Could use some guidance...

[Colin Southern]

I do have one concern, however. The watermark is so large and high contrast that it is more than just blocking the view of critical parts of the images, it is the strongest 'attention getter' in every image. For me it totally destroys the enjoyment of the images.

+1

[Markvetnz]

+1

+2

To me it looks like the person you are trying to emulate just ends up with over exposed backgrounds. The one thing I learnt about flash photography is that a flash photo is essentially 2 photos in 1. 1 = ambient light and 2 = flash. The trick is getting the balance just right. For this reason I always try to shoot manual to get the ambient light (=background) exposure where I want it. Not necessarily exposed correctly, but how I want it to look. Then I use ettl mode and let the flash do its thing for the subject itself. Flash exposure compensation is how to get the subject exposure how you want it and finally perhaps most important of all is where you place your light sources. The best advice I can give you is to get a "VAL" and get the flash off camera. VAL = voice activated lightsource aka a willing and obedient servant.

[Colin Southern]

To me it looks like the person you are trying to emulate just ends up with over exposed backgrounds. The one thing I learnt about flash photography is that a flash photo is essentially 2 photos in 1. 1 = ambient light and 2 = flash. The trick is getting the balance just right. For this reason I always try to shoot manual to get the ambient light (=background) exposure where I want it. Not necessarily exposed correctly, but how I want it to look. Then I use ettl mode and let the flash do its thing for the subject itself. Flash exposure compensation is how to get the subject exposure how you want it and finally perhaps most important of all is where you place your light sources. The best advice I can give you is to get a "VAL" and get the flash off camera. VAL = voice activated lightsource aka a willing and obedient servant.

Can be tricky with over-exposed backgrounds Mark, unless the subject is in some kind of attenuated light zone, because the ambient light that over-exposes the background also over-exposes the subject (be nice when they invent a flash with a "suck photons" mode!)

[Markvetnz]

Yes you are right. Would be good if we could turn that pesky sun off every now and then.

1DX now July I'm told. I would have thought it would be out for Euro 2012 and for the upcoming Olympics. Hopefully the NZ$ dosen't fall through the floor before then.

Cheers
Mark

[William W]

How many images by "Elizabeth in Love" in which there are over exposed backgrounds is Elizabeth employing Flash as Fill?


WW

[SomedayMyPrintsWillCome]

I agree about the watermark - and normally would not include it but they have not yet paid the final amount on the images - and I just didn't want to run the risk of them googling my website and finding these and snagging them. I KNOW its highly unlikely but of course anyone who has been doing this awhile, knows sometimes people do the strangest things lol.
That being said, I will look at taking it down a notch with the opacity or something...

Love the point on the dodge/burn on the chin.

Also, I know a lot of people do not love elizabeth in loves images, but I again, am not trying to hit it 100 percent, even though I do like her fresh and airy feel. Its very light, and I find them very romantic / dreamy looking. Not saying its 'right' technically, but I do like the look. And from my understanding from a few friends who've worked with her - she knows her stuff and its definately an intentional 'error' if it could be considered one - And on a plus side, I cant help but admire someone who is early 20's fully booking for the year, and calling at minimum 3000 a wedding already.

That being said, I am glad for the thoughtful remarks on her work because whether one likes the work or not, I am learning from the breakdown of her work, and learning more about how to break down an image into construction...

I really love the points on flash too though... I REALLY do have quite a lot to learn on that topic.

[Colin Southern]

1DX now July I'm told. I would have thought it would be out for Euro 2012 and for the upcoming Olympics. Hopefully the NZ$ dosen't fall through the floor before then.

Would that be July 2012?

At this point I'd be happy enough just to have a working 20-200/2.8L II

[SomedayMyPrintsWillCome]

New Watermark.. Thoughts?
I provided a sample of image to give you an idea of what it will look like....

S

[krispix]

Krispix,
Yeah I find that the contrast between suit/dress presents some unique challenges for sure!
When you say you would under develop by a minute or so - how would this translate digitally in post production. I am a young'n and never can say I've used film.. Though my father in law has an old film camera i've been debating playing around with.
With fill flash, do you suggest I use the manual mode or the ettl? Im struggling to get my flash doing what I want, the way I want, consistently. I have a 580exII speedlight and use a gary fong diffuser. The more I practice the better its getting, but I think part of the problem is that I agree 100 percent in using the flash from a different angle (and I simply have not had the fortune of investing in a second flash to use as a master / slave unit or a wireless trigger.) But I've been dying to try and do that. So Thank you kindly for the advice on where to place the light source when the time comes. I love photography with off camera flash at weddings.

Hi Samantha,
Sorry about the delay getting back to you. I tripped over in the street and broke my arm, so I've had other things on my mind for the last week or so.
Perhaps it was a mistake for me to take you for a trip down Memory Lane and back to the 'Good Old Days' which, in retrospect, weren't that good.
When you develop film the chemicals turn the exposed silver metal-halides into black metallic silver. If you cut the development time short the fully exposed areas (the bright bits) don't get fully developed and the result is a slightly less contrasty image. Similarly, if you increase the development time fully exposed areas begin to 'clump' together and become darker still giving you a more contrasy image. There is a lot more to this, i.e. With film the lower speeds (ISO rating) tend to be more contrasty, while higher speeds are softer. However, the high speed films suffered from high grain ('Noise' in digi-speak), so to overcome this we used medium format cameras (60mm x 60mm) with high speed films, and so it went. The whole business was a juggling act.
Now, many of these issues are very easily overcome because you can change the ISO shot-by-shot if you wish and you can play with the contrast in post production and many of the tricks we employed in the darkroom are outdated and outmoded.
I'm not convinced that blowing the dust off your Dad's film camera will help you on your learning curve. It's a bit like practicing driving a Model T Ford to enable you to drive your Mercedes SLK better.

[drjuice]

Hi, Samantha -

I think your logo is fine for the purpose intended (to stop people snagging your pictures and editing out a discreet logo then printing them on their own (probably cheesy) $69.95 inkjet printer. A number of wedding photographers whose work I've seen (I don't do this kind of work) have their logo at an angle through the image and, often, seem to make certain that it passes through the main "people" in the photo. Two pictures I saw a couple of months ago had the logo across the pants legs of the groomsmen and its companion photo had it going across the skirts of the bridesmaids. It was gross enough to get the idea that I should give the photographer his fee rather than ripping off his work, fersure!

I'm jes' sayin'

v