taking wedding pic, help

[Marisa]

Hello,

I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done
two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how
to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any
techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor
and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon
lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a
promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any
suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated...
Thanks,

Marisa

[PLB49]

A quick search on Amazon books section turned up several books with a 5-star
customer rating, such as

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817433252/qid=1092854930/sr
=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0304017-1177759?v=glance&s=books

On the other hand, I decline to shoot weddings!

Best wishes
Paul B.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Marisa
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done
two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how
to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any
techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor
and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon
lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a
promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any
suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated...

You're asking questions that you shouldn't be asking for this type of
job.

[Marisa]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Marisa
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done
two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how
to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any
techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor
and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon
lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a
promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any
suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated...

You're asking questions that you shouldn't be asking for this type of
job.

It's not my day job or anything , just something i'm going to do as a favor.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Marisa
It's not my day job or anything , just something i'm going to do as a favor.

A sure way to turn a friend into an enemy.

[Gregory Blank]

Bad answer, especially if your going to be their only photographer.
Favor or not people are going to expect an incredible amount of skill
on your part, if your the only photographer.

Aside from all the responses concerning lights, appropriate cameras....
whether you are able,... etc consider how your going to evenly light the
whole bridal parties faces without shadows.

Consider what you would do as the bride comes down the
aisle and your flash does not fire. Consider what you will
do when none of the people are ready or are milling around
waiting for you to set up to do what seems like endless
amounts of group pictures. (Are you good at getting people to cooperate)?
Read your reply below again. Think about how you will deal with
those people if you have problems and your gear doesn't cooperate.

Consider what you will do when you run out of film or are close to
the film roll end and realize you have too few frames left for the
next sequential series of pictures that surpasses the frames you have...
at the very least you need two cameras and two flashes,...if you are the
primary photographer.

Post by Marisa
It's not my day job or anything , just something i'm going to do as a favor.

[Marisa]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Marisa
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done
two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how
to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any
techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor
and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon
lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a
promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any
suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated...

You're asking questions that you shouldn't be asking for this type of
job.

So anyone else have any suggestions that are helpful?

[Whatevah]

Post by Marisa

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Marisa
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done
two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how
to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any
techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor
and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon
lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a
promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any
suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated...

You're asking questions that you shouldn't be asking for this type of
job.

So anyone else have any suggestions that are helpful?

Are you the primary photographer? If you are, make up a list of
specific shots you want to get. There is a sample list at
http://www.weddingtips.com/the-list-photo.html which may help you. Be
sure to talk to the Bride and Groom to see what photos they would like.

The shots you need will determine which lens you use. Although, I'd use
a 28-105mm as the primary, with your 100-300mm for a few specialty focus
shots. For most shots, I'd suggest using Aperture Priority to keep the
DOF small to reduce annoying background elements.

The lighting will determine what film and filters you use, and if you
use the flash. I'd prefer not using the flash, as is can be a little
distracting. You won't see the flash because of the mirror blackout,
but everybody else does. If you do elect to use the flash, a diffuser
is highly recommended.

Time will be your enemy during the wedding, especially when you need to
reload the film or change lenses. Keep a few rolls with you, and the
rest easily accessible in your bag (wherever you put it). If you have
another camera body, that will be a big help.

Study up on group poses, and scout out locations around the wedding or
reception sites when you arrive for a good location for the posed
portraits. Talk to the B&G before the wedding to see when they want to
do the group portraits, most prefer right after the ceremony before the
reception.

For indoor weddings, work with the B&G and the staff of the
building/church to see what lights will be used. Some locations may
have stage lighting or spotlights. Used carefully, these can be
helpful. If you use your flash, is it powerful enough to bounce off the
ceiling or walls? If so, what color paint is used, as it will affect
the color of the bounced light.

For outdoor weddings, will the wedding be under any shade? Direct
sunlight will produce hard, un-appealing shadows. Fill-flash would be
the easiest way to solve this, although shade would be preferable. A
gazebo usually makes the nicest location for outdoor shade. If you're
lucky, the outdoor weddings will be partly cloudy, giving plenty of soft
light, without hard shadows. For the posed shots, you can use a
reflector, but you won't be able to use a reflector for the majority of
the shots.

There are a lot of tips on the internet for wedding photography, just
search on your favorite search engine.

Finally, a word of warning: Wedding photography is tricky and emotional.
If you mess it up, that's what will be remembered: that you messed up
their wedding memories. However, if you can do a good job, they will be
forever grateful. That's what Randall was trying to tell you.

[Francis A. Miniter]

Post by Marisa

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Marisa
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done
two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how
to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any
techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor
and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon
lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a
promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any
suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated...

You're asking questions that you shouldn't be asking for this type of
job.

So anyone else have any suggestions that are helpful?

Hi Marisa,

The two previous responses a gently saying that weddings are so
important to the participants that botched pictures are not an
acceptable risk. Weddings really need someone who does not have to ask
these questions, someone who has worked previously as an assistant to a
professional wedding photographer.

If you are not familiar with lighting, then you probably should not be
shooting the wedding. Lighting is one of the most important issues. A
wedding deserves off-camera lighting attended by an assistant. Given
the need to move around, wireless communication between the camera and
lights would be preferable. Go to a photo supply store, rent some
lighting, and go to the church a couple weeks in advance and take some
pictures to learn what you need to do at the wedding.

Really good lighting allows you to use slower film, get greater depth of
field (as you can stop down the aperture) and higher quality images.
Never underestimate the importance of the lighting. Example:
Photographer A shoots a scene with powerful off the camera lights. The
background is lit, there is no red eye and the subjects are not
overly-contrasty. Photographer B shoots the same scene with an
on-camera light only. The background is black or just a grissly brown,
there is red eye everywhere, and the faces of the subjects are glaringly
lacking in color. Your Proflash will not do the job.

I have repeatedly declared in this newsgroup that I do not consider 35
mm the format of choice for weddings. Weddings photographers I know all
prefer 6x6 medium format - and the Mamiya C30 in particular. You get 3x
the surface area on the film, and that can make up for a lot of errors
itself.

Whatever the format, you need at least two camera bodies, so that your
assistant can be taking out exposed film and loading fresh film while
you continue to shoot. All this while the assistant is adjusting the
lighting., Note, your assistant should expect to work hard that day.

Whatever the camera, don't use a program to determine the aperture and
shutter speed. Your brain has to decide if the depth of field is going
to be narrow or wide, whether elimination of movement is more important
than depth of field. If you leave it to the computer you will probably
have fast shutter speeds and narrow depths of field.

Optics are critical. I doubt either of your lenses open up wide enough
to accommodate a dark church. What do they open up to? f/3.5? Prime
lenses are better than zoom lenses at accommodating weak lighting
conditions. For instance, f/2.0 or f/1.4. The Nikon will have good
optics, but the Quantaray? The Japanese were the first to use the term
"bokeh" - it means the quality of the out of focus image. This
determines the acceptability of an image. If the out of focus part goes
into a doubte or blurred image, that is bad. If it gently softens that
is good. You need to study the images you have made with the Quantaray
to see if it is useable for this critical situation.

Then there is the choice of film. .......

Read a book of wedding photography.


Francis A. Miniter

[Sympatico]

I do not agree that weddings are mainly done 6X6 today. 35mm and 6 megapx
cameras are the norm. What is given up in "quality" is gained in candidness
and variety.

Most clients could not tell a 6X6 from a 35mm. A good photographer can make
35 mm look very good.

Errol

Post by Francis A. Miniter

Post by Marisa

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Marisa
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done
two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how
to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any
techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor
and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon
lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a
promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any
suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated...

You're asking questions that you shouldn't be asking for this type of
job.

So anyone else have any suggestions that are helpful?

Hi Marisa,
The two previous responses a gently saying that weddings are so
important to the participants that botched pictures are not an
acceptable risk. Weddings really need someone who does not have to ask
these questions, someone who has worked previously as an assistant to a
professional wedding photographer.
If you are not familiar with lighting, then you probably should not be
shooting the wedding. Lighting is one of the most important issues. A
wedding deserves off-camera lighting attended by an assistant. Given
the need to move around, wireless communication between the camera and
lights would be preferable. Go to a photo supply store, rent some
lighting, and go to the church a couple weeks in advance and take some
pictures to learn what you need to do at the wedding.
Really good lighting allows you to use slower film, get greater depth of
field (as you can stop down the aperture) and higher quality images.
Photographer A shoots a scene with powerful off the camera lights. The
background is lit, there is no red eye and the subjects are not
overly-contrasty. Photographer B shoots the same scene with an
on-camera light only. The background is black or just a grissly brown,
there is red eye everywhere, and the faces of the subjects are glaringly
lacking in color. Your Proflash will not do the job.
I have repeatedly declared in this newsgroup that I do not consider 35
mm the format of choice for weddings. Weddings photographers I know all
prefer 6x6 medium format - and the Mamiya C30 in particular. You get 3x
the surface area on the film, and that can make up for a lot of errors
itself.
Whatever the format, you need at least two camera bodies, so that your
assistant can be taking out exposed film and loading fresh film while
you continue to shoot. All this while the assistant is adjusting the
lighting., Note, your assistant should expect to work hard that day.
Whatever the camera, don't use a program to determine the aperture and
shutter speed. Your brain has to decide if the depth of field is going
to be narrow or wide, whether elimination of movement is more important
than depth of field. If you leave it to the computer you will probably
have fast shutter speeds and narrow depths of field.
Optics are critical. I doubt either of your lenses open up wide enough
to accommodate a dark church. What do they open up to? f/3.5? Prime
lenses are better than zoom lenses at accommodating weak lighting
conditions. For instance, f/2.0 or f/1.4. The Nikon will have good
optics, but the Quantaray? The Japanese were the first to use the term
"bokeh" - it means the quality of the out of focus image. This
determines the acceptability of an image. If the out of focus part goes
into a doubte or blurred image, that is bad. If it gently softens that
is good. You need to study the images you have made with the Quantaray
to see if it is useable for this critical situation.
Then there is the choice of film. .......
Read a book of wedding photography.
Francis A. Miniter

[zeitgeist]

Post by Sympatico
Most clients could not tell a 6X6 from a 35mm. A good photographer can make
35 mm look very good.

I'd say the average consumer don't care that much, but they can tell the
difference. Even when not aware there is a difference, many folks would
look at my prints and remark at how "clear" they were. Just like many
folks can tell the difference between a chevy and a mercedes, they still
sell more chevys.

[Gregory Blank]

Post by zeitgeist
I'd say the average consumer don't care that much, but they can tell the
difference. Even when not aware there is a difference, many folks would
look at my prints and remark at how "clear" they were. Just like many
folks can tell the difference between a chevy and a mercedes, they still
sell more chevys.

Depends on how low your willing to sell the Mercedes and the type
of clients you want to attract.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Sympatico
I do not agree that weddings are mainly done 6X6 today. 35mm and 6 megapx
cameras are the norm. What is given up in "quality" is gained in candidness
and variety.
Most clients could not tell a 6X6 from a 35mm. A good photographer can make
35 mm look very good.

But I can tell the difference...and if I can tell, then 35mm ain't good
enough.

[zeitgeist]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Sympatico
I do not agree that weddings are mainly done 6X6 today. 35mm and 6 megapx
cameras are the norm. What is given up in "quality" is gained in candidness
and variety.
Most clients could not tell a 6X6 from a 35mm. A good photographer can make
35 mm look very good.

But I can tell the difference...and if I can tell, then 35mm ain't good
enough.

so how many 8x10 plate holders do you carry to a wedding?

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by zeitgeist
so how many 8x10 plate holders do you carry to a wedding?

And another clueless amateur speaks out.

I can usually tell the difference between 35mm and MF in a 3x5 print.

[No One]

12

Post by zeitgeist
so how many 8x10 plate holders do you carry to a wedding?

[b***@gmail.com]

hi, In BigIndianWedding website have more wedding photographers listed so if you want to add your own profile in website so send you detail on ***@bigindianwedding.com. i think it will be help you and you have also apply in facebook bigindianwedding page. if are you interested.

[Gregory Blank]

Post by Sympatico
I do not agree that weddings are mainly done 6X6 today. 35mm and 6 megapx
cameras are the norm. What is given up in "quality" is gained in candidness
and variety.
Most clients could not tell a 6X6 from a 35mm. A good photographer can make
35 mm look very good.
Errol

True but an equally good photographer can make 6x6 look fabulous
compared to either of those.

[Al Denelsbeck]

Post by Marisa

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Marisa
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only
done two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as
to how to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters,
etc..and any techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding
pictures- indoor and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR
camera and have a Nikon lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens
100-300mm. I also have a promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not
too familiar with. Any suggestions for the best results would be
greatly appreciated...

You're asking questions that you shouldn't be asking for this type of
job.

So anyone else have any suggestions that are helpful?

Well, there's a couple of issues that come up with a post like yours.
The primary one is, you haven't asked any specific questions, but in
essence an essay question about wedding photography in general. This is a
bit like saying "How do I raise kids?" Better off if you pick a specific
topic and deal with that.

If you can't narrow it down to a specific topic, there's no really
good place to start, and it leads one to assume that you'll need to be told
*everything*. In such a case, you're not likely to learn enough from a
newsgroup post to make you an effective wedding photographer for a shoot
you've already booked. Wedding photography is a field teeming with
pitfalls, so the chances become very high indeed that you'll get caught by
at least one, if not quite a few. And when it comes to the emotional value
that is typically placed on wedding photos, the blowback you're likely to
receive could be significant - lawsuits happen more often than people like
to believe.

And a second issue is, there's no "right" way to go about it.
Different photographers have different approaches, many tailored to the
individual locales that they work and the clientele they're likely to
encounter. For instance, having shot numerous weddings on strictly 35mm
film, I disagree entirely with Fracis Miniter - if the client buys it, 35mm
works fine. And for approaches like photojournalism and candids it can't be
beat.

Style is all your own, and that's part of the package you sell. This
includes what you use for lighting and the films you prefer. So without
even an indication of that, again, it's hard to point you in a good
direction. A large family formal in a big church takes a whole different
approach from a B&W bridal shot by a window on the stairs.

So narrow it down a bit more, and in the meantime, hit
http://www.aljacobs.com/welcome.htm and scroll down to weddings. He doesn't
cover everything, and neither will anybody else, but it's a good start.

Good luck!


- Al.

[zeitgeist]

Post by Marisa
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done
two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how
to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any
techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor
and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon
lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a
promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any
suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated...
Thanks,

wedding photography isn't brain surgery.

there has been plenty posted on the what and how of wedding photography,
read back on google.groups

one thing I recommend is that you shoot a engagement portrait. This is like
a dress rehearsal. They get a preview of what they could expect from you,
and more importantly, they get a clue about what they need to do on their
part of the image making. This really gives you a lot of help on the
wedding day.

I recommend a tripod for the formal shots, you can use a slow shutter speed
and pick up detail in the background, this makes the images look so much
better and the added exposure to the background makes it much easier for the
lab to print. Bright white dresses against a really black background is
very hard to for both the camera's and the lab's auto exposure routines.

film is film, what kind of paper does it get printed on, what paper does
your lab run?

filters? are you shooting color neg? then forget filters

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by zeitgeist
wedding photography isn't brain surgery.

No, but it needs to be done by a competant individual.

[Gregory Blank]

I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa
can't be or become that person.

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by zeitgeist
wedding photography isn't brain surgery.

No, but it needs to be done by a competant individual.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Gregory Blank
I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa
can't be or become that person.

True, but that's not the way to start in the business.

[Marc 182]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Gregory Blank
I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa
can't be or become that person.

True, but that's not the way to start in the business.

True, but she's not starting in the business.

Marc

[Gregory Blank]

Not to bust your chops;

In a way she is, maybe not in her viewpoint
but professional could be the viewpoint held
by her "friend" and therefore "professional"
one needs to at the very least "act".

Her friend could have very high expectations
and Marissa needs to be at the very least a professional
in dealing with people.

Especially if she is taking business away from someone that
could do the job better and faster. Whats to say what
her friend expects,...suddenly Marrisa ain't talking.

Post by Marc 182

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Gregory Blank
I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa
can't be or become that person.

True, but that's not the way to start in the business.

True, but she's not starting in the business.
Marc

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Marc 182

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Gregory Blank
I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa
can't be or become that person.

True, but that's not the way to start in the business.

True, but she's not starting in the business.

Photographing a wedding and not knowing what you're doing is a sure
recipe for disaster.

