Are wedding photographers sado-masochists? (Q's on Wedding Photog)

Tom Boucher · Jan 5, 2003

My sister got married yesterday. She did the right thing and hired a professional.

I thought I'd play around with my D60, a 28-135 IS, and a 550EX.

Holy cow, talk about one giant PITA.

Underexposed, no exposed, dark dark dark.

only the people exposed and background totally black.

Now I've not seen the pics from the photographer to see how he did, but he sure seemed confident. He had a medium format camera and a flash, that was it. Didn't see the brand of the flash but I think the camera was a Maymia.

He was super confident and had a really nice mount, think it was one of those customer brackets. After watching him use it I'm pretty sure I'd like one now

I found the best pattern was to do the * button, then fire. But I still sometimes got just the people exposed, but no background.

But seriuosly. Folks with the D60, what do you do?

Stephen Cook · Jan 5, 2003

The first time I shoot anything, I seriously suck at it. I don't use flash unless there is absolutely no other option, so can't help you with 550EX.

The big hassle for me with weddings is that people are out thousands of dollars, and if I screw up the results, it's impossible to restage.
The reception is a lot more relaxed, so you can move around more.

Inside the chapel, though, it can be tough. Here's a shot I took at a Christmas musical event at our Church, which has very difficult lighting.

Used a 50 1.4 on a D30 with custom white balance, as the lighting in the church is dark and VERY yellow. Even though I end up with shallow depth of field, I like the effect of no flash. That's why I prefer a fast lens over just about any other feature. If you really want to get better at weddings, shoot church events where there's less pressure. The lighting is very similar, and people really appreciate good photos of the event.

Oh, and there are some GREAT wedding photographers that post on this forum. Personally, I only shoot weddings as wedding gifts for very good friends.
Take care

--
http://homepage.mac.com/stefancook

DavidP #28649 · Jan 5, 2003

The flash is designed to light up the subject. If you also want the background lit up, then you have to open up the lens and/or have a longer shutter speed to match ambient conditions.

With the 28-135 IS being such a slow lens, I can imagine your backgrounds would've been dark.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Dan Brown · Jan 5, 2003

wrong lens for the event, you really needed something much faster.

--
Dan Brown
http://www.pbase.com/wheatenman

'If nothing changes, nothing changes'

Laurie Sokoloff · Jan 5, 2003

Hi Tom - I empathize completely! I think the biggest problem with professional wedding photographers is that, like the one at this wedding, they make it look so easy. That's because they know what they're doing. When you or I go to shoot a wedding, we're learning as we go, and don't necessarily know enough to anticipate the many challenges of the situation.

My niece is getting married in the spring and has asked me to photograph the wedding and the reception. I'm going to do as much reading and asking questions as possible before then. And also practicing in similar environments. But the bottom line is, there's little equipment that can substitute for true learning and experience. The good news is that this was a valuable learning experience - I have no doubt you'll do much bettr next time.

Here's a pro at work. nice to have an assistant!![g]:

--
Best,
Laurie

DaleT · Jan 5, 2003

Well, you could see at the moment what was captured, and had the chance to try options.

The fast lens suggestion was a very good one, it allows you a chance to have a brighter background.

Since you only had the 28-135 IS, you could have tried using it at 28mm wide open, and a shutter speed of around 1/10 - 1/20 sec. with stabilizer on, ISO 400-800, and using the flash.

With the flash, the stabilizer, f3.5, high ISO, and wide angle working together for you, you probably would have some images you were looking for. Especially with the posed moments, there is little subject motion to contend with, only your own unsteadiness to blur the photos (but that stabilizer is an asset).
Try this next time, and bring a 50mm f1.8 with you too ($85)!

--
DaleT

John Mason · Jan 5, 2003

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4104466

look at my last message on the thread for a list of my bonehead mistakes.

DavidP is right on. It's better to set the manual exposure and let the flash fill in a bit. A good wide lens is a plus here as well as kicking the ISO up a bit. You'll see many hand held shots during the cerimony with no flash at ISO 800 on the link above.

