ejder

<p>If you bounce them consider 1/2 or 3/4 cto (or combine 1/2 with 1/4) if the surfaces are dark wood, since they project a certain amount of orange already.</p>

<p>Ambient light, check ISO/apertures for 1/125-1/200 shutters. If you can get ISO3200, f/1.4-ish 1/125-1/200, that's plenty of light IMO. If not, or if you don't have f/1.4 primes, flash is probably going to be necessary.</p> <p>I use fast primes partly because receptions are so frequently dim.</p> <p>Once you know ambient light levels, try on-camera flash bounced against the ceiling slightly behind and at an angle, see if your flash can keep up with that at ~1-3 stops below ambient. If not, try bare on-camera flash with the white popup pushing forward (or an omnibounce or whatever) as a last resort and see if you get consistent results. I don't use the latter for my own work, but some people do.</p> <p>Gigantic monolights bare and direct in a place like that would probably be nuking (too much power). Then again, I use ISO1600-4000 regularly for receptions, so I need less power. Off-camera hotshoe flashes are typically enough for me. Mount flashes high, sometimes in opposite corners with different channels (if you can activate multiple channels at once), check exposures and see if you can blend with ambient light/mood. I encourage CTO filters/gels for flash/moonlight output to better match ambient tones.</p> <p>But there are plenty of photographers out there who are better at lighting receptions than I am.</p>

<p>Well, photo.net deleted my entire post before I could post it...but the summary is this:<br> I had about $3500 in camera equipment before I even attempted wedding photography as a second photographer. It was very limiting and I wouldn't do it again unless I had to.<br> Multiple camera bodies = 100% must for wedding photography as a HIRED photographer. I've had at least 2 camera failures during weddings, including a newish camera, in the past several years.<br> I've been using 5d2s for 4+ years I think. Still my most reliable cameras for weddings. I have a 5d3 that I strongly dislike (except for the silent shutter mode) and a D750 that I like quite a lot, but the 5d2s are still my "bread and butter" cameras. I would probably transition to 2-3 Nikon D750s and maybe a D810 alongside (for portraits) if I could afford to.<br> Don't cheap out for wedding photo gear unless you want to miss tons of important shots like processionals, sudden/unexpected moments, etc., and then later have to explain to the clients that it was your equipment's fault.<br> Gear opens up doors, but you have to walk through them yourself.</p>

<p>Within my first few years of wedding photography I discovered that the Tamron 28-75 would not focus nearly fast enough to get in-focus images of processionals or dancing subjects. It can't track well enough. It has great optics, but it focuses too slowly. In low light, it takes even longer to acquire focus.</p> <p>IMO, focus speed is of extreme importance with wedding photography because of moving subjects and how many photo-worthy moments can happen suddenly. If your lens doesn't lock fast enough, you missed the shot. If your lens can't track the moving target, you missed the shot.</p> <p>I bought the Canon 24-70 years ago, then sold it, then bought another and sold that later when I moved to primes. However, the focus was like lightning compared to the Tamron 28-75, and I can say without reservation that the faster focus allowed me to get many shots I simply could NOT hope to get with the slower-focusing Tamron 28-75. It tracked better, it locked faster, like night and day, the difference between Zt! and Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....zzzzzzzz...t. But without any sound.</p> <p>As a primary/solo photographer, I would not use the Tamron 28-75 for weddings unless I had no other choice. If my second shooter was using the 28-75 (if I had a second), I would expect many more out of focus images because of slow focus speed, and I'd never expect a good processional photo from them. However, if ALL they are shooting is static, nonmoving subjects with no time constraints, then it's a great lens for that.</p> <p>And just for reference, a lot of photographers don't know how to use 24-26mm focal length so they are oblivious to the kind of perspective distortion it can destroy a photo with. I never recommend the 17-50/17-55 variants for that reason. Plus, the Tamron 17-50 actually focuses SLOWER than the Tamron 28-75.</p>