Burning in Wedding dress

[Matt5791]

Agreed. Here are two, wait three cardinal wedding rules I have learned, which apply regardless of what you use (I use Portra 400NC 6x7cm and 6cm sq. BTW, so I am not trying to insinuate anything about digital):

1. ALWAYS use fill flash outdoors. Always have a flash on the camera and have it fire for every shot, unless you are shooting INDOORS, where you can get very nice tungsten-lit shots at 1/30 @ F/2.8 with 400 film.

2. ALWAYS take multiple coverage of important group shots: the bigger the group, the more shots you take. It is veritably impossible to open someone's eyes analog-optically; you'll have to pay a master painter a lot of money. Digitally it is still a PITA, and it's a real bummer having a laser-printed RA-4 included in amongst 39 other analog-optically printed 8x10s in an album. That print will stick out like a sore thumb.

3. Always take people's pictures in the shade, or at the very least with their backs to the sun. Direct sunlight makes for harsh shadows and "raccoon eyes", even with fill flash. Again, you can make direct-sun pictures work, but not without pain and anguish, ESPECIALLY if you don't like spending 10-hour days without anything to show for it because you can't get the damned filter pack right because it pin-balls around so much from print to print (Don't ask me where I got that last example from )

Digital lets you "get away" with that stuff much more easily, but you have to remeber that any time you don't observe these two rules, we'll call them commandments, you will have to pay money, period.

I really can't say from what I see if it is hopeless or not. I have found that it is a good idea to scan all negatives from a wedding because it will give you a good color reference without having to pound through 20 sheets of paper (unless you have a video analyser), and it allows for digital retouching (which would be impossibly/prohibitively expensive to do analog optically) as well as easier communication with the wedding when you need to show them prints (just don't send full res files :rolleyes: ).
Matt, could you please email me the scans you have? I am not a paid subscriber here, and as such can only view two very small thumbnails. . .

kab38 ATcase DOT edu

I agree with 1 in part - I don't like to use flash unless there is a fill issue - and even then I'm always terrified of over doing it. However I may be being over cautious here but I like as natual look as possible.

Totally agree with the other points and will keep these in mind.

Actually it might be worth giving a bit of background to particular wedding. Firstly it was a very hot day, and England were playing Portugal in the Soccer Wold Cup that afternoon. It was only the second wedding I had shot and there was 200 people and I had a list of formal shots to get through. Once at the reception a TV was provided and everyone started watching the match. It was a difficult day to say the least, but I did get some nice shots.

Learnt a lot too!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'd recommend for your future comfort level to practice fill-flash on some non-critical shots and get comfortable with it, because it will save your bacon on a LOT of shots, like this one, for many years to come, regardless of the medium in which you shoot. You can make fill-flash look very natural - try it with diffusion, and if you don't have one yet, get an off-camera sync cord and a bracket. All of these will help tremendously.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Matt, I'm now getting a handle on where you are in photography.

The last print scan you have shown is really quite good, in fact nothing basically wrong with it at all. There is one minor issue though, I seem to see on my (un-calibrated) monitor a very slight magenta cast. When I look at the footpath stones I see a warmth I usually don't associate with them. Perhaps the background sandstone around the door may give a clue as to whether or not there is a very slight cast. The bright dresses may be influencing the colour of the stones, but I'm not totally convinced.

1 unit of magenta can, and normally does have an influence, when a print is virtually spot on regarding colour and density.

I'm not sure about your darkroom technique, but my method is to contact print every roll or sheet of film. With a colour contact sheet, you will see pretty much the same as a B&W contact sheet, except you don't really have the possibility of lowering the contrast for the contact to see shadow detail.

Once armed with a set of contact sheets, and you have correct colour, you will be amazed at how quickly you are able to print.

You will not need a colour analyser, although they can be quite handy for spot readings of the bride's forehead for when you switch from external pictures to internal with either mixed lighting or total flash pictures.