All in all I was satisfied how things came out. Even the bonehead shots where my brain went dead, most end-users don't realize I was 3 stops overexposed and lost a lot of highlights.

rally2 · Jan 5, 2003

When I shoot a wedding, I use an Alien Bee (White Lightning) studio flash on a stand with an umbrella to my right set on f8 and I have a Vivitar 283 mounted on a flash bracket on my d60 set on f4. I have the iso setting on 400. This seems to work wonderful. Very soft lighting, especially for bridal portraits. It is also nice to go in PS7 and soften the image and take out any hot spots on the faces.

rally2 · Jan 5, 2003

This is for alter shots. At receptions and for candids, it is nice to have an assistant hold a second light triggered by a radio slave

Lee Rothman · Jan 5, 2003

Hehe I see you had your "trial by fire" experience. Indeed fast lenses are the order of the day in wedding events. To be without them is to invite trouble. That 28-135IS would do fine outdoors in good sunlight, but indoors it's like "flying blind". Glad you survived it.......

Phil Forister · Jan 5, 2003

I shoot in manual mode.
1/60 to 1/90 shutter speed
f5.8 or so on the aparature

These setting help with motion bluring & DOF - the flash helps with the exposure.

With the flash (420EX) I FEL when possible & compensate when needed. Bounce when possible, use a Stofen omni bounce.

Camera & flash mounted on a quick-flip bracket for quick verticles & higher flash mount.

Since I'm still an amature, I shoot about twice as many shots as the pro!

Thanks,

Phil

Phil Forister · Jan 5, 2003

You can also boost the ISO to brighten the back of the room, but at the expense of noise, of course. Myself, I'll shoot at 400 ISO in these conditions because I prefer some noise to a dark, dark background. ISO 800 gets pretty noisy!

titus20025504773 · Jan 5, 2003

I agree with those above who said that this is normal... Having a background lit in the images requires:

. either setting the camera to expose for the background, or background -1 stop, and add the flash for the foreground
. or add another wireless flash located somewhere in the back

Anyway, since you have those images now, you can try and apply some contrast masking technique to "brighten" up your background. Lot of articles on contrast masking (do a google search), even some articles in the forum (do a search)

Regards
Titus

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=911535

Forget about the link mentioned in the article, it doesn't work

Tom Boucher · Jan 6, 2003

Thank you for your comments.

Fortunately, that's the last wedding of someone I care about for a while. The next person that I might photograph a wedding of is 3 so I have a while to learn.

So I proved to myself why I now need (big grin) the 24-70 F/2.8L and the 70-200 F/2.8L lenses

I've not gotten all the images off the camera yet, but I have paged through some of the thumbs real quick. It's not like they're all unsalvageable and all. I was just trying to figure out 'how you do it'. This chapel allowed flash photography during the wedding, but my personal wedding, and others are very against flash photography and very for dim lighting. Seems like a nightmare.

The sad part is I had the 50mm F/1.8 in my bag, I just never thought to try it instead. I liked the zoom so I could circle around the dance floor and the people without blocking the view for those sitting and such. I wanted to be un-obtrusive since I was just the brother, not the paid professional.

Don't think I'd want to be the paid professional in that instance anyway, lot of memories to be lost if you screw things up.

BigBird113522 · Jan 6, 2003

hUM... trath's very odd...

I used the same camera and lens, but a 420ex flash and my pictures actually came better than the hired pro. I just got the prints yesterday, my friends bought all my prints and about 50% of the pro. The pro were all well exposed and everything, really nice, but the amazing soft effect that I did in photoshop just made their hearts bump...

I was very, very satisfied with the pictures.

Laurie Sokoloff · Jan 6, 2003

Hope you'll post some - I'd love to see.
--
Best,
Laurie

Search

Are wedding photographers sado-masochists? (Q's on Wedding Photog)

Tom Boucher

Senior Member

Stephen Cook

Senior Member

DavidP #28649

Forum Pro

Dan Brown

Senior Member

Laurie Sokoloff

Senior Member

DaleT

Well-known member

John Mason

Guest

rally2

Well-known member

rally2

Well-known member

Lee Rothman

Guest

Phil Forister

Forum Enthusiast

Phil Forister

Forum Enthusiast

titus20025504773

Active member

Tom Boucher

Senior Member

BigBird113522

Well-known member

Laurie Sokoloff

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts