help desperately needed

[poopnoodle]

hi there,

let me start off by setting the scene:

i had a wedding ceremony/reception to shoot, i had a dvx100a, a canon gl2 , and a guy taking stills with a digital rebel XT, i got the cd of pics back last night and i'm a bit displeased. the lighting in the church was rather difficult (to say the least), and the problem with the pics were that (i believe) he set a slow shudder speed, causing quite a bit of motion blur (in the majority of shots).

So...

i was wondering if there was anything i could do about the shots in post (software/technique)? i hate the montra "we can always fix it in post" but this is the only recourse that i'm left with.

if there is any advice it would be much appreciated, i cant imagine that there is much to be done, and there is no substitute for a good picture right out of the camera, but...

thanks,
-brad

[egproductions]

every pic is a diffrent senario but generaally there is very little you can do as you might have expected. If the blur is caused by camera shake and everything is blured a little unsharpen mask filter in photoshop might help. If the blur is just not nice because of the look of action in people and there are areas that are still because the photogrpaher was steady or used a tripod than you can try to crop the image and focus on the areas that are in focus.

[Matt Grunau]

post a pic and we can take a stab at it. If it's motion blur on the subjects because of low shtter speed, (where the sbujects are moving but the background is in more in focus) and the camaer was on a tripod, there a a few things you can do to clean that up. Unsharp mask will really only work for fixing things that are just a little blurry, and wont do much for motion blur.

If, however, the blur is a "camera" type blur where the blur is a result of slight camera movement with low shutter speed, and objects are uniformly and directionally blurred, then you can clean that up probably a little easier.

But the best way it to post something and see what it looks like.

[poopnoodle]

well, here they are...

thesea are among some of the worst affected, i hope something can be done. thanks for the quick reply guys; i dont know why i didn't put up pics to begin with, but here is an adequate sampling.


the vows:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/fetalblast/IMG_1840.jpg

father and the bride:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/fetalblast/IMG_1822.jpg

the groom waiting at the front:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/fetalblast/IMG_1812.jpg

any help is appreciated, thanks,
-brad

[egproductions]

I think this is one of those situations where you need to brace for impact...
and fire your photographer
The photographs are blurry due to the camera moving during the exposure whihc is the worst of the two. An unsharp mask to correct this much blur can make it sharper but this creates unwanted problems of its own.
I imagine you want them printed but at this point you migh tbe better trying to slavage any decent images you have inlcuding grabs from the dvx and attempting an uprez of them (some people wouldn't even be able to tell the diffrence sadly)

[cheezweezl]

i agree. besides the motion blur, the framing is bad. i don't think you will be able to salvage these.... hope the video is good.....

[dustino]

Ouch, I can't imagine any way to fix those. I hope that photographer didn't charge any money... Good luck (maybe the video stills will work well)

[zoostory]

sorry dude, I tried a couple of things, but these are hopeless!

[poopnoodle]

yeah, i was afraid of that, i've been playin' around with 'em throughout the day to no avail.

i was wondering is there a way to set the boundaries on one side and compress the other side of the into the boundry (with multiple layers). i'm looking at the second picture because the ghosting is not "smeared" like the others. personally i'm not a pro with photoshop so there is a limit to what i can do, and my explination is probably sub par, but thanks guys, i appreciate the effort; if some idea wakes you in the middle of the night let me know.

thanks,
-brad

[Matt Grunau]

I'm stumped. I threw just about everything I knew at it and about the best I could come up with was this:

http://paramm.com/wed.jpg


Short of rebuilding portions of their faces, and the details in the clothing by hand (very possible, very very very time consuming), I'de say you've got problems.

[bpotter]

Hey there,
My wife is a professional photographer and a photoshop GODDESS. She suggested the only thing you can do is change them to black and white and make it look like it was on purpouse. You can do radial blur, seperate the bride and groom from the background and blur it out. Just try some artsy stuff.

Make chicken soup out of chicken poop.

... eww.