About the best and cheapest accessory in the colour darkroom is the Ilford enlarging meter, you can of course have quite expensive ones but it will do the job perfectly for change of enlargement factors.

With a change of enlargement the technique I use is simple. First I assume I have a correctly exposed print, but wish to enlarge and crop, either a smidgin, or enormously. I turn all lights off, pull the neg carrier half out, switch the enlarger on, then null the meter under the white light, except it isn't white as you leave the filtration in place. Replace the neg carrier, move the head and neg up for the new enlargement (or reduction) do a rough focus by eye. Then pull the neg carrier half out, place the Ilford meter underneath and switch the enlarger on again. One simply turns the aperture ring until the meter is nulled, bingo, the paper is once again getting exactly the same amount of light. Put the carrier back in, fine focus, then print away.

I used to rotary process all of my colour paper, but I purchased a Durst Printo when RA4 appeared, this unit or ones like it, are quite brilliant. Combined with a B&W RC Rowi paper dryer, I can have a dry to dry RA4 test print in my hot little hand in about 3 1/2 minutes, (the wash is brief and that is being polite).

Providing you are not going to do a zillion weddings, or like shoots, doing the whole lot yourself is quite doable, quite easy, and, most of all, quite satisfying.

If you are looking for a colour analyser, think about the Jobo Colorstar units, they are the only ones I know of that measure all three colour channels at once.

I have the original Colorstar 1000 it will do virtually anything you require, once you have shown it correct colour

Mick.

 

[Heinz_Anderle]

I forgot to add - something very iomportant with Weddings - you cant justify taking too long over each shot after the day - infact a lot of the digital advantage is completely academic because you can not justify the time - otherwise you quickly discover you are infact working for less than the national minimum wage!

As I am not a professional photographer, I shot my two weddings - my brother's and my cousin's - as a gift. I consider wedding photography as a "battle of material" and recommend to stay with film (print film especially to master higher contrast). For two tasks sufficient film and time has to be reserved: the newlywed couple (with parents and the witnesses) and the group photos.

Wedding photography is great fun - you don't need to wear a tie and you have a dancing exemption...

 

[Matt5791]

Matt, I'm now getting a handle on where you are in photography.

The last print scan you have shown is really quite good, in fact nothing basically wrong with it at all. There is one minor issue though, I seem to see on my (un-calibrated) monitor a very slight magenta cast. When I look at the footpath stones I see a warmth I usually don't associate with them. Perhaps the background sandstone around the door may give a clue as to whether or not there is a very slight cast. The bright dresses may be influencing the colour of the stones, but I'm not totally convinced.

1 unit of magenta can, and normally does have an influence, when a print is virtually spot on regarding colour and density.

I'm not sure about your darkroom technique, but my method is to contact print every roll or sheet of film. With a colour contact sheet, you will see pretty much the same as a B&W contact sheet, except you don't really have the possibility of lowering the contrast for the contact to see shadow detail.

Once armed with a set of contact sheets, and you have correct colour, you will be amazed at how quickly you are able to print.

You will not need a colour analyser, although they can be quite handy for spot readings of the bride's forehead for when you switch from external pictures to internal with either mixed lighting or total flash pictures.

About the best and cheapest accessory in the colour darkroom is the Ilford enlarging meter, you can of course have quite expensive ones but it will do the job perfectly for change of enlargement factors.

With a change of enlargement the technique I use is simple. First I assume I have a correctly exposed print, but wish to enlarge and crop, either a smidgin, or enormously. I turn all lights off, pull the neg carrier half out, switch the enlarger on, then null the meter under the white light, except it isn't white as you leave the filtration in place. Replace the neg carrier, move the head and neg up for the new enlargement (or reduction) do a rough focus by eye. Then pull the neg carrier half out, place the Ilford meter underneath and switch the enlarger on again. One simply turns the aperture ring until the meter is nulled, bingo, the paper is once again getting exactly the same amount of light. Put the carrier back in, fine focus, then print away.

I used to rotary process all of my colour paper, but I purchased a Durst Printo when RA4 appeared, this unit or ones like it, are quite brilliant. Combined with a B&W RC Rowi paper dryer, I can have a dry to dry RA4 test print in my hot little hand in about 3 1/2 minutes, (the wash is brief and that is being polite).

Providing you are not going to do a zillion weddings, or like shoots, doing the whole lot yourself is quite doable, quite easy, and, most of all, quite satisfying.

If you are looking for a colour analyser, think about the Jobo Colorstar units, they are the only ones I know of that measure all three colour channels at once.

I have the original Colorstar 1000 it will do virtually anything you require, once you have shown it correct colour

Mick.

Thanks for that Mick.

Firstly, now I look at the print, I agree (and I don't think it's your monitor) maybe there is a tiny magenta cast - I see what you mean about spotting it in the gravel path.

Secondly, yes I do make a contact sheet. - I take it you always use the same filtration for your contact's?

I use a Durst printo - one of the best investments I have ever made!

Maybe I will look out for a colourstar.

In terms of volume I have to contend with, I have only recently started printing the colour wedding material - most weddings involve 40 - 60 prints. If I'm too busy I get the lab to do it, but I prefer to hand print because it is incredible how many wedding photographers, certainly in the UK, pay very little attention to print quality.

A friend of mine paid £1700 for wedding photography and received a lovely Queensbury album with the most dredful inkjets, all with varying colour balance and some with lines down them like the ink was running out! It really was shocking (and the actual photographs we crap too)

Anyway I focus on quality and longevity and hope to differentiate myself from the crowd - I do feel that the obsession with quantity that swept in with digital is now starting to subside and people really want quality. Saying that I still shoot 500 - 600 shots at the average wedding for the client too choose from.

 

[Richard Harris]

Matt, your second print confirms my thoughts. Your filtration is wrong. Are you trying to get good prints without changing filtration between negatives? this will not work in my experience. You only have to look at machine prints of snow scenes to know that colour temperature of sunlight changes everyday and throughout the day. One's eyes compensate for this in life but film and photo's do not. I use an analyser to make my first print and generally find it close enough - don't forget that this is a subjective judgement in many cases. I use a Jobo colorline 5000 I find it's Log D representation of Cyan Yellow Magenta levels as well as total light level much easier, more accurate and much more educational than the balanced star of the colorstar analysers. I had a colorstar 1000 and it's a greta tool, I have kept it as a backup. The 5000 has 100 different channels which you can use to set reference exposures for pink skin, olive skin, mid grey, green grass etc, etc. It is also a fantastic black and white tool giving you contrast ratios, paper grades and filtration for multigrade paper. In fact it transformed my B & W.
If you don't have an analyser make a small test print by laying a piece of paper 2" x 4" minimum (it will get stuck in the printo if it's to small) across the image at a point with a neutral gray, white or some part of the scene where you can make an accurate assessment of the filtration. Process and make your adjustments to filtration.
Finally. I can make two images, one after the other and still see a colour shift. I think optical enlargers are very sensitive to voltage movement and lamp warm up colour changes. Even with a stabilized supply you will have an appreciable shift in bulb temperature. Older optical professional minilabs measured the light temperature during the exposure and compensated accordingly. This luxury isn't available to me and most of us I guess. Still even a little colour movement is better than a sticky old inkjet, who would worry about skin tones when you have inkjet blotch and metermerism all over the brides face?

 

[dslater]

A friend of mine paid £1700 for wedding photography and received a lovely Queensbury album with the most dredful inkjets, all with varying colour balance and some with lines down them like the ink was running out! It really was shocking (and the actual photographs we crap too)

Outrageous - even if the photographer is a digital photographer, there is no excuse for inkjet prints when it is so easy to upload your digital files somewhere and have them printed on real photo paper - I feel really sorry for your friend In my opinion, he/she paid a premium price and was totally ripped off. Such a shame as these photos will probably be some of the most personally important photos he/she has. You friend should seriously consider some kind of lawsuit.