[PLB49]

Post by Randall Ainsworth
Photographing a wedding and not knowing what you're doing is a sure
recipe for disaster.

Amen! I think I was the first to respond to the OP--I started "serious"
photography more than 40 years ago; was asked to do a wedding last summer, and
declined.

There is no more emotionally charged day than a wedding day; no time for
someone with less than professional credentials to be behind the shutter!

Case in point: a friend from HS, who I started in photography, a year behind
me in school, bought the prestige studio in our home town. At my ex's (same
age as him) 20th HS reunion, we went to see him at his studio. He dashed out,
said hello, apologized that he had a mother of the bride who was totally out of
control to deal with, and left us, to deal with her.

This was someone whom both of us had been close to in HS, who had bought his
first SLR from me, who had dated in the same circle of friends, and who would
not have offended either of us for anything under his control!

Point: he had been a pro for 15 or so years, and the mother of the bride
dictated his actions and time on that day. Not a time & place for those
unprepared!


Paul B.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by PLB49
Amen! I think I was the first to respond to the OP--I started "serious"
photography more than 40 years ago; was asked to do a wedding last summer, and
declined.

I've photographed somewhere in the area of 700 weddings and I could
tell countless stories of amateurs photographing weddings where the
photographs ended up being a disaster.

[Tom (2)]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:51:16 -0700, Randall Ainsworth

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Marc 182

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Gregory Blank
I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa
can't be or become that person.

True, but that's not the way to start in the business.

True, but she's not starting in the business.

Photographing a wedding and not knowing what you're doing is a sure
recipe for disaster.

I agree with most of the cautionary comments. However, there are some
who simply can't afford a professional photographer. We don't know
what the situation here is but let's assume a young couple has to
choose between no pictures or pictures from the OP. In this case,
with reasonable expectations all out on the table, this may be the
best option.

Tom

[Mark]

A couple in this situation would be better off getting everyone a single use
camera. They are free or very low cost if you get the ones that advertise a
product. This way several people are shooting and someone is bound to get a
few good shots. This has got to be better than an amateur that doesn't even
know what film to take. Remember, this is a WEDDING. There are no do-overs
if a shot is blown it is gone forever. Marisa just needs to learn a lot more
before responsibly taking on a project like this. One way to get practice is
to take the camera to the wedding as a guest. Get some friends to play
wedding so she can learn in a controlled setting, read books and participate
in forums like this one. And, of course taking a formal course from NYIP or
other recognized, experienced institution. Of course if she could work as an
assistant that would be great. I'll get off my soap box now.

Post by Tom (2)
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:51:16 -0700, Randall Ainsworth

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Marc 182

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Gregory Blank
I second that thought. However nothing says that Marissa
can't be or become that person.

True, but that's not the way to start in the business.

True, but she's not starting in the business.

Photographing a wedding and not knowing what you're doing is a sure
recipe for disaster.

I agree with most of the cautionary comments. However, there are some
who simply can't afford a professional photographer. We don't know
what the situation here is but let's assume a young couple has to
choose between no pictures or pictures from the OP. In this case,
with reasonable expectations all out on the table, this may be the
best option.
Tom

[Gregory Blank]

All the other suggests are Ok Mark, except I have numerous
customers tell me those wedding disposable cameras
are very poor and sometimes unreliable. Several have told me they got
one or two blurred images from 10-15 tables of friends,...Thank
god I didn't supply the cameras.


The film choice is not a real issue, if 35mm 100/200 asa is a
good choice,....even Kodacolor Gold "Right Randall" ? ;-)
Knowing how to expose it/light the subject and how to pose people
are the biggies,...and not something I would hurry to learn again.

Post by Mark
A couple in this situation would be better off getting everyone a single use
camera. They are free or very low cost if you get the ones that advertise a
product. This way several people are shooting and someone is bound to get a
few good shots. This has got to be better than an amateur that doesn't even
know what film to take. Remember, this is a WEDDING. There are no do-overs
if a shot is blown it is gone forever. Marisa just needs to learn a lot more
before responsibly taking on a project like this. One way to get practice is
to take the camera to the wedding as a guest. Get some friends to play
wedding so she can learn in a controlled setting, read books and participate
in forums like this one. And, of course taking a formal course from NYIP or
other recognized, experienced institution. Of course if she could work as an
assistant that would be great. I'll get off my soap box now.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Gregory Blank
The film choice is not a real issue, if 35mm 100/200 asa is a
good choice,....even Kodacolor Gold "Right Randall" ? ;-)
Knowing how to expose it/light the subject and how to pose people
are the biggies,...and not something I would hurry to learn again.

I've never been a fan of 35mm (he says with 10D in hand) and always
used Kodak professional films. Used 2 lights for the formals...did all
the formals before the ceremony.

[dadiOH]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Gregory Blank
The film choice is not a real issue, if 35mm 100/200 asa is a
good choice,....even Kodacolor Gold "Right Randall" ? ;-)
Knowing how to expose it/light the subject and how to pose people
are the biggies,...and not something I would hurry to learn again.

I've never been a fan of 35mm (he says with 10D in hand) and always
used Kodak professional films. Used 2 lights for the formals...did
all the formals before the ceremony.

Bought into Monty Zucker's thesis, eh? :)

Know why he started doing that? Because he did a lot of Jewish weddings and
the ceremony and reception were often in the same hall. Right after the
ceremony the wedding setup would be broken down and replaced with the
reception setup. Poor Monty...what to do, what to do? Do the formals first
was all he could do.

