Help-lighting mistake

Advice needed for the future, but here's the background...

I took wedding pictures for a friend recently...with the disclaimer that "I'm not a professional, and I've never taken wedding pictures with a digital camera before". I was assured it was me, or disposable cameras, so I felt I had nothing to lose.

I knew I didn't have adequate lighting for a wedding party of 20, not including family; but I wanted to do the best I could without spending a fortune. I read up here, bought a bounce card, got my SB800 off the camera, used a Nikon D200, even used a gray card to set custom white balance.

I was able to go to the rehearsal and take some test shots based on the advice I read; I tried to set the exposure based on the ambient light present, and then used the flash for fill, but the pictures appeared a bit underexposed. I didn't want to amp up the flash too much because I was trying to avoid harsh shadows. I fooled with the exposure compensation a bit...

The day of the event, I freaked out about setting my camera on manual so I chose aperture preferred, thinking that if I selected f5.6, my depth of field would keep that many people in focus; I used 400 ISO, but the camera matched me up with a shutter speed that was way to slow for hand holding...you know where this is going..

Pictures were a disappointment due to movement. I was able to fix a bunch of them in photoshop by antiquing/sepia/bw, etc...but what a nightmare, and I felt so bad.

I realize now, that a tripod was essential. What should I have done? Bumped the ISO? Bumped the flash output? Shot manual and fixed later? Used a monopod all day? Broke down and bought another flash? What's the slowest shutter speed one can get away with and still hand hold?

I appreciate the advice. If I ever find that I can't say 'no' again, I sure wouldn't want to repeat these results!

Oh boy...you were in a tough situation. Assuming you were shooting indoors, it's tough when you have a large bunch of people to photograph. A tripod and cable release is certainly a must (no camera shake) + having the right lighting equipment in place. Depending on the ambiant light, you may have to bump up the ISO quite a bit and shoot in F11 to get better DOF....

For that many people, you may need a minimum of 2 strobes and a a couple of big umbrella to be able to spread the light.
--
http://www.juliussantos.com

First -- and I don't intend to sound too cynical here -- I wouldn't sweat over it too much. They were warned and essentially got what they [didn't] pay for. That said, a wedding party of 20 is quite huge and doesn't exactly scream budget conscious. Out of curiosity, was a dinner served? I'm amazed at the number of my couples who tell me they are on a "strict" budget, but then serve an amazing spread for 100-200 guests. A year after the wedding, NOBODY is going to ask them about a dinner served at their wedding, but everybody's going to be asking to see their pictures. Indeed, I see cakes that cost more than my entire package that practically goes to waste after they've taken their one bite each and then a few scattered guests have a slice.

Ok, on to you concerns...

I photograph a lot of weddings, and it seems like most of them are in the dark. (In the 80s, almost every bride walked down the aisle at either 11AM, 1PM or 3PM. These days, they don't even start to 6.) It may seem obvious, but my biggest rule is to get the best shot POSSIBLE under the circumstances. If it's too dark for ambient lighting, I don't compromise by setting shutter speeds too slow; if I don't cause motion blur, I can sure bet that someone in the photo will. This means that I'm typically using flash for 85% of all the pics I take.

The problem with your harsh shadows was the use of just a single flash. Getting it off camera is great, but you have to think of any light source as a "shadow creator". The further you get it off camera axis, the more pronounced the shadows will be. Thus, when using off camera flash, you still need to have a light source on camera in order to fill those shadows just a bit.

At weddings, I take things a step further when it gets too dark for mixing in ambient: I use a separating light. I start with a speedlite on a light stand, usually with a stofen-type diffuser. (In this case, I'm not looking for softer light, but rather more of an "omni" bare-bulb effect.) Placing it behind the subjects, it can either outline the subject or put a little light on the background.

Here's a very basic example. This wedding ceremony was at 8AM on a cold December morning just before Christmas. It was held in a wine cellar with virtually no light. I had about 5 minutes for ALL of the portraits just after the ceremony and before the "breakfast reception". The setup took about 30 seconds. (Yes, I wanted more time!!) One off camera flash for key f8. On on camera flash for fill f5.6. One stofen equipped separation light behind the subjects at f8. This photo has but one person. However, the group size went up to about 10. The same light setup, with adjustments, could have accomodated 20+. (In a larger setting, of course!)



Every wedding is about PROBLEM SOLVING. This is why EXPERIENCE is the best tool a wedding photographer has at his disposal. Books are great for inspiration and ideas, but they can't teach experience. Even after shooting hundreds of weddings, I frequently scold myself after the fact for not solving the problem better than I chose. You have to think FAST, or risk losing the shot.

