Not sure you can do much to recover without re-shooting the area and blending out the background, but perhaps you can salvage it in other ways.

How about something in another direction...
Instead of removing the background, use it as an area to place another image. Perhaps a closeup of the bride's face in the upper right, or fade in a page from the invitation, etc... along the whole right side?

VERY roughly:

If you have CS2/CS3, you can try their Lens Blur filter. It can simulate proper lens blur, or that is the theory. In some ways it does a better job than guassian blur. In some ways it may not be worth the effort.

Maybe not "dreamy", but might allow a better look than the "flat fog" that guassian blur tends to give.

I've seen other discussions along this line and every time I fail to see what confusion there would be with what defines shutter lag. Yet it seems everyone has different ideas.

As I see it, there is only one measurement that matters... button press to start of exposure.

Human time varies and is of no reasonable consequence to the equation.
If it were, you could say "how long does it take for me to wake up in the morning, eat, and drive to my location before taking the initial photo".

It simply has no bearing on how the camera performs let alone useful for comparing cameras.

Softies? They sure are! Sadly, they are a very mis-understood and wrongly demonized breed.

Is Number 9 the one with the white background? It is one of my favorites. A better example is here:
http://www.ephotozine.com/photo/810699/large
It looks great on the wall at 20".

Hmmm, never mind those links. I thought the photos opened up to larger sizes. They are much too small to note any real detail or lack of it.
Anyway, I still suggest the DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135 and the 50mm 1.4 or 1.7.

But Nathan has good point. A lot depends on what you're shooting and what you want as a result. Those lenses are certainly not required to obtain good quality images. Although, I do prefer the DA* with dust/weather sealing if I'm in a farm type area with lots of dust. But a nice prime lens will also handle that better than a normal zoom sucking in dust.

I use the DA* 16-50mm when in a small studio or at someone's home. I also try to use the DA* 50-135 if I have room. The standard and much cheaper 50mm f1.4 (or f1.7) is also a spectacular lens.

You can see some examples here. The photos there are a mix of those three lenses.

http://www.photoreflect.com/pr3/thumbpage.aspx?e=3872700

http://www.photoreflect.com/pr3/thumbpage.aspx?e=3948392
If you're asked for a password, use 'foha'.

Just note some rules, please...
1. Yes! I do in fact torture my rottweilers mercilessly with funny clothing. Do not report me, plenty of people have already done so.
2. Don't critique the web site. I'm just checking it out, as it has some nice feature for free. (I'm not using it as a professional front in any sense)

Sorry, the names/titles contain the details. (1-60s means 1/60s, etc....)

Can't disagree about flash ruining the atmosphere, (I think I did mention how awful some of the shots looked), but as also mentioned you still need a certain amount of light. Its all about deciding what you need and how you're going to get it.

For static shots, maybe weddings 1/100s is a good shutter speed. For a band jumping and kicking maniacs you really need close to 1/250 - 1/500s or better, assuming you're not using flash.

If you look at the one photo where I didn't use flash, even ISO 1600 it was unuseable due to lack of available light. Bring F4 down to F1.4 I could likely have brought the ambient light up to an acceptable level to brighten it more in Photoshop. Still, the blur at that shutter speed would likely have been unacceptable without flash to freeze some part of the action.

Unfortunately when you're dealing with a mat 40+ feet square, I don't know that a prime lens would work very well. It is usually not like a wedding or studio where you are free to walk just about anywhere you want to re-frame a shot. I would feel crippled with a non-zoom lens, especially if I don't know in advance where you will end up being seated.

Hopefully duroo72 will have the option to move around, or at least get front row seats. It would certainly help.


Hey, just remembered duroo72... if you have not shot at an event yet, be prepared to pay an extra fee for using a camera.
I have been to a few without such fees, but many do charge extra.
Being a team member I've been bypassed at our school-hosted national events. So you might want to check with the school. If they are hosting or helping to host the event, you may get breaks on fees, etc... Well, its worth asking anyway.

John, I've never heard those comments before. Ya always learn something new on this site.

he, he, do a search and you'll probably find dozens if not hundreds of comments on this lens. (probably more than you'd want to wade through)
I hear the f1.7 is a tad bit sharper, but I believe I would be more than safe in saying you cannot go wrong with this lens. (you don't always want tack sharp for a portrait lens anyway)

It is one of my favorite lenses. Yes it is auto focus.