Finally . . . my first wedding photos!

studio460 · April 6, 2014

brian yarvin · April 6, 2014

Ralph:

They're filled with energy and emotion! Wonderful!

dave_wilson1 · April 6, 2014

That's good Ralph, everything worked out for you.

Now, go over all the shots and select maybe two dozen to make some observations and notes about the details of the

specific lighting, exposure balance, composition, logistics and any unique problems with each that you incurred and how

you would improve them in the future.

And, in your case, lol, review your equipment and what was particularly useful, and what was just a drag to carry along and maybe simplify your game some.

Cheers, Dave

studio460 · April 7, 2014

Brian said:

They're filled with energy and emotion! Wonderful!

</blockquote>

Thank you, Brian!

studio460 · April 7, 2014

Dave said:

And, in your case, lol, review your equipment . . .

</blockquote>

I ended up using only the following four lenses:

• AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VR.

• AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4.

• Sigma 35mm f/1.4.

• Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS.

Also, I did end up using three bodies for the procession/ceremony/recession:

• Nikon D3s body 'A' + Sigma 35mm f/1.4: ISO 2,000; f/1.4 @ 1/200th.

• Nikon D3s body 'B' + AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G: ISO 2,000; f/1.4 @ 1/200th.

• Nikon D800E + AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VR + SB-800: ISO 800; 1/250th @ f/5.6.

I shot the procession carrying only one body, the Nikon D800E + MB-D12 with a Speedlight on a rotating bracket and a Quantum Turbo on my hip, then I retreated behind the altar where I dumped my entire D800E rig. I had the two D3s bodies lying on a chair behind the altar: I shot the couple's vows with the 85mm f/1.4 body (I processed these to B+W since there were four different color-temperature sources in the room), and shot the candle-lighting image using the 35mm f/1.4 body. At the end of the ceremony, I dropped the two D3s bodies, picked-up the D800E rig again, and hustled down a side-aisle to catch the recession (next time, I'll pre-set a TT5-triggered Speedlight behind the altar to light the background for the recession):

bruce_rubenstein · April 7, 2014

I'm sorry, but this a an example of you can buy toys, but not talent. The tow isle shots look like they were done with a P&S with direct on camera flash. !/250 sec @ISO 800? The church interior is a black hole. You had a camera that could have been set to record the ambient light at -1 stop and used bounced on camera flash to bring up the exposure on the subjects in the foreground. Since the flash freezes motion, 1/60 sec. would have prevented motion blur from the ambient.

You probably spent more on your lighting then most people spend on their gear in a life time, but someone who who knew what they were doing, could have done better with a Vivitar 283. Shooting a wedding isn't amusing yourself with toys.

pete_s. · April 7, 2014

Come on Bruce, this isn't about talent or not. It's about experience. Sure 1/60s of second would have been more appropriate, together with a pet peeve of mine I would say - cto gel on the flash.

But the first wedding isn't about perfection, it's about not screwing up. It's also about satisfying the client. Then you work on correcting any small mistakes or technical issues until the next wedding. When all the kinks are worked out you can start improving on the art and creativity.

Even if you are an accomplished shooter in other disciplines, it's unrealistic to expect that you can right of the bat do a job as good as as someone who have years of experience.

bruce_rubenstein · April 7, 2014

The only appeal to this tread is that this is a gear site and $40k worth of gear was used. Ugly images aren't a technical detail for photographers, although it may be for Boyz with Toys.

It's also about satisfying the client.

</blockquote>

Where's the satisfied client? How much did this satisfied client pay anyway?

Marcus Ian · April 7, 2014

Bruce, I think your comments are considerably out of context. You should probably read the three prior extensive posts where Ralph (an experienced professional photog, though not a wedding photog) Asked questions, and got great responses - many of which he listened to very well... The gear he used almost exclusively as gear he already had.

If butting in at the end, please make sure you understand what is going on, not doing so is very very rude.

As Pete said, the first time isn't about perfection, it's about getting through without frakking it up to badly. Sure there's plenty to improve upon, but for a first time shooting a wedding it ain't bad at all... My first wedding looked very similar, how about yours - was the first wedding you shot perfect in every way?

shawn_mertz · April 7, 2014

very strong set of photos.

one could get picky about how to light isle photos but you avoided the major mistakes.

studio460 · April 8, 2014

Pete said:

But the first wedding isn't about perfection, it's about not screwing up.

</blockquote>

Yup! That was my primary goal this first time out!

. . . Then you work on correcting any small mistakes or technical issues until the next wedding. When all the kinks are worked out you can start improving on the art and creativity.

</blockquote>

Yes, so after shooting this first wedding, I now have a lot more ideas on how to improve for the next one . . .

Options for shooting the recessional:

• Direct, on-camera, TTL-flash: Least desirable aesthetically, but most "mistake-proof." • Ceiling-bounced, on-camera flash: Impractical for many venues due to high ceilings, dark-colored surfaces, etc. • Pre-set additional venue lighting (e.g., radio-slaved monolights, Speedlights, etc.). • Exposing for ambient (i.e., "dragging the shutter"): Highly desirable, aesthetically; risks ghosting if too much ambient falls on primary subjects.

Case study: Basic exposure information for this particular venue may be derived from the candle-lighting scene at the altar (posted previously), which was exposed at ISO 2,000; f/1.4 @ 1/200th. Even though the background exposure is already about a stop under, let's reduce the ambient exposure even further by an additional stop by shifting our "target" ISO to 1,000. Now, say we reduce the shutter speed to 1/50th (for convenience's sake), resulting in a two-stop increase in light-gathering ability.

Now, let's move from an f/1.4 aperture, to a more comfortable f/4.0 aperture. This represents a three-stop decrease in light-gathering ability. A three-stop loss, plus a two-stop gain equals a net loss of one-stop. Double the target ISO from 1,000 to 2,000, and here we have a starting point for this venue: i.e., ISO 1,000; f/4.0 @ 1/60th. To prevent ghosting, I would guess a two-stop difference between ambient and flash to be "safe," and a workable ratio, somewhere between one and two stops (my Las Vegas hotel shutter-dragging tests were in excess of two stops with no visible ghosting).

I think in the future, I'll employ both additional venue lighting, plus ambient exposure technique. I'd definitely like to at least place one Speedlight behind the altar to produce a soft glow on the rear wall (similar to what I did in the bridal formal posted previously), then add something like a Quantum Model T (or, simply another Speedlight) for a "room backlight." Combining some additional lighting, plus a dragged shutter should produce very rich-looking shots, full of detail, color, and contrast.

studio460 · April 8, 2014

Shawn said:

very strong set of photos . . .

</blockquote>

Thanks, Shawn!

savagesax · April 8, 2014

Can you post all of the images, a link? Just to me or to this site. Your choice.

Everything that everyone has said so far are surely correct. I really need to see most or all of the images. Bad or good, it doesn't matter to me.

Ralph, I'm not out to pass judgement, but I will comment on your images both good and bad through emails if you are interested. Show you how to use Photoshop when needed to help you become a master at PS and shooting weddings.

There is surely an array of professional order here, meaning that some of us are beginners and others of us are seasoned pros, with 20 or more years of experience. We also have people that have shot weddings for just a year and their talent and creativeness often blows my mind.

So Ralph be very open minded, don't get mad, there's some positive and negative energy floating around this post.

I ask that the people posting to Ralph's first wedding to show Ralph some examples of your work to help him grow into a very fine photographer.

With your examples, lets show Ralph how you captured a great image, the shutter speeds, the lighting, the posing, all of it.

Actually a lot of his images can be corrected through Photoshop. Maybe take one of his photos and adjust it.

It's 1 AM, I made a very fast 30 second adjustment. I know it's far from perfect, however Photoshop can fix some of his problems. Let's try and help him out.

Thanks! bob<div></div>

savagesax · April 8, 2014

My last pic adjustment before hitting the bed! Yes folks he made mistakes, with the use of PS corrections they aren't too bad.

Ralph, take some time and make some adjustments.

Folks, fellow friends, he was probably 2 plus stops underexposed. It's not too bad now.

Again, a very fast 30 second adjustment.<div></div>

rab_l · April 8, 2014

I don't normally post here although I do look in from time to time. I don't post because I don't share the general aesthetic of the forum, which seems to be very flash oriented and not something I personally like, but I was intrigued by your approach as I don't think I've read of anyone going to a wedding with such an arsenal of equipment as you did.

I have to say, I think the area you most need to address is basic composition, you don't seem to me to have paid any attention to foreground or background in any of the shots you've posted so far. Most of your images include details creeping into the frame which could either have been excluded, or included with a compositional balance. Even your set shot of the bridesmaids has a bit of plant, a bit of wall, and a bit of an arch, it's just sloppy.

I know this will sound very harsh, and I'm sorry to be mean, but you set your self up with such a seemingly encyclopaedic knowledge of gadgetry that I really thought you'd produce something quite strong. Your response to criticism has been to retreat into yet more technical jargon, but that's not the fundamental problem I'm afraid.

Marcus Ian · April 8, 2014

Fluffing the dark background definitely gives a preferable image IMO, but working the speedlites right and balancing the exposure is something that'll take time and experience (though maybe not much). I'd almost prefer to drop the subject exposure to more effectively balance the image than keep pulling up the background. I think dropping the subject ~ 2/3-1 stop would definitely reduce the contrast between light/dark areas.

Your head on flash shots were or were not diffused? It looks like not, and if that's the case, diffusing that light will give a far more natural and balanced appearance to work in such a dark church. Personally, I prefer bouncing, but that has it's limitations as well. In such a dark area, without a reliable bounce surface, I come prepared with a simple piece of gear: a 8 1/2 x 11 piece of white cardstock folded in half and rubber banded to the speedlite. It's bigger than the flash, so it curves a bit around the sides, giving 'focused',stronger bounce surface, plus it's 4x the bounce surface area, yielding far better results than simple flat cards. Further, it allows you to use the flash to light the background, while also lighting the subjects - especially if you use the diffusion panel built in.

Ian Taylor · April 8, 2014

Some nice ones.

With the incredible high ISO capabilities of some of the newer cameras, I would be trying to go the available light route with fast lenses rather than using flash. It takes a lot of skill and a huge amount of practice to make flash look natural.

ilkka_nissila · April 8, 2014

First, the dark backgrounds. If your ambient is exposed slightly dark (1 stop, judging from the picture of the candle lighting) at ISO 2,000, f/1.4, 1/200, and you want a bit more depth of field than f/1.4 for the recession/precession shots then I would stop down to f/2.8 as this gives sufficient robustness to the shots taken with autofocus. To get there and retain ambient exposure you can set the shutter to 1/100s and ISO to 4000. Your cameras can handle correctly exposed ISO 4000 shots much better than backgrounds that need to be lifted by several stops. Because of the colour of the background (candles etc.) I would use CTO (or Nikon's FL-TN1/2 according to taste) on the speedlight and set the white balance on the camera so that it correctly reads the colour of the filtered flash. From the point of view of colour, it is important that the main subjects are not greatly cooler in colour than the environment but perfect color matching is not possible nor necessary (candle light is very warm, it'll still look warm in the images shot with tungsten balanced flash and wb set according to the requirements of the filter on the flash head). By letting in adequate ambient light your images will look more natural and the subjects aren't going to look startled by the flash because at ISO 4000, f/2.8 your flash will only need to give a little bit of light. IMO the f/4 24-120 is not a good choice for this situation as it is weak at f/4 and you need a lens that's at least f/2.8 for more reliable autofocus of subjects approaching in the dark. At f/5.6 ISO 800 1/250s your background was about 6 stops underexposed. Use the 35 and/or 85 instead. If your 24-120 gets stolen or breaks down, consider replacing it with a 24-70/2.8 as you can use that more generally at indoor events. But you can get away with just using one of the primes. By using a fast camera and taking a few steps back as the subjects approach, you can get several frames. Since the ISO is now 4000 and aperture f/2.8 your flash will recycle very quickly. I would probably shoot the precession with 85mm and recession with the 35mm given those two lenses are available (prior to the ceremony it is good to focus on the emotion of the FOB and bride whereas after, I'd include the guests cheering and happily watching the bride and groom leave). The idea that you'd have a flash only body and lens doesn't seem like a good idea as you're quite far from being able to light the whole venue with flash only, using a slow lens (6 stops under is a lot). "Flash only" is possible in the studio but not realistic on many large locations. Placing remote flashes to light the back walls is not good if it leaves the other people in the background in the dark. If the wall is bright (due to being lit by flash) and the persons adjacent to it are dark it really doesn't look like any normally possible scenario of how light flows in a room. Normally it is the walls which are darker than the persons in front of it and to retain any sense of realism this kind of relationship should be maintained. As to the foreground light e.g. in the recession, if it is at all possible, I would bounce the light, again if you're at f/2.8, ISO 4000, even in a large interior there will be some light that bounces back. It'll look like it came from a giant light source so it'll look flattering. With dark, coloured surfaces this won't work though. In such a case something like the Lumiquest Big Bounce (or just a bounce card) on the on-camera flash and taking the recession shots with a 35mm wide angle would be ok for the foreground lighting. If using a tele, the "big" bounce may look like it was a small light source, but not quite as small as a pin prick light source like a direct flash. There is a bit of spill that helps enlargen the light source a little. In this case, in the church during the recession and precession I would not necessarily use a remote flash as it adds to the complexity for the sake of only a few pictures and a minute or two of the whole wedding day, and it would not let you get away with a significantly smaller aperture or lower ISO, what it would do is make the lighting look more weird unless you can really test things carefully prior to the event. During the reception you can use remotes as there is less time pressure. I realize you have affinity towards directional light that doesn't bounce around tasting the colour of the venue. However there are many adverse consequences that come from this preference. For example if you look at your second shot, of the bride, the texture of her skin is accentuated on the temple (it doesn't quite look like a burned tissue but the contrast is marked) and cheek yet invisible on the most of the forehead, which has some silverly hot areas. This is something you can avoid by using more diffuse, less collimated light. The result will make the skin look more homogeneous in texture. In the third picture the background glows bright compared to the person in front of the wall. I can't imagine a scenario where existing room lighting were designed so that walls glow bright and people are in the dark. In the group shot, the subjects are grinning for the camera - you could try to time the exposures for more natural expressions. The girl on the left side of the picture is revealed a bit too much through the clothes by the directional light that you used. The skin of the woman with dark skin has hot areas. By using softer, more diffused light (bounce light or use a shoot-through umbrella) you can avoid these issues in the future. Other issues relating to composition and content: In the third picture, the bride is looking at someone who is outside of the picture, whereas the person on the right who is included in the picture is not seemingly participating in the conversation. You could try to include both sides of the conversation in the picture, so it looks more interesting. The same is true of the picture of the groom (10th picture of the set).

michaelmowery · April 8, 2014

Bruce lets take a look at your wedding photography. Oh thats right you are not a wedding photographer. Ralph pay no mind to him you did good. I would rather have a sharp focused image with a black background than a soft image with a lit background. Keep your shutter speed where it is at. If you need light then use your additional lights that you bought to light your backgrounds. Bouncing light is not always the answer when you are in a church with high ceilings and ones with dark wood. Bouncing your strobe by the way reduces the freezing action. I have never seen stop motion photography done with bounced lighting. Think about it. Bouncing light has its place in many situations but not when there is movement.

michaelmowery · April 8, 2014

Using additional lighting will help with the quality of your files. Yes you could shoot at 4,000 iso, heck why not 10.000 iso and bounce your flash for every shot then one speed light is all you need. Ralph your smart enough to know the answer to that and I am sure you could type six page dissertation on it. One last thought on bounced light, Not all ceilings are white, even the white ones. When you bounce light you are bringing in a color cast to your images which may or may not look good. It is something to always evaluate first instead of defaulting to.

ilkka_nissila · April 8, 2014

Bouncing should not affect the ability of flash to stop movement. If the distance traveled by light is 10m through bouncing, instead of 3m direct, the time spent by light on its way to subject is 30 nanoseconds (bounced) vs. 10ns (direct). The flash pulse length is about 1ms. So the effect of bouncing is to increase the pulse duration by about 0.002%.

Here is a jump shot made by bouncing light from a speedlight by using a white truck.

http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/2011/11/30/a-new-flash/

Yes you could shoot at 4,000 iso, heck why not 10.000 iso

Because ISO 4000 on Ralph's camera(s) looks still very good correctly exposed whereas ISO 10000 would look quite thin and the noise would start to show.

We're all aware of the colour cast that can be incurred by bouncing from a coloured surface, which is why the use of a white bounce card or a Big Bounce (which is a bounce card with a diffuser in front) was recommended in case a sufficiently neutral surface in a desired direction is not available.

michaelmowery · April 8, 2014

Your comparing apples to oranges in your example. The jump shot was outside with mixed ambient lighting and the shutter speed was at is max synch speed. This is not the scenario we are discussing.

michaelmowery · April 8, 2014

using a diffuser or white bounce card will not color correct your backgrounds from the bounced light from the ceiling. I am not just referring to on camera bounce but to any additional lighting being bounced. You have to be careful and very aware of color. The wider your shots are the more you will see. If you shoot everything tight then you don't have to worry so much.

Marcus Ian · April 8, 2014

"If the distance traveled by light is 10m through bouncing, instead of 3m direct, the <a id="itxthook0" href="/wedding-photography-forum/00cVEr?start=20" rel="nofollow">time<img id="itxthook0icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> spent by light on its way to subject is 30 nanoseconds (bounced) vs. 10ns (direct). The flash pulse length is about 1ms. So the effect of bouncing is to increase the pulse duration by about 0.002%."

</blockquote>

The duration and transmittance time is not important, but even a directional flash loses most of the emitted light to dispersion - the further away, the less light strikes the subject.

Obviously the flash isn't a point source (which would yield ~1/9 of the light hitting the subject @ 10m as at 3m), but when bouncing most flashes zoom out to a 24mm FOV (84deg diag FOV). This yields a reduction of intensity on the subject by ~2/3 when a subject is 10m distant vs. 3m distant. At that reduction in usable light, it's going to be harder to freeze the subject and drag the shutter because the difference between subject and ambient is going to be ~1/3 what it would be at 3m. Most of the reason freezing the subject with your flash works is not because of duration of the flash, but because the subject during the flash is so much brighter than the motion blur. The darker that subject is (relative to ambient - ie, closer to ambient), the more apparent the motion blur is going to be.

Marcus Ian · April 8, 2014

As far as the color goes, I've tossed the idea of gelling the flashes, but after trying it a few times, decided it wasn't for me. Frankly it's an additional factor to consider, on the fly, and in the end is only really helpful when you are shooting for extended periods in fixed single color lighting. Even with straight flash, color correcting is so easy in LR on the raws that I'd rather not deal with fiddling with gels.

I would say that IME 99.5% of light color issues (esp. with flashes in yellow light) can be fixed in post in a matter of seconds by adjusting the temp & saturation to taste. The additional benefit to that is that sometimes you see a combination that really pops an image - something you wouldn't have even noticed had you not been monkeying around with it.

Sign In

Finally . . . my first wedding photos!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in