Well my sister has a friend who is getting married in August and apparently has chosen me as one of the prospective photographers to do her shoot. If I end up with the job, it will be my first "professional" shoot - so naturally I'm a little nervous.

I've been told she wants the photos blown up and printed so she can hang them around the church during her wedding - I figured TIFF should be fine for that, yes?

I'll have to come up with some ideas for locations but would using natural light be more effective than off camera flash?
I have a 32" umbrella on a stand and a Vivitar 285HV attached to that as well as a large reflector - I've never used the flash for portraiture so I might need some tips on how to incorporate it into the shoot...ie: technique

Which lens would be more effective for this kind of shoot? I have a 50mm 1.8 and an 18-55mm 3.5 already. I'm in the market for a new lens so suggestions are welcome.

I had planned to practice since my sister is getting married in September, I said I would like to take some shots for her as a sort of pre-wedding gift. I know if I don't get those just right, I can always go back and do them again since she's not real picky about it. So that will pretty much cover the practice portion.

I don't know what else I should be thinking of - any suggestions are more than welcome. thanks

I'd do both studio with the umbrella and natural light.

I have not got it yet, but the 17 - 55 f/2.8 IS seems to be the glass for choice if you shoot canon. sorry, i forgot to check.

That prime is going to be sharper than the zoom.

The basic idea of an engagement shoot is to catch them looking lovingly at one another more than posing for the camera.

Originally Posted by joshhuntnm I'd do both studio with the umbrella and natural light. I have not got it yet, but the 17 - 55 f/2.8 IS seems to be the glass for choice if you shoot canon. sorry, i forgot to check. That prime is going to be sharper than the zoom. The basic idea of an engagement shoot is to catch them looking lovingly at one another more than posing for the camera.

go figure the 17-55mm 2.8 for Nikon would be $1200. I tell ya, I'm not having much luck lately. thanks for the help. it's funny how much difference 0.7 makes - I have the 18-55mm 3.5 which was a kit lens but the 17-55mm 2.8 is literally triple the price. odd

Originally Posted by rsparts go figure the 17-55mm 2.8 for Nikon would be $1200. I tell ya, I'm not having much luck lately. thanks for the help. it's funny how much difference 0.7 makes - I have the 18-55mm 3.5 which was a kit lens but the 17-55mm 2.8 is literally triple the price. odd

Yes, expensive, but not so odd. The kit lens is f/5.6 at 55, while the 17-55 is f/2.8 at all focal lengths. The price of all lenses goes up very quickly once you get to f/2.8 or faster. BTW, both Tamron and Sigma make highly regarded f/2.8 lenses in that range, and they are both quite a bit cheaper.

I've been using a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 for about 6 months. It was under $500 and works very well for portrait stuff. I'm getting ready to start shooting senior pictures for my daughter and some of her friends and will use this lense and the Canon 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS depending on the setting. But, for the money, you can't really beat the Sigma.

Originally Posted by stromhammer I've been using a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 for about 6 months. It was under $500 and works very well for portrait stuff. I'm getting ready to start shooting senior pictures for my daughter and some of her friends and will use this lense and the Canon 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS depending on the setting. But, for the money, you can't really beat the Sigma.

ok yeah I was wondering about the Tamron and the Sigma. I'd started a thread about the Tamron 28-75 2.8 which apparently is a great lens too. I think I'm going to pick that up today.