head-first into the cocktail hour buffet, which is really something to be seen. Or eaten.

Nicole and Scott were a lovely couple, and the guests did not waste any time in getting their party on. Especially impressive was the bridal party’s entrance, which involved choreography and streamers. Nice:

\\

Technology Affects How You Shoot.

, , , , , 0

I was tweeting today about my favorite of several new toys. Maybe I’ll get around to mentioning the others sometime soon, although I must admit that most of them only will appeal to people who like talking tech. But my favorite of the new lot is my Bronica, for which I have recently professed profound love.

I’m still learning the ropes of it, and still getting comfortable with just sort of eyeballing the light and making exposure decisions about it. Still, it is definitely a departure, and a fun one at that, from the immediacy of digital photography. Not that the immediacy of the digital formats is a bad thing…but in a time when photographers can reel off an unlimited number of shots and then pick out the several best, it is not only a change of pace, but also a change in the way of thinking, to be limited to twelve shots per roll of film. Shooting with this type of camera slows me down and makes me think about each and every exposure.

Of course, one should always slow down and think of each and every exposure. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I know that I for one certainly am guilty of the “start shooting and see what happens” approach when using digital. With the medium format, it’s more “stop and be clear about what is going to happen.”

On my July 4th trip to NC, there was one morning of dense fog. I had the chance to simply duck out into the backyard and take a few shots. The fog is like a very spongey seamless background–it doesn’t have a definite surface, but it certainly goes out to white somewhere out there over the pond. Neat little effect, especially with the mid-morning sun giving enough light for details in the trees.

85mm lens, Ilford Delta 100 film

 

\\

Sometimes I Stare At The Floor.

, , , , 0

I’m kind of on a kick of posting non-bride-and-groom shots. I’ll have to shake that trend one of these days soon, but for now, I’ll post a bit about how much I look around and how much details are important to the recording of a wedding.

After all, it’s not as if the guests spend the entire time gazing at the newlyweds; even the couple must look elsewhere from time to time. And that is how I approach shooting: take a look around, just like everyone else (actually, I’m trying to look around like a hundred people, but…), and be willing to have my attention be captured by little things.

 

 

\\

Supporting Cast

, , , , , , , 0

Much of the fun of shooting weddings (for me, at least) comes from constantly meeting a diversity of people…diverse ages, appearances, fashion sensibilities, etc. The bride and the groom are wonderful to shoot just for the emotions that are generally pouring out of them, but there are also a hundred or so other people there to be interested by. This guy was the bagpiper for a recent wedding. He was never particularly close to the “action”, but he was an accessory to it and helped to set the mood of the day. Plus, I love bagpipes, both how they look and how they sound. I think that a wedding shoot is not complete if it does not include the day’s peripheral characters. They are some of the best available details.

Speaking of details:

 

\\

Lights, Camera.

, , , , , , , , , , 0

So here’s one of those shots that looks pretty basic at first, but the more I look at it, the happier I am with it. The pose is nothing special, the setting is pretty nice (under a weeping beech tree that is maybe 150 years old), but the lighting…this is what has me excited.

If you look closely, the couple has sort of glow-y look to them; there’s some rim light, the veil is lit up, etc. There’s a speedlight on a stand directly behind the couple, at about 1/4 power, pointing back toward the camera, adding that effect. It’s subtle, but it is the reason that the image has that pop to it. The ambient light would have been too flat; an umbrella from the front would have perhaps added some shape, but not helped to separate the couple from the background. I’m happy I made the choice that I did: mostly ambient light with a bit of subtle shaping.

Post was pretty simple for this one, too. Exposure was increased a touch on the couple; curves layers accentuated the tree and the texture of the ground. That’s about it.

Also, on a note from my personal life, I am riding a hot streak of eating some pretty good cake. Ask me about the icing I made for my wife’s birthday. Boy howdy. So in that vein, here is a picture of a wedding cake:

\\

Congratulations Sarah and Bill!

, , 0

I shot Sarah and Bill’s wedding a couple weeks ago, but then I distracted myself with a few other things, including a road trip and a head cold, and I never got around to formally congratulating them here. So congratulations!

The wedding was at West Laurel Hill Cemetery. Yep. A cemetery. And it was a spectacular place for a wedding. I love the chapel…simple, classy, inviting. The ground of the cemetery are also gorgeous, with trees as old as the country, winding lanes, amazing sculpted doors, you name it. The reception room is open to natural light, so it was bright and airy. And the wedding was just a downright good time.

I’m kind of a fan of this camera position, which is set off by remote; I think it’s good to include the faces of the guests as they bear witness to the marriage.

 

 

\\

Meters. Not Yards.

, , , 0

Another frame from my first shoot with the Bronica SQ. I’m using an 85mm 2.8 lens, and Kodak T-Max 400 film (120 formate, of course). Going through my bookmarks the other day, I was reminded why I bought this thing in the first place. It might have been a bit of an impulse buy, but I must say there are no regrets. Far from it!

A subtle thing I love about the negatives is that the edge is irregular; you can see the holders that keep the negative where it should be, and I love how it gives a little bit of character to the framing of the picture. I guess this is also a way of showing off that the image isn’t cropped, if you’re into that sort of thing. I run into a little bit of trouble here, because even though I’ve never been a real big cropper of frames, I think that my right leg is actually a bit shorter than my left, because I do have a tendency to tilt my frames a bit from the horizontal, and when that happens, any straightening results in losing that border. Of course I have to blame my legs. There’s no way I could possibly be the cause of holding a camera not-level. Must be something else out of my control. For certain.

I’ve also been metering with two methods that are probable not recommended. First, I shoot a few frames with my digital camera, and then just carry those settings over to the fully-manual Bronica. Of course, one has to be careful here, when metering, to use full stops on the digital…I’ve gotten so used to 1/3 stop increments that I really have to make myself pay attention there. But it does result in decent exposures. Maybe some other time I’ll pick up the debate about reflective v. incident metering, but not now.

The other method of metering has been to use the “sunny 16” rule, and then just sort of eyeball the reduction in light caused by clouds. Here, I am relying on my judgment, and there are many many people who will come forward and tell anyone willing to listen that this, when dealing with me, is a foolhardy strategy.

Oh and by the way, Happy Birthday to my wife! She’s awesome.

 

\\

I’m Kinda In Love.

, , , , , , , , , , , 0

 
Among my new acquisitions recently is a circa-1980 Bronica SQ 6×6 medium format film camera. I am smitten.

This is my first time shooting 120 film, as well as shooting on a camera that has no light meter. I think, so far, it is going well. what I really love is the negatives. They’re big. They have lots of details. They’re beautiful. They play nicely with being scanned (even though the lab scanned them as low-res JPEGs and not hi-res TIFFs…. Grr. Argh.). And the resulting images just have a look to them. I recognize how intangible that is, but still.

Plus, the viewfinder! the viewfinder on my D300s now makes me feel a little claustrophobic. The SQ’s is huge, and makes manual focusing almost easy. Love love love.

So now I’m trying out a few different films, looking to come to a better understanding of what each offers. Tri-X 400, T-Max 400, Ilford Delta 100 and 3200, and I’m looking for their SFX 200. Looking forward to learning this thing inside and out.

 

Load More