Re: Wedding photography

["Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@xxxxx>]

On 20 Aug 96 at 9:41, Tom Benedict wrote:

> Let me add my note of curiosity about IR wedding photography, too.
> (I've been out for about a week, so bear with me if this has been
> covered.)
> 
> I just got back from a friend's wedding, and even though I had half
> a roll of IR left, I left the camera at home.  Good thing, too.  The
> bride (being as nervous as anyone who's getting married) was quite
> flushed.  I've seen in some medical handbooks how IR film can be used
> to make blood vessels show up quite sharply.  I was afraid I would
> wind up with some really scary looking pictures.
> 
> Do you wind up with any bizzarro effects other than the haloes?  Better
> yet, if you can, upload some of your wedding pictures to the gallery!

If you keep a full-figure distance to the couple, all goes fine.
'My' bride had also a very light skin, but none of the pic's shows 
blood vessels. But even then I could see the start of the 'shark-eye' 
effect, so I guess this is your limiting factor, not the skin.
Note also that I used a #70 filter, not a deep IR like #87C; results 
could very well have been much worse in that case. I believe Stanee 
Rae Murray also used a light IR filter, not a dark one.
You also need a rangefinder camera when shooting a hectic wedding 
situation with opaque IR filters btw....;-))



--
Bye,

       _/      _/       _/_/_/_/_/       _/_/_/_/_/
     _/  _/  _/               _/       _/  _/  _/
     _/  _/ illem    _/     _/ an    _/  _/  _/ arkerink
                     _/_/_/  


The difference 
between men and boys
is the price of their toys

<w.j.markerink@xxxxx>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

------------------------------

Topic No. 15