Would you do a wedding without a flash?

I got a call from a potential client yesterday. Her future daughter-

in-law may want to limit or eliminate the use of flash photography

for a sunset wedding and then the indoor reception which follows.

 

I have a D200 and could use my 50mm 1.8 (I may have to bump up the

ISO a bit - not sure of the indoor lighting that will be

available). although I could probably get very good results, I am

thinking that it might be best to pass on a job from a client that

makes a request such as this.

 

Comments?

I'd take it, and love it.

No, I wouldn't do it. There are circumstances where I feel flash is a necessity at a wedding, and I almost always encounter lighting challenges that a flash takes care of easily.

 

What happens if that beachfront ceremony gets started later than anticipated and you have no useful light left?

 

What about the reception location? It may be too dark to even use ISO 1600 effectively. Better check it out beforehand.

 

I've just been doing this for too long to think that shooting without flash is very challenging at best. You'd better know exactly what you are doing.

Part of being a good wedding photographer is being a good salesperson. Technically, I would do what you mentioned in bumping the ISO to your camera's maximum and using as fast a lens as possible. Since you will incur grain, you may want to pick up a noise reduction software program such as Noise Ninja to reduce it. You may also want to create the images as B&W so even with the grain - they will be "Avant Gard" but if it were me - I would speak to the customer and explain that I would shoot as many non-flash images as possible but if the lighting is to low - ask the customer what is more important - poor or no images without a flash or capturing the lifetime memories with one? If the customer still does not want flash and you have explained the situation - I would take the money, do the best I could and if the customer is not satisfied - you did warn him. If you are dealing with a written agreement - I would put a notation of not being responsible for poor images due to no flash. One thing I have been using lately is Gary Fongs Lumisphere on my flash - the flash does go off, but the images are shadowless and totally have the look of natural light. Good luck.

Nope.

Yes - gladly.

I'd do it if they were adamant, but A) I'd walk her through some of the implications of that and B) I have a bag full of f/1.4 lenses.

To me, a lot of the motivation for hiring a pro to do a wedding is the assumption that they know how to do it- so it seems silly to put some restriction like this on the work. Sort of like telling your doctor what scalpel to use.

 

Anyway, I'm not a big fan of flash- but I have noticed through the years that part of the secret of not using flash is having the right expectations (in some cases, that means low expectations!). I've seen a lot of photos with fill-flash in the magazines that didn't really look any better to me- many people think they do, and expect that look.

 

You might consider that if they are facing the wrong direction, you don't have any way to fix the lighting. If they're well lit, they're liable to be squinting. If their backs are to the sun, you'll either blow out the background or get silhouettes of all the people. If they're turned sideways to the sun, their eyes may become inky voids. (If they're facing out of the sun, the audience will be facing into it?) That beautiful golden sunset (if it is beautiful that day) will also throw color balance off. If the wedding is delayed, or runs long, you may run out of light. Or, if it's cloudy that day, it will get "dark" earlier than the assumed time. If the site proposed is not actually exposed to the setting sun, you'll have only indirect lighting during the sunset.

 

I have made some pretty neat pictures by exposing for the background sunset and then using flash on the foreground- you might point that technique out to them. Would work especially well if their backs are to the sun.

 

And I would suggest some test shots at the same time relative to sunset as the wedding will be- might help to show them what they're in for. At the same place, if possible.

 

What are the odds the reception place is lit by fluorescents?

Sure, but probably only using B&W film, and I'd want to use a tripod for any posed formals.

Another idea if they were set on this is to try to arrange to do some of the shots prior to the wedding that you might normally do afterwards.

If they are paying--and know the results are not optimum ..because of their request >> no problem ::: send the deposit--make sure you are paid in full the day of !

Absolutely yes: sometimes I have no choice - I've done a couple where ancient wall hangings or paintings mean rigorous "no flash" policy and guests have cameras taken off them on arrival just in case! The National Trust told me at one venue that one flash was the equivalent of 5 days direct sunlight in terms of the damage caused. Tripods were also banned (potential floor damage) - I found f2 on 400 film adequate though, and careful framing / positioning meant the wide aperture wasn't a problem with keeping subjects sharp.

 

I've also got acceptable 10x8's from ISO's > 700 on a D70 so I'd think the D200 would be perfectly capable of doing the job without flash.

 

Hope that helps.

I would agree to a limited amount of flash but not no flash. You will need the flash to balance the light sometimes (couple with sunset in background) and you may well need the flash later in the evening. As the photographer you have to choose the tools for the job. You probably would not tell your local mechanic not to use air tools nor would you tell a carpenter not to use a power plane.

I'd do it, but in your contract you would have written "AS IS," with the photo's. Some will of course be blurred. Color will be off. Very grainy and any other words you can think of to put in the contract. It actually sounds like fun!

how do you do a sunset without fill? What about the formals?

This sounds unrealistic. For a daytime wedding whether in or outdoors no flash would be OK, in fact preferable in many ways. For sunset and onwards they are asking for poor quality pictures I'm afraid.

This isn't a strange request IMO. Most people are used to seeing those Wee Gee style "deer in

the headlights" flash shots which would even disgust a blind person.

 

What I would do Elliot is show your client some sell balanced flash work to demonstrate that

flash can be used without it being there to most eyes. Strike a compromise where you will

shoot available light where appropriate, and suplimental flash when needed.<div></div>

I would agree with Marc Man. Obviously the the bride has no clue about photography and how light or lack of light effects the quality of a photograph. I would take a few shots at sunset of people and also take a few shots of people indoors without flash and with flash to show her the difference. If she still prohibits the use of flash, I would not take the job. With this type of market, word of mouth is everything. If other potential clients sees her wedding album full of grainy or blurry shots, they surely will not be calling you. Not a good idea in my opinion.

I appreciate all your comments and suggestions. I am not sure of the lighting, but I can adjust the white balance to compensate. I will go there prior to the event to do some test shots.

 

My main concern is whether a client like this can be made happy, period. I like a challenge so I think I will give it a try.

 

 

Thanks again all...

I'd love to do a wedding like this.

First I'd want to know why they want to do it like this so I understand exactly what they "know" about it and where the idea came from then I'd want to know "why" they want it done that way.

 

After the above I'd go over the downside then talk about the upside to it as well.

 

The venue is important to discuss. Lighting available: what is it and how much of it and where is it located. Does "sunset" mean 5:00pm in the summer which is incredibly light or does it mean 8:30pm in the summer which is still light but waning and if they are ok with darkened moody shots then give them what they want but I'd ask to practice with them in the light they want and show them the photos so they and you know what is ahead as far as photo quality.

 

My guess is that the couple wants a moody and at times a blurred photo type of shot using available light because they've seen it and want it but I'd sure find out where they've seen it so you know what their expectations are so they match your abilities. If the match is good then I'm jealous and you shoot the heck out of it but if the match is not a good one then practice for weeks so you're ready next time but pass on this one.

 

I've seen venues sprinkled with those bamboo style globes that created a great looking location for no flash both inside and outside ... lovely atmosphere and a challenge.

 

Bottom line is finding out what they know and what motivates them and how much they know about the limits placed on you as a photographer and the potential danger as far as some important photos being blurred or dark if lighting in their venue is Not Prepared for the shooting style they want and if it's not prepared ask them if they're willing to do a few simple things to prepare the venue (extra soft and effective lighting such as the bamboo globes and candles or soft lights and lamps and such) .... be CREATIVE in the lighting, ask them if they can help to create a "set" that will make successful photographs and give them the no flash they ask for as a wedding atmosphere.

 

Need a second shooter?? Contact me or another here with more experience but if you have a second shooter then your chances of survial in this wedding goes up a great deal.

 

Have Fun!

Probably the most important question to ask is why does she want to limit the use of flash? I can think of several reasons.

 

She doesn't want the ever so popular deer-in-headlight look. That's understandable.

 

She's having a sunset wedding so maybe she wants to enjoy the ambient light without being reminded of a 70s disco with the flashing lights.

 

Maybe she or somebody in the wedding is sensitive to flash. My wife is one of these people. Too many flashes of the "wrong" kind, and she'll develop a migraine. She absolutely hated my Metz flash, for example. Didn't have as many issues with either the Nikon or Canon ones. Weird. She first noticed this issue when she went to see Cats on Broadway as a kid. Lots of flashing lights. She had horrible migraines for a couple days after. Still has the same issue as an adult.

 

Until you know the reason for the request, I can't imagine how you'll come up with an acceptable solution. If you're uneasy, then pass it up.

 

As a client, I sure wouldn't sign anything saying the photographer isn't responsible for presenting bad images. As the photographer, if I were not confident of delivering quality pictures without using a flash, then I'd pass on this particular opportunity.

 

 

Eric

If it were in a motion picture sound stage, and had perfect 3:1 lighting throughout, no problem.

 

Otherwise, this is a silly question. Both digital and conventional photography exaggerate contrast. And weddings have quite high brightness ranges, and often very contrasty "mixed" light.

 

 

 

So simply put, properly used "flash" , is the only way to "level" to the field. (Unless you seek some avant guard, new wave, cutting edge, really contrasty look?)

 

The outdoors is lit randomly by the sun. And indoors is lit so people can see horizontal things (table tops,books,etc), not vertical things.

 

 

Proper "modeling" of 3 D objects require lighting from altogether different angles than interior designers ever consider. And bright cloudy days, or really softened non directional lighting, tend to flatten things.

 

Could I shoot a wedding w/o a flash? Yes. Would I do it? No.

This area has 'white sand' beaches and to try shooting on them (sans fill-flash) is going to give a lot of look-alike-raccoon photos from shadows in the faces. It is bright and people tend to squint. Trying to get a group of folks to un-squint, while working fast with a setting sun would be a "fun" event for the photographer.

 

 

 

Your idea of trying a few test images before the wedding may show the bride-to-be that her idea needs adjusting.

You have to speak with the bride and find out what her objection to flash is. Some people find flash to be intrusive and annoying, and other poeple don't like the look of it. At times we all have to work with no flash permitted during ceremonies. We can get good images during a ceremony because subjects aren't moving quickly, or at all.

 

Trying to shoot the entire wedding, at night, with a 50/1.8 without flash is going to give crappy results. A 50/1.8 has the FOV of a 75mm lens and that's too long for many shots. You can't shoot much at f1.8 because the DOF is too shallow and in dim light the AF won't work precisely enough to get the one thing you want in focus, in focus reliably. (I have a D200.) Basically, at the reception, you have to be able to shoot at 1/60 @ f2.8, or you're not going to get pictures that the client will be happy with.

 

Clients aren't going to happy if the pictures look crummy, even if they were caused by technical constraints that they imposed. Bottom line: I wouldnﾒt take a job where the quality of my work was going to be seriously compromised due to client restrictions.

The responses to this question show alot about the responders personal tastes and styles.

Elliot you need to decide for yourself how comfortable you are working under the requested

conditions. If what they want doesn't fit how you like to work maybe you should pass on it.

But before doing that get more information about what they mean. It could be a friend or

someone gave them bad information like "a good photographer never uses flash" showing

samples of work with flash and explaining why it is appropriate to use under some

circumstances can help too.