Correct aperture for indoor photographs

<p>I've been asked to photograph a wedding breakfast and I am planning to buy a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 lens as it has a wide aperture. I'll be mainly using it to go around tables taking pictures of four or five people at a time. Should I be using it most of the time on f2.8, so as to benefit from the lens's low-light capability, or with the depth of field be too small? Should I use it, by default at something more like f3.5?<br>

I don't want to use flash.</p>

<p>Unless the place is better lit than any I have been in you are OoL (Out of Luck). f/2.8 is too wide for a group of four or five people. You will need at least f/4- and even that wouldn't be optimal. Shooting f/4 inside is probably going to give you a very slow shutter, again not optimal for people, they have a nasty habit of breathing. So it's time to pick your poison.... f/2.8 and know some subjects will be OoF, pick an insane ISO to use a smaller aperture and faster shutter but know that your image will have some noise, or bite the bullet and bounce a flash off a wall or ceiling.</p>

<p>Do your research here plugging in your variables:http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html. If you don't want to use flash, you had better hope that the lighting is plenty bright, even with your ISO cranked up. Unless everybody is in the same plane, at f2.8 you're going to get a lot of faces out of focus. IMHO You should be using f8-11 and bounce flash with a small direct one on the guests.</p>

<p>Your answer will depend on how you position the 4 or 5 people and what kind of focal lengths you use to shoot the images. F2.8 may be too wide, with too shallow a DOF, or it may be OK--it depends on the 3 factors that govern DOF--focal length, f stop and subject distance. I would guess that f2.8 will not give you the DOF you need to keep all faces in focus.</p>

<p>At these kind of events, the type of table makes a difference, and how tightly packed the tables are also makes a difference. Round tables where you can control the depth of the 'stack' of people are better to work with--long tables are worse, because the depth of the stack of people is greater. If you are forced to stand close to the subjects due to table placements, you will have less DOF.</p>

<p>I suggest you go to dofmaster.com and figure out likely scenarios.</p>

<p>I would also be ready with flash, even if you find you can get away without it. Light coming through windows can be wonderful, but what about the backlit people? If you can't move them, you may find you will get flare around their faces.</p>

<p>Not sure it's possible to answer this question in such a general context. You say it's a wedding breakfast, but you didn't say if it's indoors or outdoors, so I can't guess what kind of light you'll be dealing with. It's nice to have a fast lens when you really want to restrict depth of field (which you won't here) OR when you don't have much light. So the big question is, what's the light going to be like?</p>

<p>If you can reach a nice compromise between shutter speed and ISO while shooting at, say, f/4, then by all means, do that. You didn't say what camera you're using, but shooting f/4 + 28mm with a 1.5x or 1.6x crop-factor camera while standing 8-9 ft from the subject would produce adequate depth of field (about 4-5 ft) for table shots.</p>

<p>The wider the field of view (short focal length), the more DOF you'll have to play with. </p><p>For up to 4 people I would not use wider then F5.6. These shots are easy. Set the camera to manual, set the flash to be controlled by the camera's TTL logic. Set the aperture at F5.6 or even F8 just to be sure. Set the shutter speed at 1/20s for starters. Set the ISO at 400 for starters. The speed of the flash will freeze your hand held movements and those of the people unless they are exceedingly animated, so no worries on the "too slow" shutter of 1/20s. Shoot with the flash staright on, using a diffuser like an Omni-bounce. Place the top center focus point on the eye of the center person, or use the center FP depending upon composition, lock focus, do not recompose, then take the shot. Check the histogram on the first one or two and dial in the settings as required. Shoot raw only. Keep the aperture at F5.6 or F8, and to adjust the exposure tweek the shutter speed up or down only. The flash will expose the subjects, and the body the background. Apply exposure compensation to the flash to control the exposure of the skin of the people.</p>

<p>Dan--your recipe might work fine indoors in darker environments and at night, but your suggested EV might indeed be overexposing the ambient at a wedding breakfast where the room is fairly brightly lit by large windows. Such a condition might call for f5.6 @ 1/60th at ISO 400, for instance. It is always best, when dragging the shutter, to determine the EV to use based on actual conditions rather than a recipe.</p>

<p>Agreed Nadine...I zeroed in to "indoor" and didn't consider "bright room"...lol Yes, perhaps 1/60 is more inline if the room has bright windows, etc....Yes, ambient EV is the starting point before setting up the camera and flash.</p>

<p>the lens your thinking of using will work, but i urge you to think about using flash. NOT THE STRAIGHTON DIRECT FLASH BUT USING A DIFFUSER. this gives a soft even light that is most pleasing to the observer of the image later. the stofen omnibounce is cheap and it works. price less than $20. simply put the flash, with omnibounce attached at a 45degree angle and set the rest of the settings)shutter and fstop) and shoot.<br>

you cannot be sure of the ampount pof light that you will have. 2 weeks agpo my wife and i went to a wedding in which for dinner the lights were so low than the people who had to get up could not even see the tables and chairs. the wedding photog was using a bounce flash setup though and had no problem at all. eating dinner was akin to eating outside at midnight. if you run into a similar setup at your wedding breakfast then without a flash you are dead and all your plans with it. so i would plan on using a diffused flash. i cannot even remember the last wedding i went to in which the wedding pro photog was not using a flash setup of some kind.</p>

<p>No flash, wide past F2.8 for most venues.</p>

<p>Flash, F4.5 or smaller for most venues.</p>

<p>Of course, this is an universal answer that means nothing much unless the venue is what I think when suggesting this.</p>

<p>"I don't want to use flash"<br>

Why not? What's the downside?</p>

<p ><strong ><em >“A wedding breakfast and I am planning to buy a [sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC] I'll be mainly using it to go around tables taking pictures of four or five people at a time. Should I be using it most of the time on f2.8, so as to benefit from the lens's low-light capability, or with the depth of field be too small? Should I use it, by default at something more like f3.5? I don't want to use flash.”</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em >Traditional Approach:</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p >1. The difference between F/2.8 and F/3.5 is not much, but can be useful.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >2. F/2.8 is definitely possible to use for group shots of four or five people – but it is over my "limit of safety" but that limit, I traverse often: and I suggest that the rules of DoF are understood by you and, more imporatntly respected with each shutter release. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nadine has outlined the factors which affect DoF, I'll add, specifically for this job:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >3.Using Available Light in this situation the I suggest you venture no closer than a three quarter shot; and you arrange the Group in a very shallow horseshoe - or a very, very tight two seated / three behind standing arrangement. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As an example: Shooting at SD = 8ft and at FL= 24mm (thus avoiding most barrel distortion and foreshortening issues) you will frame a three quarter shot (FoV 5½ft x 10ft)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >At F/2.8 you have about 4ft DoF</p>

<p > </p>

<p >At F/3.5 you have about 5ft DoF (25% gain hey - nice ! )</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em >The trick is you must maximize the use of that DoF</em> – and you do that by:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >a) Arranging the people to be within that narrow DoF</p>

<p >b) Knowing where to focus. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >4) The camera’s ISO limit will be important to get a useable Tv.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >5) A monopod might be your good friend.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >Non Traditional Approach:</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >5) Another option for you to consider, which will help control the DoF and because the Subjects will look upwards this and the Camera's Vantage Point will a major lighting advantage to you, when shooting Sans Flash.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Please see image below: Photography by: <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=190073"><strong>Jim Strutz - Anchorage, AK</strong></a></p>

<p > <b>Attachment deleted. Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do not post photos that you did not take.</b></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Mentioned previously in this thread here: </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00UVZj">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UVZj</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong>WW</strong></p>

<p>Give that photographing at f2.8 doesn't look viable, would I be better getting a Nikon 18-200 f3.5-5.6 than the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 ?<br>

I'm mainly into landscape photography and I borrowed one of the 18-200s earlier in the year while on a trip and found it a great lens, but not sure whether it's ideal for weddings.<br>

