light for church wedding..PLZ

<p>Hi all its me again, got my first wedding coming up as ive stated before, now the church has told me that yes i can use flash inside there! so i was wondering would i be better off using off camera flashes? or on camera flash either bouncing, or diffuser?.......this is the only thing now that im questioning? the gear i now have is canon 50d.....400d bck up, both with batter grips.......4 x pocket wizards.........canon 70-200 2.8 L IS USM....tamron 17 - 50 2.8............canon 50 1.8..........canon 550EX speedlite.....nikon sb-28 ( used for off camera ).....sunpack 120j..........westcott 28'' softbox and also the 50'' version.....westcott 60'' umbrella....aslo some smaller umbrellas..............so im ok for gear its just what do you think the best lighting set up would be? its not a massive church and its walls r near white in colour, but high roof!<br>

for obvious reasons ive got hte jitters being my first wedding, but more than that i just want to get it right.<br>

many thxs as always guy's and girls.....im greatfull for your help</p>

<p>Forget off camera flash, you'll just stress yourself out trying to get goot lightning all over the church. If you've never done this before, don't do it at a wedding.<br>

My suggestion is rent a 24/28 prime, a better 50 prime and an 85 prime and shoot available light. Might also want to rent a 5DMKII in order to get better low light capability.</p>

<p>How dark is the church at the time you'll be shooting?</p>

<p>Do you own a tripod?</p>

<p>I wouldn't sweat it so much ... unless it's an absolute cave inside the church ... which is unlikely given the white walls.</p>

<p>Set up the 70-200 on the tripod in the back, center aisle (you can do this before hand, fold the tripod and tuck it under the last pew in the rear of the church, then bring it out after the processionals)</p>

<p>If it is a cave and you need fill, or the alter is lit directly downward from a skylight like some are (which causes less than flattering drop shadows) ... just buy a MilaGrid Telephoto Flash Extender for a measly $30. to get even coverage from 70mm to 500mm tele distances. BTW, this also extends any flash reach by 1 to 1.5 stops for high ceiling bounce or further walls : -) </p>

<p>Available @ B&H: # MITG1</p>

<p>The off-camera flash notion may be better applied for any posed work done after the ceremony. But I have to say, a SB28 is pretty wimpy for such an application other than as an accent or hair light, or to fill a background maybe.</p>

<p>(BTW, were I you, I'd sell off the Nikon flash, and get another Canon so you have a back-up in case your 550EX goes down).</p>

<p> </p>

Thx guys, but as for renting more gear, well that's not possible as I've purchased all this new gear recently & it wernt

cheap, I do agree with putting the nikon up for sale 2wards a new canon 580 ex11. The wedding is at 2pm in afternoon

but here in the UK who knows wat the weather will b like? Ill have a look into the flash extenders tho! As for off camera

flash being ruled out I do agree, I do alot of off camera photography but it would b a potch in this circumstance! Ill try n

get the new canon flash 580ex11 and ill use that on the 50d and ill keep the 550ex on the bck up camera with the tamron

17-50 2.8. If there's anymore ideas or tips for my question above I'd b greatfull. Thx

<p>Repeat:</p>

<p>USE ... A ... TRIPOD.</p>

<p>: -)</p>

<p>How high is the roof? As long as it is white, I've bounced light off pretty high ceilings for the processional. Otherwise, just use white card bounce. The processional is not the time for artsy lighting. Rather than go flashless and blurry or be underexposed, I personally just use flash for these.</p>

<p>As for the ceremony, if I am allowed to use flash, I do if it means I'll get better rendition of subject detail. If not, and no flash will work, I don't use flash. Or I use a combination, based on what needs to be photographed. For instance, during the ceremony, perhaps people are walking down the aisle to present the gifts--use flash because you need to stop motion. Then turn it off because no flash works for everything else because there is no strong motion involved. You gotta use your brain about what will work. Since we can't be there to scrutinize the situation and the lighting on the altar, you have to do the thinking.</p>

<p>I agree off camera flashes are best left for the formals. Not sure you'd need a flash extender if not shooting in bright light and in a medium sized church...but good to know about them. When shooting with flash down an aisle, anyway, I sometimes set my flash for the most telephoto setting (105mm) because otherwise, the pews closer are overexposed, and that extends the flash already. The extender would be handy outside against bright light, though.</p>

<p>I also agree you need to get, learn how to use, and bring a tripod. Even if you end up not using it. Do some searches on these forums.</p>

<p>I should add--the choice to not use flash is normally twofold. First, the natural light can be very beautiful, and second, too many flashes will detract from the ceremony, even if it is OK to use flash.</p>