In your case, you were probably ill equipped lighting-wise to get the job done correctly. If you're asking "what's the slowest shutter speed I can use hand held", then you know precious little about either you, your gear, or photography to take on the responsibility of shooting someone's wedding. An inexperienced photographer bears a responsibility independent of the couple to decline a project they are not sufficiently skilled or equipped to handle in even a basic fashion. Thankfully, photography wasn't important at all to the couple, and anything you have will be FAR better than a disposable camera, which wouldn't have got the shot at all. (There's jut a hint of sarcasm directed at the couple in that last statement. I guess you'll find out just how important pictures were to them, REALLY. I have MANY couples call me asking if I can rescue their budget photography with Photoshop and build a beautiful album from it somehow. I really have to bite my lip from telling them that they should have simply hired a real wedding pro in the first place. Doing otherwise is being "penny wise but pound foolish". As Oscar Wild said "People today know the price of everything, but the value of nothing!"

Best of luck

ps. Try blending a layer of high-radius unsharp mask to help with the motion blur. It won't eliminate it, of course, but can help provide surprisingly acceptable smaller prints.

Thank you for not being too hard on me, but you're right, I should have just said 'NO', because now I'm the one who is feeling bad... I knew enough to know that I didn't have what was necessary to do this right.

As for their decisions, I think they ate up their budget throwing a great party for their guests. They relied heavily on lots of folks helping out in every aspect.

I love photography, but I've never had the time to invest to get beyond a hobby. And the occasional 'favor' that's not really doing anyone any favors...doesn't warrant me investing tons of money on extra lighting to use once in blue moon. Though I would love to switch careers and really apply myself, for now, I must be content with soaking up as much knowledge as I can and then accept opportunities to do 'favors' in a less-important venues so that I can apply what I learn in a book!

Thank you for taking the time to offer me advise.

Suzanne

Nice shot amongst the barrels, and the shadows (and intensity) nicely match the lighting plan you described. Very nice description and results. Did you use a meter to achieve the numbers, or do you know by now that light#1 at ft and power gives f8...and light 2 at power and distance yealds f5.6 etc?
(or do you use the "string menthod")

Smia ,

I'm sorry that things didn't turn out the way you wanted. But it says a lot that you are willing to admit your mistakes and seek out advice on a public forum.

Smia said:

I was able to go to the rehearsal...

Click to expand...

This was a good move on your part. Gives you a chance to meet the wedding party and experiment with some camera settings. Your next move after seeing the results probably should have been seeking out advice between then and the wedding.

Smia said:

I realize now, that a tripod was essential. What should I have done? Bumped the ISO? Bumped the flash output? Shot manual and fixed later? Used a monopod all day? Broke down and bought another flash? What's the slowest shutter speed one can get away with and still hand hold?

Click to expand...

All good questions- sounds like you have at least some basic knowledge of photographic technique. In hindsight, someone at your experience level should have tried to keep it as simple as possible. Go with what you know, as a wedding would be the worst time to experiment with equipment settings. On camera flash with everything set on program probably would have given you better results than what you got. The alternative, as you've mentioned, would've been photos from a disposable camera.

At the very least, I think people want to see plenty of light on their faces and the images sharp. Your camera/flash combination could have yielded that on auto, which is not the typical setup for a pro, but you have to know your limitations and plan accordingly. Yes, dragging the shutter opens up the background, but it's not a technique that's suitable for beginners. Keep things simple in the beginning, and as your knowledge increases, you'll be able to explore different options which will yield better pictures.

If you decide to take things further, there's plenty of knowledge free on websites like this, and plenty of people willing to help. So don't be afraid to ask for more advice.

Thank you all for being so nice. I've read some posts and was a bit concerned that I was going to get ripped to shreds!

I've given the family over 1000 photos...they got them all. Fortunately, if they don't print them huge, you can't really see the movement...though I had to throw a lot of really important pictures out.

My sister was helping me and she had her camera set on auto and it was extremely inconsistent. She had the same movement problems; excessive over-exposure...crazy.

I honestly think that I would have been better off shooting manual, at least it would of forced me to pay better attention. The sad thing was that I was checking the screen on the back of the camera and everything was looking pretty darn good...lighting looked great; exposure was fine; just couldn't see that darn movement in that tiny screen.

Aaah, live and learn I think I saved enough to make the family happy...at least that's what they're telling me anyway.

Suzanne