[CR_OPSO]

My photo editing skills are pretty weak, but I thought I'd give it a try just for fun. (I don't have PS at work, so I used MS Digital Image trial version). I did this really quick and used bpotter's suggestion. It's still not great... but I think it's better. In my haste, I didn't include the bouquet, but most of it was blown out anyway. I also blurred the minister since his double-nose was too difficult to fix. Maybe you could add a slight bit of noise and a little glow to cover up the rest?

http://home.jam.rr.com/chadandkaren/project1.jpg

The bride's face could use a little detail work, but I just selected them together and didn't do any "spot repairs".

Chad

[poopnoodle]

you know i think it is funny that there is such a fine line between a low quality image and an "artsy image" (that says a lot for art). but you guys do have something there, mabye the only to salvage these pics is to be creative with the distortion. the only problem is that i have ~100 or so pictures and to keep it consistantly interesting would bring up the whole time issue once again. but when i get home i'll start playing with some of them again.

thanks guys,
-brad

[Boy]

hey i saw this and thought of this thread: http://72.3.248.187//content/Photo-deblurring-Research-Debuts-at-Siggraph-Conference-.htm
i mean the software isn't available yet, but it might be worth looking into.

[MattinSTL]

This isn't going to help you now, but for sake of every other person who reads this thread I need to get this apparently uncommon knowledge locked into this thread...

If a photographer shows up to do a wedding without an external flash then you are screwed!

Even a 1.8 glass isn't going to cut it... even a 1.4 wouldn't cut it in most wedding lighting scenarios... it's freakin' insane. I'm looking at these shots and what happened is the guy thought he could get adequate exposure with a longer shutter... I highly doubt that he took it upon himself to put the cam in shutter mode and slow it down for adequate light... what's more likely is that he had it in auto, and turned off the built-in flash. It IS possible that this guy had a video background and thought slowing the shutter was the solution, but in that case I'd strangle the guy for his stupidity.

Jeremy said everybody needs to drink a shot everytime I say the word "flash"... but this thread is a PRIME example of why I keep bangin' the flash drum... you MUST get a flash if you intend to do professional location photography!

In case somebody reads this and doesn't know one of the other common knowledge points about handheld photography... if you want a sharp handheld photo then the rule is to never shoot a shutter below the fraction of the lens... and don't forget that all cams w/o the full frame sensor multiply by 50%... so a 100mm lens is really a 150mm lens... so the shutter at 100mm should never be below 1/150 sec when you shoot handheld for max sharpness. For sake of motion control I'd keep the shutter reasonably high also... which means you need that flash.

The built-in flash doesn't count either... because the external flashes typically have at least 4-6 TIMES the reach and power.

[Jeremy Ordan]

This isn't going to help you now, but for sake of every other person who reads this thread I need to get this apparently uncommon knowledge locked into this thread...

If a photographer shows up to do a wedding without an external flash then you are screwed!

Even a 1.8 glass isn't going to cut it... even a 1.4 wouldn't cut it in most wedding lighting scenarios... it's freakin' insane. I'm looking at these shots and what happened is the guy thought he could get adequate exposure with a longer shutter... I highly doubt that he took it upon himself to put the cam in shutter mode and slow it down for adequate light... what's more likely is that he had it in auto, and turned off the built-in flash. It IS possible that this guy had a video background and thought slowing the shutter was the solution, but in that case I'd strangle the guy for his stupidity.

Jeremy said everybody needs to drink a shot everytime I say the word "flash"... but this thread is a PRIME example of why I keep bangin' the flash drum... you MUST get a flash if you intend to do professional location photography!

In case somebody reads this and doesn't know one of the other common knowledge points about handheld photography... if you want a sharp handheld photo then the rule is to never shoot a shutter below the fraction of the lens... and don't forget that all cams w/o the full frame sensor multiply by 50%... so a 100mm lens is really a 150mm lens... so the shutter at 100mm should never be below 1/150 sec when you shoot handheld for max sharpness. For sake of motion control I'd keep the shutter reasonably high also... which means you need that flash.

The built-in flash doesn't count either... because the external flashes typically have at least 4-6 TIMES the reach and power.

I'll drink to that!:beer:

-Jeremy

[GageFX]

In addition to all that was said above, I'd advise this. Dont hire a guy to shoot stills for a wedding if he doesnt show up with at least one pro body strapped to his neck, preferrable two. Weddings are so incredibly touchy (lawsuits are rampant in situations like yours) and any pro jobs in general that a pro always has a backup body. At the very least the backup is prosumer as opposed to trying to shoot a wedding with just a single consumer camera. And while it is the "photographer that makes the photo, not the camera", there are reasons pro equipment exists, be it a Canon 1Ds MkII as opposed to a Rebel or a using a Douglas Tool Framing Hammer as opposed to a $5 swapmeet hammer. Yes, the $5 swapmeet hammer will bang some nails, but the Douglas will build a house. Sure it's up to you how the house turns out, but at least the tool is up to the job.

I have a friend that has a thriving photography business and he is in Samy's every few weeks buying a couple new 1Ds MkIIs. Now, if a Rebel could handle the work, dont you think he'd rather save the money?

Right tools for the right job. And judging by the photos, the photographer wasnt up for the job.

Now, it might've been a friend "doing you a favor", in which case, the blame isnt on him.

My brother was married a couple years ago and he asked me to to shoot it for him. I politely declined and told him he is much better off hiring someone that knows what they are doing. I'm a fashion photographer and dont shoot events. I did tell him I'd bring a camera and cover from our family section. Well, his wife got a friend to "do them a favor" and none of the photos turned out. They were left with mine which were not from a great vantage point. And I dont call this photo GOOD, but as you can see, it turned out. I used no on camera flash, it was f3.5 @ 1/125s all ambient light and there were NO LIGHTS inthe chapel, just window light. It looks bright, but that is exposure and ISO bringing it up.

f3.5 @ 1/125s, ISO800
http://www.pbase.com/gagefx/image/64776927/medium.jpg

A couple disclaimers: It was shot with a Canon 10D - my backup body back then. It is not a pro body and should not be used to cover a wedding by someone being paid to cover a wedding. Also, I dont present this as a "good photo", it is the only one I have uploaded and it was uploaded as an example of the chapel. That said, it's not that bad of a photo for being locked in my seat and not having a flash.

Also, all that being said, I did try to work on your photo in PS and there was just nothing that saved it.

Sorry to be harsh, but I just try to think what I would do if that was my wedding.

As long as lessons are learned.

-GageFX

[Isaac_Brody]

Oh boy...those weddings pics are a disaster. :(

[GageFX]

BTW, I pulled the EXIF from the photo:

1/8s @ f5.6. ISO 400

Aside from the fact that he was probably in an auto (probably App Pri) mode (the EXIF says "Exposure Program = Unknown") I already see two problems here. #1, kick it up to ISO 800 and open that apperture up. The next problem is that he was at 300mm actual focal length which puts it at a 480mm equiv. He was at the back of the church, shooting 480mm at 1/8s! Ikes.

(The second and third photos were both 1/5s @ f5.6, 55mm. Still Ex.Prog.=Unknown, but the f5.6 and changed shutter suggests Av.)

-GageFX

[MattinSTL]

One of the most fatal flaws that newbies make in event photography and videography is trying to stay out of the way.

If somebody feels weird pulling attention away from the subject and onto themselves, then they shouldn't be a videographer or photographer.

That's sad to hear that this guy was using the tele end of the lens... which would also explain the f/5.6... which in turn explains the 1/8s... which in turn explains the blur even if the camera was mounted on a pod (which the candles show that it wasn't).

Bummer bummer bummer.

I knew a guy locally that professed his video talent and talked a friend into letting him do their wedding... bad result, everybody's crushed... friendships over.

This reminds me of all the people who think they're going to get a DVX from some store in Brooklyn for $1800... and yet those people keep springing up in new threads asking if the store is legit because they can't get passed the idea of saving so much money... even though it's too good to be true.

Weddings are scary business. I got a call from a friend at the last minute to shoot a TINY ceremony (like 8 people!) and I agreed because there was NO expectation of me... and still I brought a reflector and a white sheet, plus a tripod and monopod... then I got there 30 minutes early to scout the location and set up... and this was for a wedding that cost my buddy about $200 TOTAL... no $ to me at all.