<p>Thanks all, for your advice, yes ill use a tripod! Nadine thx again for your input, im just about to look into the flash extenders on the net..as long as im on a tripod then shutter speed wont be a problem for inside the church without flash...many thx everyone</p>

<p>Repeat--the flash extender does look very nice. However, don't think you will need it. At ISO 800, your flash, set at the 105mm angle, at f2.8, will go to about 150 feet. For fill, even farther. Is the church aisle longer than that?</p>

<p>As for the shutter speed and tripod--do some searches about this. Basically, it is subject movement that determines the slowest speeds you can use. Just because you have a tripod, and can use 1/4th second, or whatever the meter tells you, does not mean you will end up with sharp pictures. I notice that below about 1/60th, you begin to see subject motion--even if the subjects appear to be motionless. This is at 100 percent view, and very few clients look at their images at that magnification, but It bothers me, so I try to not go slower than that.</p>

<p>Then, there is hand holding shake, which, if one is on a tripod, is not a concern. However, since you own the 70-200mm f2.8 IS, you may put the IS ability to good advantage hand holding, or you can turn IS off and get on a tripod. The thing is, there is a technique to both of these. Find out (do searches) and practice.</p>

<p>People have different methods of covering church ceremonies. Marc suggests setting up your 70-200mm on a tripod at the back of a church, and that is a tried and true method. You could also do that and roam on foot with a shorter zoom or prime (since it is faster, you can get reasonable and hand holdable speeds) on a second body. Or you can not be on a tripod at all (sometimes it is bright enough plus your IS) or you could shoot everything with flash with one camera and zoom. As I said above, we can't tell you exactly what to do because we won't be there to see the location at that time of day.</p>

<p>Thing is, you can. When I first started, I went to the rehearsals and scouted the church at the same time the ceremony was to be. This was so I knew where to be at the right time. At the time I was doing this, it was even more important, since tripod use was necessary. So I didn't want to be on a tripod when the bride and groom ran down the aisle during the recessional. I made notes, and followed along during the ceremony. I knew what was going to happen next, so I could get to my spots in time. Or get off the tripod. While you are at the rehearsal, speak to the officiant. A nice chat may get you extra priviledges others may not get. You can also find out whether the officiant has any restrictions on where you can roam/if you can roam.</p>

<p>As for viewing the location at the same time as the ceremony. This will avoid the surprise when you see that the altar has multiple sunbeams hitting it (and the subjects) at the time the ceremony is to be held. Or, as Marc describes--horrible down light spotlights over where the couple will stand. When you've shot a lot of ceremonies, this, and any ceremony sequence described in the above paragraph will not throw you.</p>

<p>I use Sunpak 120Js. So I know, with your 60" umbrella, you will be able to get f5.6 with the light placed about 10-12 feet from your groups, ISO 400. I actually take the reflector off and point the bulb straight into the umbrella, very close to the spokes. It helps fill the umbrella. I don't like softboxes for wedding formals because they normally take too much time to set up (and you won't ever have a lot of time for formals), and they do too good a job at cutting spill. I like spill for formals so much that I take the black backing off my umbrella.</p>

<p>Sorry, I gave any type of suggestions or advice on this ... since it apparently won't be needed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Check exposure before the job, bring a friend/etc. to test flash on. Some photographers like to use side light from bare flashes on light stands setup in outer aisles or areas away from the center aisle (this is just for the processional). I haven't tried this yet. What I usually do is use available light and fast primes, typically a 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2. This is not always the best option, but most of the time I am not allowed to use flash.</p>

<p>Marc--I am not negating your advice. Geraint said the church was not 'massive', and he didn't have a lot of extra money to spend outside of what he already has. I assume you are referring to the flash extender, since I agreed with you on much of the rest.</p>

<p>Joey's suggestion about the light in the aisle is one I use a lot. If you do this, be sure the light is safe from knock over, in a side aisle, not the center, and it is on the side of the church you are not facing, or you run the chance of catching it in the frame.</p>

<p>Well, not to beat this to death ... but Geraint did say the ceilings were high, and no one knows what the lighting will actually be like. If $30. is too much money for 1 to 1.5 f/stop more performance insurance with the 70-200 on a tripod or hand-held, then so be it. Seems odd to just say he won't need something when no one knows what that need really may be.</p>

<p>Based on direct experience ... a flash extender allows use of a lower ISO or smaller f/stop ... ISO 400-500 rather than 800, give or take ... or f/4 to 5/6 rather than f/2.8 for example. In addition, the narrower field-of-view spread at focal lengths over 105mm of the 550's tele setting, tends to keep light off closer subjects in the foreground ... especially when shooting down a church aisle. </p>