Personally, I never liked doing formals before the ceremony. Oh, I would if
the people really wanted them done then but I always gave them my reasons
for preferring post-ceremony and let them decide. My reasons...

1. Someone/something always seems to be late. Could be the flowers,
could be Uncle Bill, could be whatever. If something *is* late it *will*
eat into the time allocated for photography.

2. Before the ceremony, everybody is rushed and worried...all
uptight...their minds are on the upcoming ceremony. After the ceremony
everyone sort of takes a collective sigh of relief and relaxes. It shows in
the photos.

Main reason that people wanted the photography before the ceremony is that
they didn't want their guests to have to hang around at the reception
waiting for the wedding party. Didn't work that way where I was
(Honolulu)...the guests had to drive to the reception room (generally large
beach hotel), find parking, walk from parking to reception room.

I only needed 45 minutes (often used less) and did the large groups first.
Those people (other than B&G) could then go hop in the limo, be dropped off
in front of the hotel and would almost always beat the arrival of any guest.
B&G arrived maybe 20 minutes max later and they too beat the majority of the
guests. Even if nobody beat the guests it is no big deal...guests mill and
chat, don't even know that B&G aren't there. Reception starts when it
starts, nobody really cares.

--
dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by dadiOH
Bought into Monty Zucker's thesis, eh? :)

Pretty tough to beat the old coot.

Post by dadiOH
Know why he started doing that? Because he did a lot of Jewish weddings and
the ceremony and reception were often in the same hall. Right after the
ceremony the wedding setup would be broken down and replaced with the
reception setup. Poor Monty...what to do, what to do? Do the formals first
was all he could do.

I did it because people look tired and haggard if you do them
afterwards. People are in a big hurry to get drunk and don't want to
waste time taking pictures. By doing them ahead of time they could
spend all the time they wanted with friends and relatives at the
reception (except for a few minutes doing the cake pictures).

Post by dadiOH
Personally, I never liked doing formals before the ceremony. Oh, I would if
the people really wanted them done then but I always gave them my reasons
for preferring post-ceremony and let them decide. My reasons...

Well, you're an idiot.

Post by dadiOH
1. Someone/something always seems to be late. Could be the flowers,
could be Uncle Bill, could be whatever. If something *is* late it *will*
eat into the time allocated for photography.

I told 'em to *BE READY* two hours ahead of time. Guests start showing
up a half hour before the ceremony and I don't want that audience.

Post by dadiOH
2. Before the ceremony, everybody is rushed and worried...all
uptight...their minds are on the upcoming ceremony. After the ceremony
everyone sort of takes a collective sigh of relief and relaxes. It shows in
the photos.

No way. They look tired and haggard after the ceremony. Flowers get
messed up, dresses get wrinkled, etc..

Post by dadiOH
Main reason that people wanted the photography before the ceremony is that
they didn't want their guests to have to hang around at the reception
waiting for the wedding party. Didn't work that way where I was
(Honolulu)...the guests had to drive to the reception room (generally large
beach hotel), find parking, walk from parking to reception room.

It's a day the bride & groom should spend with friends and relatives,
not a professional photographer.

Post by dadiOH
I only needed 45 minutes (often used less) and did the large groups first.
Those people (other than B&G) could then go hop in the limo, be dropped off
in front of the hotel and would almost always beat the arrival of any guest.
B&G arrived maybe 20 minutes max later and they too beat the majority of the
guests. Even if nobody beat the guests it is no big deal...guests mill and
chat, don't even know that B&G aren't there. Reception starts when it
starts, nobody really cares.

Takes longer than 45 minutes to do it right.

[dadiOH]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH
Bought into Monty Zucker's thesis, eh? :)

Pretty tough to beat the old coot.

Rather easy to ignore though.
_______________________

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH
Know why he started doing that? Because he did a lot of Jewish
weddings and the ceremony and reception were often in the same
hall. Right after the ceremony the wedding setup would be broken
down and replaced with the reception setup. Poor Monty...what to
do, what to do? Do the formals first was all he could do.

I did it because people look tired and haggard if you do them
afterwards. People are in a big hurry to get drunk and don't want
to waste time taking pictures. By doing them ahead of time they
could spend all the time they wanted with friends and relatives at
the reception (except for a few minutes doing the cake pictures).

Post by dadiOH
Personally, I never liked doing formals before the ceremony. Oh,
I would if the people really wanted them done then but I always
gave them my reasons for preferring post-ceremony and let them
decide. My reasons...

Well, you're an idiot.

But a thinking one.
________________________

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH
1. Someone/something always seems to be late. Could be the
flowers, could be Uncle Bill, could be whatever. If something
*is* late it *will* eat into the time allocated for photography.

I told 'em to *BE READY* two hours ahead of time.

And they always were. How wonderful. You live in Oz do you?

Post by Randall Ainsworth
Guests start
showing up a half hour before the ceremony and I don't want that
audience.

Well, of *course* not. Besides, B&G, attendants and families needed that
time to recover from their nerve wracking, marathon, pre-ceremony photo
session.
________________________

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH
2. Before the ceremony, everybody is rushed and worried...all
uptight...their minds are on the upcoming ceremony. After the
ceremony everyone sort of takes a collective sigh of relief and
relaxes. It shows in the photos.

No way. They look tired and haggard after the ceremony. Flowers
get messed up, dresses get wrinkled, etc..

You need to sharpen your powers of observation.
________________________

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH
Main reason that people wanted the photography before the ceremony
is that they didn't want their guests to have to hang around at
the reception waiting for the wedding party. Didn't work that way
where I was (Honolulu)...the guests had to drive to the reception
room (generally large beach hotel), find parking, walk from
parking to reception room.