Canon P&S, white sheet used as a silk overhead... photoflex 52" reflector silver side bouncing the sun back into them... which they didn't like at the time, but thanked me for the pictures afterward. People won't remember you being a nusiance on the wedding day... all they'll remember is the evidence of your confidence every time they watch the video or look at the pictures.

http://gettreel.com/jasonbrook.jpg

[dougspice]

Looks like this is simply a photographer who didn't have the gear, the experience, or the attitude to be there. There is this great temptation to say "My friend is a good photographer - surely he'll do it for us for a bargain!" But it seems like many of these people lack the critical appraisal skill to actually know what good photography is. And there are so many different kinds of photography. Your friend who is an amazing nature photography hobbyist may be the last person you'd want shooting your wedding.

Anyway, agreed that there's basically nothing that can be done to salvage any of these in a traditional sense. There may be promise in the artistic route but I think you're going to have to be prepared to fess up to the newlyweds when you're unable to deliver more than a handful of decent shots. Hopefully the video is great and they will be understanding. Then get a guy with the lenses and the attitude to do the job!

[500lb Productions]

BTW, I pulled the EXIF from the photo:

1/8s @ f5.6. ISO 400

Aside from the fact that he was probably in an auto (probably App Pri) mode (the EXIF says "Exposure Program = Unknown") I already see two problems here. #1, kick it up to ISO 800 and open that apperture up. The next problem is that he was at 300mm actual focal length which puts it at a 480mm equiv. He was at the back of the church, shooting 480mm at 1/8s! Ikes.

(The second and third photos were both 1/5s @ f5.6, 55mm. Still Ex.Prog.=Unknown, but the f5.6 and changed shutter suggests Av.)

-GageFX

Which means he was shooting a garbage lens too. It's not the pro body these days... its the pro LENS.

A decent lens (say a 80-200 USM) at f2.8 and iso 800 would have taken the exposure to 1/60. Not great but usable.

But what the h*** was he doing WAYYY out in the boonies shooting 300mm????

This photographer should NEVER have been the main guy. Backup maybe, but never the main.

[e-steve]

Most likely the DVX100 video was a bit on the dark side also, but if you shot progressive you might be able to snag a few good frames at 720x480 and then double them to get decent prints (at least better than the stills!).

You could also do the same with the interlaced video, if you use one of the SD to HD conversion programs to get a few good photos out of it...

Another alternative to saving the blurred photos is to use a paintbrush filter on them in photoshop, then get some gallery prints made on canvas at www.finerworks.com and they will love them potentially...just a thought.

Good luck!

[dougspice]

Good ideas there.

[poopnoodle]

yeah, i agree with the lot of you on this one; the only reason i asked him in the first place is that he said he had done weddings before and went well, i know this guy so i knew he wasnt bs-ing me, but i'm sure (now) that he was secondary at that event. but given that i'm a bit new to this event videography thing, i thought that a little experience and a fairly good piece of equipment would be helpful; but i think that this was a careless mistake but there were some good ideas for shots, it is just that the execution was haphazard. i was surprised to see that there was no external flash, but i was under the impression that there was a rule about bieng out of the way, as much as possible, but still getting the shot (those often do not go together, i know), so i am to blame for him bieng back farther away than desired. but i realized with this annoying edit of the ceremony that the people at the wedding want to get pictures to remind themselves of the day, they will probably not remember the slight annoyance of the cameraman.

luckily i am not responsible for the wedding album, just the video, and the stills were for inserts, and montage purposes (emphasis on were).

this just proves that you can plan for weeks in advance, but it can be in vain if you cant count on your people/equipment. i say equipment, because my other cameraman on the gl2, due to some miscommunications, and the apparant decay of his camera's recording heads, i've had to rely on my dvx-100a quite hevily (not my intent).

so, the editing challenge continues, i'm learning alot about photoshop/and like products though (knowledge is always a plus), but long nights for me.

thanks guys,
-brad