Is it Possible to Shoot a Wedding with no flash?

<p>I shoot only with available light and if it happens to be flash, then flash it shall be.<br>

Strong points of photographers like Jeff A are composition and timing, not light. He very much shoots like Cartier-Bresson. At least he's is inspired by CB and takes the light as it is, but composition is primary, that's why he uses lots of BW images. It's easier to use dodge and burn on a BW image than on a color image. If you use flash the right way you can hardly see the difference.</p>

<p>Certainly you can, but I would not advise doing so. A DX camera and f/2.8 zoom isn't going to cut it though; you need f/1.4 primes and something like a D700 or a D3s to do this (so that you can get good image quality in the lowest light levels encountered at weddings). However, the quality of light (i.e. softness, direction, color) is in many situations going to be inferior if you rely 100% on available light. Thus while I have done this a couple of times, there are situations where the outcome is considerably better if you add some flash light. A particular example is when all the existing light comes from a window which is behind the couple. E.g. in cake cutting this seems to be common. And sometimes the dinner tables are seated in this way that you have to shoot into the light and for this situation you should use flash.</p>

<p>No D3s will solve your contrast ratio problems.</p>

<p><em>No D3s will solve your contrast ratio problems.</em></p>

<p>It does to some extent. Such cameras have very good dynamic range at high ISO. That, together with fast lenses, and appropriate direction of shooting relative to the subject and the light source is one way to tame a high contrast low-light scene. Using flash presents its own problems if there are no neutral colored walls or ceilings to bounce from and if the room is packed with people ready to trip into your remote stands making them smash on the floor if you're not quick enough to catch them. This happens, you know. And even if you are able to use flash thanks to a white ceiling or wall, preserving the feeling of ambient light in the scene may require the use of high ISO. Personally I prefer to keep my flash light, if present at a sufficiently low level so that people hardly notice it. This usually means f/2 or f/1.4, ISO 800-1600 in the evening when window light is weak.</p>

<p>If, however, you mean contrast problems in bright daylight, then you're correct, it won't solve them. Thankfully I don't live in California and I don't have to shoot in that kind of light ;-)</p>

<p>As with any camera, the higher the ISO the lower the dynamic range. Everybody is carrying some sort of camera nowadays, so the guests are blasting away with their camera's, so my flash won''t hardly be noticed. During my last wedding a video guy used some horrible fluorescent light that killed the mood during the first dance instantly. The bride complaint (to me) after wards, she dared not telling this to the video guy. I was glad that I had my remote flashes: they reduced the video guy's light to a candle and recreated a better mood for images of the first dance. Try shooting that with available light, you can instantly dump the images. So be prepared for any situation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thankfully I don't live in California</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff A, lives in near Scotland where most of the time they have an overcast sky, so low contrast ratios.<br>

Again use flash if you need to, but don't make any shooting style into some sort of religion. You have to deliver in any circumstance.</p><div></div>

<p>another</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Thinking about a Nikon D7000 with a fast zoom. <em><strong>Thoughts?</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Commenting on this portion of the question only:<br />I wouldn't be thinking that way. <br />I'd be looking a a couple of 135 format cameras (aka "full frame") and a fast 35 and a fast 85 - one lens on each body.<br />I'll defer to the Nikon folk to fight out which cameras - but a pair of D700 or D3s, would be the general direction I would be heading, for Nikon DSLR.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is it possible or even desirable to shoot an entire wedding with no flash?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In short: yes!</p>

<p>Whether or not it's a good idea for you, no one can tell you but yourself. I shot the great majority of weddings without a flash. Recently I took to carrying one (well, actually, three or four) with me a lot of the time, but I know I don't <em>need</em> them. They're not there to make it possible to take pictures when I couldn't otherwise, they just give a rather <em>different</em> effect, and sometimes I like different. If they're there to make the photographer's life easier, then IMHO they are more likely to make the picture worse than better. I also (personal opinion) think that most pictures I see that have been taken with flash are worse for it.</p>

<p>So, my opinion is: yes you can shoot weddings without flash, no that doesn't mean that you <em>have to</em> avoid using flash, in most circs where people use flash they'd be better doing without, but flash does give interesting creative possibilities when used for particular purposes, and flash can be fun.</p>