It's a day the bride & groom should spend with friends and
relatives, not a professional photographer.

Right. So why bully them into being ready - ready for YOU and YOUR
convenience - two hours before the ceremony.
__________________________

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH
I only needed 45 minutes (often used less) and did the large
groups first. Those people (other than B&G) could then go hop in
the limo, be dropped off in front of the hotel and would almost
always beat the arrival of any guest. B&G arrived maybe 20 minutes
max later and they too beat the majority of the guests. Even if
nobody beat the guests it is no big deal...guests mill and chat,
don't even know that B&G aren't there. Reception starts when it
starts, nobody really cares.

Takes longer than 45 minutes to do it right.

Not if you know what you're doing and "the way how to do it".

--
dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by dadiOH
And they always were. How wonderful. You live in Oz do you?

It was tactfully explained well in advance of the date why it was being
done this way. Wasn't very often somebody would be late.

Post by dadiOH
Well, of *course* not. Besides, B&G, attendants and families needed that
time to recover from their nerve wracking, marathon, pre-ceremony photo
session.

Funny...

Post by dadiOH

Post by Randall Ainsworth
No way. They look tired and haggard after the ceremony. Flowers
get messed up, dresses get wrinkled, etc..

You need to sharpen your powers of observation.

Well, I've only done in the area of 700 weddings through the years.

Post by dadiOH
Right. So why bully them into being ready - ready for YOU and YOUR
convenience - two hours before the ceremony.

Nobody bullied anybody. It was all explained when they came in to make
the arrangements. And it was not for my convenience, it was so that
the couple could have some quality photographs they'd cherish for the
rest of their lives.

Post by dadiOH

Post by Randall Ainsworth
Takes longer than 45 minutes to do it right.

Not if you know what you're doing and "the way how to do it".

Yeah, I guess you *can* work pretty fast with one light on a 35mm.

[Gregory Blank]

See Marissa here's the kind people you can look forward to becoming
if you take the first step and photograph that wedding...
you really don't want to do it.

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH
And they always were. How wonderful. You live in Oz do you?

It was tactfully explained well in advance of the date why it was being
done this way. Wasn't very often somebody would be late.

Post by dadiOH
Well, of *course* not. Besides, B&G, attendants and families needed that
time to recover from their nerve wracking, marathon, pre-ceremony photo
session.

Funny...

Post by dadiOH

Post by Randall Ainsworth
No way. They look tired and haggard after the ceremony. Flowers
get messed up, dresses get wrinkled, etc..

You need to sharpen your powers of observation.

Well, I've only done in the area of 700 weddings through the years.

Post by dadiOH
Right. So why bully them into being ready - ready for YOU and YOUR
convenience - two hours before the ceremony.

Nobody bullied anybody. It was all explained when they came in to make
the arrangements. And it was not for my convenience, it was so that
the couple could have some quality photographs they'd cherish for the
rest of their lives.

Post by dadiOH

Post by Randall Ainsworth
Takes longer than 45 minutes to do it right.

Not if you know what you're doing and "the way how to do it".

Yeah, I guess you *can* work pretty fast with one light on a 35mm.

[Mark]

Good point Gregory, reads like a photographers Jerry Springer show. I am
waiting for them to write "you a ho" , "no, you da ho" "you a ho" , "you a
ho" , "you a ho". You know like the dialog on Springer.

Post by Gregory Blank
See Marissa here's the kind people you can look forward to becoming
if you take the first step and photograph that wedding...
you really don't want to do it.

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH
And they always were. How wonderful. You live in Oz do you?

It was tactfully explained well in advance of the date why it was being
done this way. Wasn't very often somebody would be late.

Post by dadiOH
Well, of *course* not. Besides, B&G, attendants and families needed that
time to recover from their nerve wracking, marathon, pre-ceremony photo
session.

Funny...

Post by dadiOH

Post by Randall Ainsworth
No way. They look tired and haggard after the ceremony. Flowers
get messed up, dresses get wrinkled, etc..

You need to sharpen your powers of observation.

Well, I've only done in the area of 700 weddings through the years.

Post by dadiOH
Right. So why bully them into being ready - ready for YOU and YOUR
convenience - two hours before the ceremony.

Nobody bullied anybody. It was all explained when they came in to make
the arrangements. And it was not for my convenience, it was so that
the couple could have some quality photographs they'd cherish for the
rest of their lives.

Post by dadiOH

Post by Randall Ainsworth
Takes longer than 45 minutes to do it right.

Not if you know what you're doing and "the way how to do it".

Yeah, I guess you *can* work pretty fast with one light on a 35mm.

--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

[dadiOH]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH
And they always were. How wonderful. You live in Oz do you?

It was tactfully explained well in advance of the date why it was
being done this way. Wasn't very often somebody would be late.

Gee...the word "tact" is actually in your vocabulary :)
____________________

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH
Well, of *course* not. Besides, B&G, attendants and families
needed that time to recover from their nerve wracking, marathon,
pre-ceremony photo session.

Funny...

Post by dadiOH

Post by Randall Ainsworth
No way. They look tired and haggard after the ceremony. Flowers
get messed up, dresses get wrinkled, etc..

You need to sharpen your powers of observation.

Well, I've only done in the area of 700 weddings through the years.

Can't give my stats, never counted. But over 40 years in business - some
years doing 100+ - I'm reasonably sure I at least equaled that number.
Which means absolutely nothing - as does your 700 - since it is entirely
possible to photograph that many and more and still be a poor observer
and/or a rotten photographer.
__________________

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH
Right. So why bully them into being ready - ready for YOU and YOUR
convenience - two hours before the ceremony.

Nobody bullied anybody. It was all explained when they came in to
make the arrangements. And it was not for my convenience, it was
so that the couple could have some quality photographs they'd
cherish for the rest of their lives.

Ah, yes...the revered word "quality". Generally used by photographers to
refer to their own work, "poor quality" referring to the work of others.

In the context in which you are using it, am I correct in believing
"quality" refers to "Photos ala Monty"? Soft boxes/umbrellas...perhaps even
the painted background du jour...the standard poses such as the bride
admiring her ring with her hand being held by the groom who is slightly in
the background and smiling meaningfully at his intended (supposed to be
meaningful, usually more of a grimace after waiting while photographer
fiddled with lights/settings), all being dramatically lighted but totally
lacking in both personality and emotion.

If so, I fail to understand how such can be considered "quality". There is
precious little to personalize such a set of photos for that particular
couple. Can't be because every couple is photographed in the same way using
whatever standard poses and light setups that the photographer has committed
to rote memory.

I'm not really knocking all that as I am sure that the couples *do* like and
value them. What I'm saying is that there are other ways to make a series
of wedding photos...photos that *are* unique to that particular couple and
which are at least equally valued.

To me, photographing a wedding is creating an interesting, story telling set
of photographs using and combining those elements which make up a wedding;
said elements being the people; the emotional relationships among and
between the people; The "things" that make up a wedding - gowns, flowers,
rings, invitation, cake, etc.; and the physical environments in which the
day's activities take place.

True, my way didn't produce many photographs that would hang at the next PPA
convention. But it *did* produce photographs which got me a lot of business
and compensated me very well.
_________________________

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by dadiOH

Post by Randall Ainsworth
Takes longer than 45 minutes to do it right.

Not if you know what you're doing and "the way how to do it".

Yeah, I guess you *can* work pretty fast with one light on a 35mm.

Well, you got me there. Sorta. Even though I liked 35mm for the lens
versatility I disliked the limitations of using flash with it and the format
(L:W ratio) itself. Moreover, my staff *really* disliked having to
sort/shuffle all those little negs so I only used it rarely...rest of the
time Bronica ETR. With normal lens only.

But you're dead on about the one light. Little one at that...Vivitar 192,
283, 285...like that. Not on camera though - hanging from a strap on my
shoulder so I could grab it and point it where I chose if I decided to use
it. And you know something Randall? I can do more with that one light
(plus ambient) than most photographers can do with a whole studio full of
lights.

--
dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by dadiOH
In the context in which you are using it, am I correct in believing
"quality" refers to "Photos ala Monty"? Soft boxes/umbrellas...perhaps even
the painted background du jour...the standard poses such as the bride
admiring her ring with her hand being held by the groom who is slightly in
the background and smiling meaningfully at his intended (supposed to be
meaningful, usually more of a grimace after waiting while photographer
fiddled with lights/settings), all being dramatically lighted but totally
lacking in both personality and emotion.

Yeah, I did some "Monte" type stuff. But no painted backgrounds or
soffboxes. I used whatever was available in the church, usually
starting with some window-light "intimate" portraits of the bride &
groom. Just light from a window and a gold reflector.

Post by dadiOH
If so, I fail to understand how such can be considered "quality". There is
precious little to personalize such a set of photos for that particular
couple. Can't be because every couple is photographed in the same way using
whatever standard poses and light setups that the photographer has committed
to rote memory.

You've gotta do the standard stuff, if for no other reason, than for
posterity. Wedding party, both sets of parents, etc. - usually on the
altar...two lights. This is what people want and it's what they'll
buy. Very few candids.

Post by dadiOH
To me, photographing a wedding is creating an interesting, story telling set
of photographs using and combining those elements which make up a wedding;
said elements being the people; the emotional relationships among and
between the people; The "things" that make up a wedding - gowns, flowers,
rings, invitation, cake, etc.; and the physical environments in which the
day's activities take place.

Yup, did that too.

Post by dadiOH
True, my way didn't produce many photographs that would hang at the next PPA
convention. But it *did* produce photographs which got me a lot of business
and compensated me very well.

You can have it both ways.

Post by dadiOH
Well, you got me there. Sorta. Even though I liked 35mm for the lens
versatility I disliked the limitations of using flash with it and the format
(L:W ratio) itself. Moreover, my staff *really* disliked having to
sort/shuffle all those little negs so I only used it rarely...rest of the
time Bronica ETR. With normal lens only.

Hasselblad here.

Post by dadiOH
But you're dead on about the one light. Little one at that...Vivitar 192,
283, 285...like that. Not on camera though - hanging from a strap on my
shoulder so I could grab it and point it where I chose if I decided to use
it. And you know something Randall? I can do more with that one light
(plus ambient) than most photographers can do with a whole studio full of
lights.

I used a 283 *only* for cake/toasting pictures. No assistant.

[Petros]

Post by Mark
A couple in this situation would be better off getting everyone a single use
camera. They are free or very low cost if you get the ones that advertise a
product. This way several people are shooting and someone is bound to get a
few good shots. This has got to be better than an amateur that doesn't even
know what film to take. Remember, this is a WEDDING. There are no do-overs
if a shot is blown it is gone forever. Marisa just needs to learn a lot more
before responsibly taking on a project like this. One way to get practice is
to take the camera to the wedding as a guest. Get some friends to play
wedding so she can learn in a controlled setting, read books and participate
in forums like this one. And, of course taking a formal course from NYIP or
other recognized, experienced institution. Of course if she could work as an
assistant that would be great. I'll get off my soap box now.