I already have a Nikon f1.8 50mm for portraits.</p>

<p ><em><strong>"Give that photographing at f2.8 doesn't look viable, would I be better getting a Nikon 18-200 f3.5-5.6 than the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8"</strong></em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >No. The 18 to 200 will most likely be prone to more distortions, loss of sharpness and aberrations at F/3.5 than the Sigma 18 to 50 F/2.8 you were originally considering . . .</p>

<p ><br>

 

<p >BUT . . . more importantly the 18 to 200 is a <strong ><em >VARYING maximum aperture zoom lens</em></strong>, which means you only have F/3.5 available to you from about FL = 18mm to FL = 22mm . . . which might be OK for the table shots - but it also it might not - do you feel lucky?. </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p >***</p>

 

<p > </p>

 

</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you want another choice for the specific task of just shooting tables you would be better buying a fast wide Prime - Sigma make some - e.g.: 20mm F1.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL RF or use a Fisheye as per the example I gave – e.g. 15mm F2.8 EX DG DIAGONAL and even consider using a de-fish, Post Production Programme </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >BUT, it seems to me you are jumping a little hopscotch all over the place and there are several matters which, with the utmost respect, need addressing: - </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Firstly is this wedding for money?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Why not use Flash for the table shots?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Do you still have the D40? Is it your only camera body? Do you realize what ISO you might need to drive your camera at (a D40?), for the intended Available Light capture? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >What are the other lenses, apart from the 50mm do you have?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >What are you buying a new lens for? - to break into Wedding Photography – or to pursue Landscape Work?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p>The wedding is a favour - being done without charge.<br>

I'm open to using flash if that's what's needed.<br>

I still have a D40 but may have bought a D300s by then, which should be much better for high ISOs.<br>

My main interest is landscape photography but it would be nice to be able to do indoors shoots like this too.</p>

<p>William - if as this thread suggestions, I should be snapping with f4 or f5.6, does it really matter that the Nikon18-200's widest apertures are f3.5-5.6? I have a 50mm f1.8 for single people shots. Wouldn't the 18-200 be a good choice as this wedding is a one-off and it will come in handy for landscapes?</p>

"Wouldn't the 18-200 be a good choice as this wedding is a one-off and it will come in handy for landscapes?"

 

I think the lens is fine to make prints around 11X14 or less.

<p><em><strong>"Wouldn't the 18-200 be a good choice as this wedding is a one-off and it will come in handy for landscapes?"</strong></em><br>

<br>

Yes. The lens should perform well. I agree with Bob, (though I have not used this lens), my comments are extrapolations and experience with this type of lens.<br>

<br>

I add: the lens will likely give best performance at about F/8 to F11 - and there might be some sharpness drop at the telephoto end - which you might see at an 11 x 14 print.<br>

<br>

As this question is in the Wedding Forum, my previous comments were specific to (professionally) shooting Wedding Tables inside and in Available Light. You are now asking a different question (well, you have explained better your specific situation).<br>

<br>

I think you might need to use Flash for the Table shots - so you should be prepared for that - BUT if you are prepared to use Flash then you might as well go for an Available Light shot too - Note - as wrote before that you have F/3.5 available to you from about 18 mm to 24mm (a guess) but that’s OK because most likely you will be at the wide for the tables anyway.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

<p>The fish eye is an excellent large group in the pinch lens, great depth of field from very shallow distance, starting at f/2.8</p>

Alex, most people averse to flash have only read about the horrible raccoon eyes and harsh shadows and killing of ambient light and not the wonderful imagery possible just by adding a flash to your already capable kit. I would retain the 18-50 and invest in the following:

<p>1. A decent flash (SB800 or 900)

<p>2. Time to learn how to use it.

<p>Niel van Niekerk among others like strobist all have great techniques in flash photography...

<p>your lens choice is ok, as long as your within 3 feet of the subject, and then you cannot touch f2.8 as only the eyes of the center subject would be in focus, you'd have to be at f12 or f18 to have any hope or getting them all in focus.. </p>

<p>A better choice would be 8 to 9 feet from them with a 28-70 f2.8 (tamron and sigma make these), on a cropped sensor camera, or a 70 to 200 f2.8 on a full frame,</p>

<p>beyond 3 to 4 feet a wide angle will make people look larger than they really are</p>