Beginner - Wedding Photography

<p>I had the opportunity to take pictures at a wedding last night. The hired, professional photographer was very gracious and allowed me to shoot in behind him when he was done shooting. He was shooting with a Nikon at ISO 400, 1/25 @ f/22. I use a Canon 60D and had a 24-70 mm f/2.8 lens. The best I could do was ISO 6400 1/30th @ 2.8. We both had hotshoe flash units. What am I doing wrong? Why was he able to shoot at these settings and I couldn't?</p><div></div>

<p>Hello Penny,<br />"<em>The best I could do was ISO 6400 1/30th @ 2.8/We both had hotshoe flash units</em>."<br />I see no resaon you would only be able to shoot @ ISO 6400 if you are shooting with flash ? Did your flash fire properly ? I do see a very low shadow at the legs , did you bounch your flash? You should be able to shoot at 400-800 ISO without problem.</p>

<p>Without knowing more about the camera setups and seeing the pro's images, it's a guessing game, but here's my best guess based on my exif data reader:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The best I could do was ISO 6400 1/30th @ 2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The attachment photo appears to have been was shot at f/5, not f2.8. <em>You used auto-exposure 'program' mode ('P' mode).</em> It also appears <em>the camera was set for -2/3 stop exposure compensation</em>. It further appears that you further adjusted a lot of things in LR3.3; the exposure: -.2 stops, brightness: +50 (!), vibrance: +27, clarity: +41, contrast: +25, and adjusted WB, did some noise reduction, crop, vignette, etc). The image also appears to have been shot as a jpg.</p>

<p>Looking at that all taken together, it would seem you need a better understanding of basic exposure, especially how the flash interacts with aperture and shutter speed, and how the exposure modes and metering system of your camera work in other than auto and 'P' modes. You should have been able to essentially duplicate his results had you shot in 'M' mode.</p>

<p>By shooting in auto-exposure mode, basically you let the camera decide the total exposure (if not also the ISO) and how much of a 'pop' the flash would contribute to the exposure (the light from your flash appears to have been minimal). In 'P' mode, if you change the shutter speed, the camera will just change the aperture to compensate and vice versa, but not the ISO. The camera's meter probably set the starting exposure and ISO (6400!) based on the ambient lighting. I'd imagine the pro shot in manual mode ('M'), allowing him control over the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed settings, and therefore how much light the flash contributed to the exposure, which was probably a great deal more than your flash was set to put out in auto-mode 'P'.</p>

<p>While f/22 seems like a small aperture to use considering diffraction, basically the aperture controls how much light from the flash gets in the photo, and the shutter speed controls the ambient light that gets in the photo. I'd imagine that his shots and yours had a different 'look' as far as the background in the room goes. His shots very likely minimized the background (which is quite distracting) more than yours. Were you able to see his images to compare?</p>

<p>I would also recommend you start shooting RAW instead of jpg, or RAW + jpg if your camera allows it. If you're going to adjust things that much in post, you're ready for it. I think you'll find it easier to maintain better image quality with post-processing adjustments, particularly for noise reduction.</p>

According to the EXIF info on your photo, you had the camera set to -0.67 EV (2/3rd stops darker). Why would you do that shooting indoors? You didn't need 6400 ISO when using flash, and the flash did fire but only needed to put out very little light because of the 6400 ISO and -0.67 EV.

<p>If you shot at say F8, at ISO 400 with a high shutter speed. You could have made all that distracting background stuff go black.In this type of picture, the people are the important part. Not the back of the room. Also I'd have them lower their flowers. This makes them look longer and thinner. And of course this type of shot is much nicer when all eyes are looking at the lens.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1549204780480&set=a.1026082982762.2003890.1545906166&ref=nf" alt="" />Okay check out this photo..<br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1549204780480&set=a.1026082982762.2003890.1545906166&ref=nf">photo.php</a></p>

<p><img src="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1549204780480&set=a.1026082982762.2003890.1545906166&ref=nf" alt="" />Okay check out this photo..<br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1549204780480&set=a.1026082982762.2003890.1545906166&ref=nf">photo.php</a></p>

<p><img src="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1549204780480&set=a.1026082982762.2003890.1545906166&ref=nf" alt="" />Okay check out this photo..<br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1549204780480&set=a.1026082982762.2003890.1545906166&ref=nf">photo.php</a></p>

<p><img src="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1549204780480&set=a.1026082982762.2003890.1545906166&ref=nf" alt="" />Okay check out this photo..<br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1549204780480&set=a.1026082982762.2003890.1545906166&ref=nf">photo.php</a></p>

<p>You've linked to facebook. Not everyone has or wants a facebook account. I do have a fb account, but there's no content at the link:</p>

<blockquote>

<h2>This content is currently unavailable</h2>

<p>The page you requested cannot be displayed right now. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page.</p>

<ul>

<li> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php">Return home</a> </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>He was shooting with a Nikon at ISO 400, 1/25 @ f/22.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>According to who? f/22 is far too small of an aperture indoors, even with flash.... unless it is a very big flash! And as others have pointed out- you need to gain an understanding of how exposures works. </p>

<p>I think he was feeding you a line if he really said f/22. Perhaps he just didn't want you to do what he was doing.</p>

 

Thanks Jim your feedback is helpful. I realize I need help which is why I asked for it. I was thinking what I was being

told was wrong, just needed someone elses opinion. Photographers can be mean spirited.

<blockquote>

<p>"Photographers can be mean spirited."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No: it is some people who are mean spirited, not just a group of people, selected by profession.<br>

Anyway, I would not be that quick to jump to that conclusion.</p>

<p>Jim wrote: “<em><strong>if he really said f/22</strong></em>”.<br>

He might not have said that. It is only one of the many possibilities.<br>

You might have heard that: but he might not have said that.</p>

<p>For example, if he were using a Prime Lens he might have been using F/2.2.<br>

When I am talking <em><strong>on the job</strong></em> to an assistant or second shooter and they ask what I am shooting at, I will NOT say:</p>

<p>“I am shooting at EYE-ESS-OH four hundred, at one twenty-fifth of a second, at EF Twenty Two”<br>

I would say “TWO-TWO, Twenty Five at Four Hundred”<br>

Also the pro might have said: "EF-TWO-TWO".<br>

I speak the words "EF-FIVE-SIX" all the time and I am communicating F/5.6 . . . NOT F/56.</p>

<p>I note that in the first image you linked the Women are in a straight-line formation.<br>

If you were shooting beside or behind the Pro, it is very possible he was using F/2.2 @ 1/25s @ ISO400 with diffused (or bounced) on camera flash and purposely dragging the shutter, to get a warm ambient OoF Background.</p>

<p>A Full Length Shot, Horizontal Format provides about 3ft DoF at F/2.2 (135 format) and that would be quite safe for a straight line arrangement,. There is more DoF at F/2.2 if he were using and APS-C Nikon.</p>

<p>I would not be so quick to judge the integrity of the Professional, without all the facts of the matter at hand. </p>

<p>WW</p>

 

I wasn't referring to that photographer. He was very nice to me.

<p>. . . then if it wasn't the pro at the wedding who "said he was shooting at f/22" who was telling you wrong. . . <br />I am confused as to whom the person is, who is telling you wrong . . . here when you write this . . . <br /><em><strong>"I was thinking what I was being told was wrong, just needed someone elses opinion." </strong></em><br>

Who do you mean?<br />Who is telling you wrong?<br />And what is it that you are being told that is wrong?</p>

<p>***<br>

<br />Any way . . . apropos the help you are seeking do you understand that the Pro could have been shooting at F/2.2 and the general gist of what I wrote?<br /><br />And also, as DBC wrote - the Pro could have been using F/22 and be isolating his flash fall off to get a very dark background. And also do you understand the problems caused by you using Program Mode with on camera Flash at such an high ISO, as DBC explained?<br /><br />Also on that first image you have a physical vignette, bottom left: it looks like something is in the path of your flash, rather than in the path of your lens.</p>

<p><br />WW</p>

 

<p>Perhaps he said f/2 or f/3.2 and you misheard him?</p>

<p>Edit: yeah, what WW said, posted before I hit submit. :)</p>

<p>I got intrigued with the post, so I set up a few quick-and-dirty test shots since I'd never shot flash at <em>f</em>/22. Here's one - ISO 400, 1/25 sec. , f/22, D7000, 24-70 f/2.8G @26mm, SB-800, 11.15 ft. subject distance, manual exposure, manual flash, full pop. There's plenty of light to do it. Several SOOC jpg's from the test are in my gallery in a folder named 'Flash Test'. Various ones are there...TTL and Manual, flash diffuser or none, 0 to +3 EV TTL flash compensation, all shot at ISO 400, 1/25 sec., <em>f</em>/22. Shot RAW + jpg/small/basic. The folder shots lack any in-camera jpg adjustments...I run jpg as flat as I can to get a more realistic LCD preview, so the test shots lack any kind of punch. The attachment was from RAW with a quick trip through LR3: auto tone, auto WB, lens profile correction, a bit of sharpening and NR, that's about it...just enough to show it's possible.</p>

<p>@William: I would have shot the original scene to dim down the tourist flyer rack and Holiday Inn bell desk some, but without knowing the pro's intention or seeing his result, IMO it's just a guess to say which aperture he used or why. He could have isolated the b/g either way - dimming it or blurring with shallow depth of field. Who knows? At this point, though, it gets obvious that the OP prefers 'answer shopping' to learning something and improving her photography. That's unfortunate, but it's her choice to make. I'll gladly take on the 'mean spirited' label if that's what I get for being honest and making the time investment to try and help her out. I think now that my time would be better spent another way.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>D.B. broke it down pretty good. I'm not sure what type of flash you were using, but if you were using a Canon EX speedlight in 'P' /ETTL mode, then the shutter speed and aperture should have been automatically set depending on the ISO and ambient light conditions. If you got a reading of f2.8 @ ISO 6400 either your flash and camera were not comunicating, or the flash was OFF and what you saw was the ambient meter reading.</p>

<p>Your photographer pal must have some pretty steady hands to shoot at 1/25 since this often produces ghosts, but I'm not an expert. Setting the camera to "Manual /ETTL mode" does allow you to shoot at small apertures without any significant loss of flash power. I like to switch to f16 when shooting groups, or when I want a crystal clear background but mostly I keep it a 5.6/f8 or so, usually at ISO 400-800. Shooting weddings is pretty hard work, you have to constantly juggle with different lighting conditions. I keep my fingers on the WB, Color Temperature, FEC and ISO even the AF buttons throughout the entire wedding.</p>

According to the EXIF data the flash did fire but this looks like an ambient light photo. The lighting on the far wall and doorway on the right of the photo looks the same as the lighting on the subjects. The woman on the right looks as if she didn't have quite as much ambient light falling on her. At f/5, 1/60 sec, 6400 ISO and -2/3 EV there should have been enough ambient light for the photo. The flash did fire but perhaps it only put out a very small amount of added light such as 1 WS which did nothing..

<p>I believe the Flash Fired:</p>

<ul>

<li>the EXIF (which I very much doubt has been manipulated) </li>

<li>catch lights and specula highlights across the five women eyes teeth (some) lips necklaces; bracelets; rings</li>

<li>hard shadows of calves; shins; dresses and bouquets</li>

</ul>

<p>Another element of interest to me in this analysis is that all these indicators imply the flash is positioned camera left at camera height, which would be commensurate with a shot pulled Vertical Format, with an hot-shoe flash mounted or maybe the OP was using a bracket.<br />***</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>“Without knowing more about the camera setups and seeing the pro's images<strong>, it's a guessing game</strong></em>” (DB Cooper).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I agree.<br />***<br />DBC - thanks for the samples. I do not think I have shot Flash at F/22, either. I agree that I too would have smothered that brochure rack and other clutter, background left.<br />On the technical points how to do that: <br />I don’t think that either Shallow DoF or Flash Fall off would have done an adequate job.<br />My best guess is the Professional Photographer had a different Camera Vantage point and did not have that particular area of background in frame. <br />I also think it more likely he was using F/2.2 (or another aperture larger than F/22 and as Jim suggested was telling fibs), and he was using Shallow DoF to blur the flat background and make those hanging lights quite pretty.<br />I make that guess mainly because of the Straight Line Arrangement . . . but as you stress it is only an educated guess as to what he was actually doing.</p>

<p>*** <br /><strong>Addressing the original Question: </strong></p>

<p>When I read the OP’s question I, this phrase appeared as the most important to me: <strong><em>“What am I doing wrong?”</em></strong></p>

<p>My first glance of the sample image revealed the hallmarks of: Underexposed, Too high an ISO, Inadequate Flash Fill; Poor Post Production Technique attempting to address exposure mistakes.<br />Reading the responses, I noted DBC had investigated both the Shooting EXIF and Post Production and those details concurred with my visual analysis.<br />I also noted DBC had given much the same advice I would have given- especially to insist the OP understand the use of Program Mode when using Flash – and understand what the implications of setting (or having the camera set) ISO6400, in that scenario and understand Flash exposure, generally, when using all Camera Modes.</p>

<p>There wasn’t much I could add to DBC’s comments addressing the request: <strong><em>“What am I doing wrong?”</em></strong>: but there was an alternative “guess” about the “F/22” part of the question – hence my posting the possibility that the Pro Photographer might not have been using F/22, but rather the OP just miss-heard him.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>At this point, I too am at a loss as to what more to offer this thead, except this: <br />The header to this forum states:</p>

<p><em>“This forum is for <strong>basic questions about techniques for new photographers.</strong> Due to this, the Beginner's forum is much more tightly moderated than other Photo.net forums<strong>. Experienced photographers</strong> who can <strong>offer patient, helpful and informative replies </strong>are<strong> greatly appreciated here</strong>!”</em></p>

<p>It seems obvious to me that the problems in the posted sample are basic. <br />A basic non-understanding of Flash Techniques and Exposure.<br />Addressing this lack of understanding - <strong><em>is exactly what will assist the OP</em></strong>, irrespective of what the Professional Photographer at the Wedding was attempting to do and what F-stop he was using to do that.</p>

<p>It also seems obvious to me that the last phrase of the header of this forum implies that the “<em>patient, helpful and informative replies<strong>” are to be appreciated</strong></em> . . .<br /><strong><em></em></strong><br>

I really think that there is only one group of people who need to appreciate these replies – and it isn’t those folk who take the time to scribe them.<br>

<br />So that only leaves: <strong><em>the group of people who pose the questions and seek help</em></strong>. . .</p>

<p>So, if “mean spirited” is indeed directed to any of the responses far thus on this thread, then I shall further address the question: <strong><em>“What am I doing wrong?” </em></strong></p>

<p>I suggest you add to your list: Wrong attitude.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>As an old timer and completely, well more or less, ignorant of modern equipment I am suprised that you have trouble with a flash photo since it is just about the easiest way to take photos.<br>

The trouble as I see it is that modern equipmewnt has been carefully organised to take the miniscule amount of thinking away from the photographers.<br>

The way I started and continue to take flash photographs is to know the Guide Number of my flash unit. This a small one and only 56. This means that with a flash to subject distance of ten feet I use f/5.6. If I was five feet from the subject I would use f/11 [ 56/5=11+ ] and at 7ft I would used f/8 ... it gets a bit tricky when you go in for a shot of the wedding cake from around four feet and instead of f/16 you need to use f/22 so you don't burn out the white cake [ or white wedding dress ] If you separate flash from camera it doesn't matteer where the camera is it is the flash to subject that detirmines the f/stop to use.<br>

So if you are not sure how your equipment works or the situation I highly reccomend you fall back on this simple way of doing things which has been around since 1950's and probably long before.<br>

This based on the fact that light [ and sound] falls off in strength at the inverse square of the distance.</p>

<p>As an old timer and completely, well more or less, ignorant of modern equipment I am suprised that you have trouble with a flash photo since it is just about the easiest way to take photos.<br>

The trouble as I see it is that modern equipmewnt has been carefully organised to take the miniscule amount of thinking away from the photographers.<br>

The way I started and continue to take flash photographs is to know the Guide Number of my flash unit. This a small one and only 56. This means that with a flash to subject distance of ten feet I use f/5.6. If I was five feet from the subject I would use f/11 [ 56/5=11+ ] and at 7ft I would used f/8 ... it gets a bit tricky when you go in for a shot of the wedding cake from around four feet and instead of f/16 you need to use f/22 so you don't burn out the white cake [ or white wedding dress ] If you separate flash from camera it doesn't matteer where the camera is it is the flash to subject that detirmines the f/stop to use.<br>

So if you are not sure how your equipment works or the situation I highly reccomend you fall back on this simple way of doing things which has been around since 1950's and probably long before.<br>

This based on the fact that light [ and sound] falls off in strength at the inverse square of the distance.<br>

That Guide Number of mine is for 100 ISO if I was to increase to 200ISO the guide number would not double but, the easiest way to remember for me anyway, follow the apertures ... so 56 with 100 ISO become 80 with 200 ISO and 110 with 400 ISO .... f/5.6 ...f/8 ....f/11</p><div></div>

<p>I could add that my flashgun has a way of ecconomising on batteries if I use it. The above way uses full power for every shot whereas with the battery saving modes the flash measures the light coming back from the subject and cuts off when it has enough to light the subject so with one setting I can work at f/8 from 7ft back to about 1.5feet another I use f/5.6 all the time. My flash is at least 30 years old and still working fine.</p><div></div>

<p>Finally, I must let the cat in and go to bed, if you post photos here please resize and compress them so for those on dial-up it doesn't take ages to download. If you have an editing programme you should be able to 'save' this photo ... not much can be done about the softness from shooting at 6400ISO, quite unneccessary, but it can be brightened up to be a reasonable result. If you don't have one I suggest you download the free Paint.Net and play with it and learn to use it.<br>

This is mainly brightening and adding contrast ... sharpening didn't do anything for me sadly.<br>

Don't bother about shooting RAW becuase with a good editing programme, I use Paint Shop Pro, you can work up jpgFINE files pretty well as well as if you shot RAW and it is a lot of bother for a newbie, and an old timer like me.</p><div></div>