Well, I'll put my two cents in as well, since the help I got here was
invaluable :) I'm not a pro photographer, and when my friend asked me
to do her wedding, I had tons of reservations, and would most gladly
have turned her down. She was pretty insistant, however, and I agreed.
I'd like to give a bit of background info on wedding photography here
in Lublin before I go on. A pro is going to charge from $60-$100 US for
20 or 30 negatives from the church, no formals, just photojournalism.
Studio formals cost anywhere from $15-$20 each, printed large format.
Weddings are planned one after the other, so there's no time for

Cost is the driving issue, and when I think of what my sister told me
about wedding prices in Boston ($700-$8,000) my head reels. The key, I
believe, is to be honest with the couple. If this is not something
you've done before, and you don't have experience that you can carry
over (lighting, etc.) then you need to explain this clearly to the
couple, and let them make a decision. If at that point they decide to
keep you on then it's on them if things don't work out. If you're
really friends this won't destroy the relationship and there won't be
any hurt feelings.

Marisa, here's one thing to be prepared for (as one non pro to
another;) ) Things will happen fast in slow motion, like a car
accident. Be ready with two cameras, have extra batteries ready even to
replace brand new ones, have someone to hold your stuff and hand you
cameras/lenses/whatever, and if you miss the greatest shot of your
life, don't think about it, just keep shooting.

[Petros]

Post by Petros
Well, I'll put my two cents in as well, since the help I got here was
invaluable :) I'm not a pro photographer, and when my friend asked me
to do her wedding, I had tons of reservations, and would most gladly
have turned her down. She was pretty insistant, however, and I agreed.
I'd like to give a bit of background info on wedding photography here
in Lublin before I go on. A pro is going to charge from $60-$100 US for
20 or 30 negatives from the church, no formals, just photojournalism.
Studio formals cost anywhere from $15-$20 each, printed large format.
Weddings are planned one after the other, so there's no time for

any portrait work in the church, and very little time outside, since
the next parties are already arriving.

[Tom (2)]

Post by Marisa
Hello,
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done
two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how
to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any
techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor
and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon
lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a
promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any
suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated...
Thanks,
Marisa

Just a few thoughts...

Get a book and learn what the "required shots" are, then sit down with
the bride and make a list of all the shots she wants (or have her make
the list, then sit down and go over it). This will help you to know
what her expectations are. It reduces last minute surprises and
failing to meet expectations.

Find out if the minister has rules for the wedding photographer. Some
are very strict about when you need to have your equipment out of the
ceremony area. Some restrict shooting during the wedding, etc.

Get the timetable. When are you shooting the group shots? When will
they be there? When are you going to get the bride and groom shots,
before or after the ceremony? Hmm!

Use a tripod. Be prepared for others (during the group shots) to want
to click away with their digital cameras. Be prepared to instruct
people as to where to stand and where to put their hands, etc.
(especially the bride).

You need to know what your flash will do. This is a bad time to test
your equipment!

Take more film than you think you will need. Take extra batteries.

You would have been much better off with a couple of monolights on
stands with umbrellas rather than an on camera flash. Much better.

In the group shots, take 2 shots each, or you get a lot of pictures
with eyes closed, or someone not paying attention.

I like to use Fuji Reala (for everything that is flash assisted) and
NPZ 800 (for everything that is existing light). (But I use 2
cameras) This film choice is more forgiving of mixed light which,
thanks to stained glass windows and/or florescent lights, can be
beyond your control.

Think about a secure place for your camera gear while you are roaming
about.

Don't experiment with any new technique or equipment.

Use manual focus and focus on the eyes. When people are standing in
rows make sure you are using an aperture that will capture all rows of
people in focus.

Are you planning to give them the film to be processed? Or are you
processing it yourself and they pay you? Who owns the negs? Are they
intending to blow any up to 8x10? If so you'll have to frame the
otherwise 8x12 format so it can be cut down to 8x10.

Plan as much as you can. What ever you forget will likely cause you a
problem. The bride is probably the boss but asking her what to do the
day of the wedding should be minimized. She will be on overload.

Maintain control. There may likely be someone there looking for a
chance to direct you. Show no fear!

Wear comfortable shoes.

Have a stiff drink waiting for you when you get home.

Tom

[Mark]

Marisa,
These responses are helpful. Your original post shows that you are not
skilled enough to properly photograph a wedding. Neither am I. I however
know this and would not put myself in the position of promising something
that I cannot deliver. I suggest you learn wedding photography before your
reputation is ruined before you have a chance to build it.
Please do not take this as a put-down, I am only trying to help someone who
like myself is learning.

Post by Marisa
Hello,
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done
two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how
to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any
techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor
and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon
lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a
promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any
suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated...
Thanks,
Marisa

[Bowser]

Run like hell. Unless you're willing to buy a backup camera that you'll
likely never use, spend money expirementing with film and processors, and
risk losing friends, it's best to back out. If you simply cannot back out,
take the N80, the 28-80, the flash, and a ton of Portra 160NC. Get the film
processed by a pro lab, not a mini-lab. And hope for the best. I hope the
flash is plenty powerful for large group shots!

Post by Marisa
Hello,
I'm going to take wedding pictures in a few months and I've only done
two other really small weddings. I'm lookin for any advice as to how
to best use my equipment, what type of film, filters, etc..and any
techniques/advice you can give me for taking wedding pictures- indoor
and outdoor. I will be using a Nikon N80 SLR camera and have a Nikon
lens 28-80mm as well as a Quantaray lens 100-300mm. I also have a
promaster FTD 7000M flash, which I'm not too familiar with. Any
suggestions for the best results would be greatly appreciated...
Thanks,
Marisa