 

[Matt5791]

Outrageous - even if the photographer is a digital photographer, there is no excuse for inkjet prints when it is so easy to upload your digital files somewhere and have them printed on real photo paper - I feel really sorry for your friend In my opinion, he/she paid a premium price and was totally ripped off. Such a shame as these photos will probably be some of the most personally important photos he/she has. You friend should seriously consider some kind of lawsuit.

I did advise them to go back and demand proper colour corrected prints - infact the couple had noticed themselves and showed me for a second opinion. I really was shocking.

I filmed the wedding on Super8.

 

[MattKing]

Matt:

Pardon me while I try to revive some experience that may be a little stale, from lack of use....

When I was doing a lot of colour printing, one of the techniques I learned to rely upon was to pay lots of attention to the shadows.

If you look closely at parts of the scene that are on the border between full illumination and shadow, you are most likely to be able to detect a need to change your colour filtration.

As the scene transitions between light and dark, the colour casts reveal themselves.

You have to be careful to not be fooled by reflections (green light reflected from grassy areas is an example) but generally, this technique really helps.

You have uploaded three scans. Of the first two (the two versions of the same scene), I am cognizant of the fact that there are too many variables involved (e.g. monitor calibration) but I really don't see cyan issues. The first image (which I take to be a scan from a print), seems too blue to me. The second image (which I take to be the negative scan) seems mainly too green to me.

As an experiment, I copied both images into my digital image processing software, and experimented with adjusting the colour balances.

The green image I could adjust to something close to neutral, but the blue image suffered too much from the adjustment tools.

The third image is close, but a blue/magenta cast appears in the shadows.

Here is a question - what light source are you using to examine your test prints? Is it tungsten?

Matt

 

[Matt5791]

Matt:

Pardon me while I try to revive some experience that may be a little stale, from lack of use....

When I was doing a lot of colour printing, one of the techniques I learned to rely upon was to pay lots of attention to the shadows.

If you look closely at parts of the scene that are on the border between full illumination and shadow, you are most likely to be able to detect a need to change your colour filtration.

As the scene transitions between light and dark, the colour casts reveal themselves.

You have to be careful to not be fooled by reflections (green light reflected from grassy areas is an example) but generally, this technique really helps.

You have uploaded three scans. Of the first two (the two versions of the same scene), I am cognizant of the fact that there are too many variables involved (e.g. monitor calibration) but I really don't see cyan issues. The first image (which I take to be a scan from a print), seems too blue to me. The second image (which I take to be the negative scan) seems mainly too green to me.

As an experiment, I copied both images into my digital image processing software, and experimented with adjusting the colour balances.

The green image I could adjust to something close to neutral, but the blue image suffered too much from the adjustment tools.

The third image is close, but a blue/magenta cast appears in the shadows.

Here is a question - what light source are you using to examine your test prints? Is it tungsten?

Matt

That's a good question - but I recently bought some daylight balanced tungsten bulbs (basically painted light blue) so I hop I have eliminated this possible source of problems.

Interesting about checking the transition into the shadows to look for casts.

Im going to have another session on this print in a couple of days as I have some others to do too - I'll post how I get on. Interesting about the possibility of there being blue no cyan cast.

Thanks for the input.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

When I was learning to print color, we had a viewing box set up in the color printing area, illuminated with a combination of daylight (aquarium) fluorescent bulbs and regular 3200K tungsten bulbs. This gave the closest approximation to natural daylight possible - the 3200k tungsten bulbs filled in the gaps in the fluorescent spectrum, and the fluorescent bulbs gave coverage to the blue/green portions of the spectrum.