<p>For those commenting about Jeff's success as an available light photographer. As some mentioned it's almost incessantly cloudy in his part of the world which helps a lot for outdoor photos contrast wise. But also take heed to his processing style. If his photo gallery is anything similiar to his delivered product, it's 85-90% black and white photos (very forgiving in terms of improper lighting conditions) many of which are post processed to have a grunge feel to them with added noise/grain in many of them via his action set. In my personal opinion, mister ascough didn't just become popular from being good at spot metering in available light situations. A lot of his photos look more like art than they do photographs. Something with a 17th century gothic feel to them. They love that sort of thing over in the Britain/Scotland area. I doubt if it would fly where I'm from (southwestern ontario - canada) but I've never seen anyone from around here doing that sort of thing. Then again our population isn't nearly as big to have steady business from a particular niche market (again, in my opinion)</p>

<p>I also would like to add, I *used* to be an available light shooter only, as J.A was in fact to me, as Cartier Bresson is to him. However, I since have become mesmorized by mister van niekerk who has taught me a lot from his blog about how to properly use flash. Now I couldn't imagine not using it in many circumstances, again, unless I was going for something very specifically niche like J.A in terms of final product looks. My personal work is very B&W grunge similiar to the way J.A's wedding photos turn out... but I simply can't bring myself to try to market my wedding photography in the same way. My market here seems to prefer the crisp clean color photos.</p>

<p>In my experience, flash is must in the wedding photography. As there may be moments where the proper lights are not present, in that case if you have a flash, it will add the light and lights in photographs will be perfect.</p><div></div>

<p>The bride has a good expression and is well lit but the groom's eyes are half closed, which is quite typical in flash photographs (with luck and increasing the number of shots you can perhaps avoid it). The couple are both obviously posing for the camera. The top part of the cake is burned by the flash. The color mismatch between the foreground and background is not appealing. (So yes, thank you very much, I'll take J.A.'s black and white, though I don't like added noise.)</p>

<p>Available light photographers often do so in order to avoid making it obvious to the subjects that they are photographed just then and there. Expressions frequently change when the first flash goes off. Eyes are blinked. Lighting gradients appear which were not at the scene at the time of the event. New color is given to the scene (it can be good or bad). Complicated additional accessories are needed and sometimes guests trip into them. Nothing really looks like it did at the time as remembered by the guests. The photographer who uses flash will often take a good part of the attention at the event. So the outcome had better look pretty amazing if the event itself is so much less important than the photographs to warrant this kind of distraction.</p>

<p>Not sure I agree Ilkka, even though I am a proponent of ambient shooting whenever possible. I seriously doubt that use of a speed-light is a distraction at any modern wedding. A lot of the guests are also shooting flash photos ... and I mean a LOT.</p>

<p>Closed eyes can happen just as often with available light as with flash use. Speed-lights with pre-flash are more prone making people blink, so turn it off if it happens to often.</p>

<p>Burning out foreground objects is due to using on-camera flash and too much of it ... as opposed to dragging the shutter and using the ambient. A simple off-camera cord can allow you to hold the speed-light higher and pointed away from the foreground objects. Off camera lighting fired with a radio trigger allows use at positions to avoid the foreground altogether.</p>

<p>Many folks over-use flash so it gets a bad reputation ... but like anything, it just takes practice and perseverance until you master it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Indeed it <em>is </em>possible, but as has been alluded to, it's difficult to do it <em>well</em>. I have found my style has evolved a lot; I now don't use flash for the getting ready or ceremony shots but I do so for the reception and dance (off camera).</p>

<p>I think that perhaps a lot of people don't use flash because they don't really know how to use it well. Very few IMO can shoot the entire wedding sans flash and produce consistently good images with sufficient contrast, retained highlights and sufficient shadow detail.</p>

<p>I will also say that the tools can and frequently do affect the trade. My 5D2 allows me to get images that would be nigh-on impossible had I used my trusty but long-in-the-tooth 400D (Rebel XTi) even with the same glass...</p>