<p>In the case of the Mila ... it works very well for bounce with <em>high ceilings</em> anywhere with most any lens. It throws light forward in a regular wrap-around diffused fashion, while the condenser portion on the top increases the bounce light by a factor of 1 to 1.5 stops (give or take). In the same identical circumstances a 500EX has less work to do to get the same results.</p>

<p>Where I once used the flash straight-on at receptions when shooting a 135 or 70-200 ... I found the quality of light less specular with the Mila shot straight on, so stemware and reflective surfaces have less hot spots and the light on the subjects is a bit more flattering than direct flash.</p>

<p>Not bad for $30. IMHO. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>With an unknown event I prefer a dry run doing some tests.<br>

<br /> This way I reduce the guessing and assuming. An old way eons ago was to shoot say the week or two before with some flowergirls at the exact same spot. Some dangers maybe that that day they have more or LESS lights on; and during the actual event they prefer less lights and you now are more in a cave. The lights being different happens in sports too; one vists a rink and for a pro game there are all lights on; and a amateur game they might have 1/2 to 1/3 on and one loses a stop or two of light.<br>

<br /> If somebody at a church says flash is ok; in rare cases the wedding you have world war 3 because they changed their minds. This can happen because another chap does the wedding; and he has different rules. Or one has a two denominational wedding and the other denomination says no flashes. I saw this at a wedding in Torrance Calif that was a Catholic Buddist wedding; and another time at Catholic Jewish wedding. I was not a shooter at either; I just say the HUGE conflict that happened as the wedding shooters were halted from shooting; after they were told flash was ok.<br>

<br /> For me at least; a dry run reduces my jitters. I get some feedback on what to expect; the feedback gives me understanding. I can run tests for exposure; and find out via actual experiments.<br>

<br /> As everyone already mentioned a tripod covers alot of sins and halts camera movement. If you plan with the dry run of placing the tripod at spot "X" where your tests were run; the wedding day might have some giant plants or monkey business there and one has to move to a different spot.<br>

<br /> If there is going to be a video shooter guy/gal there they can have lights too; thus If you find out who there are you might want to be not in conflict with them too.<br>

<br /> Flashes; cords and stuff have historically "liked" :) to act up at weddings; whether today with modern stuff; or long ago with flashbulbs; or even flashpowder days. An old book on shoots mentioned a dry run to check for ceiling heights when using flashpowder; and to see if there is any flammables!<br>

<br /> Doing a dry run is mentioned in photo books before any of us were born. It is easy to do. Strangely it is abit out of vogue. For me at least a dry run makes me radically more confident when a location is not known. I know then the exposure without flash and thus can plan alot better. If flash is used then I know if the ceilings are high; low; white; Barney Purple. I tend to do a dry run if it is a new event; or an unknown location or I amy rusty at that type of gig; or I have a new tool/toy/camera rig.</p>

<p>Marc--I did say it sounded very nice and good to know about. Based on what Geraint did say about the church (not massive), I figured he could do what he needed without it. $30 doesn't seem like a lot, but if it comes down to spending $30 for an item that you 'probably' won't need, for this specific wedding, when you are already trying not to spend any more money, it's just one more expense that may not pay off directly. And bouncing off high ceilings--zooming the flash head to 105mm usually works pretty well to intensify the beam, particularly if it is white. Anyway, I didn't tell him not to buy it--I just said I didn't think he'd need it. I figure he can make a decision for himself.</p>

<p>Id like to thank all for your feed back and advice. I do take everyones on board. Nadine thx once again. Im meeting up the church 2 days before the big day, so ill know more then, once i ve been in & if i have any last mintue questions ill quickly drop you kind people a line...thx again for all your advice.</p>

<p>Okay, if you say so Nadine. But this specific recommendation isn't really the issue as far as I'm concerned. I provided a simple, inexpensive "possibility" should the "unknown" conditions prove to be challenging. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether the OP gets a flash extender or not.</p>

<p>If a poster can make a decision for themselves, then why dismiss the advice and direct experience of someone else? In reality, most experienced shooters could do that with half the recommendations made on this forum.</p>

<p>Why should I waste my time providing that advice and actual user experience, if someone else <em>who has never even used the suggested solution</em> just counters it in theory?</p>

<p>As the moderator and a frequent poster here, your opinion <em>deservedly</em> carries a lot of weight, but if I have to compete with the recommendations I make, why should I waste my time? </p>

<p>IMO, we <em><strong>collectively</strong></em> provide a range of solutions from a broad array of shooters, and the OPs can choose what might work for them. If direct experience dictates a warning be made because something didn't work in reality based on that direct experience, that's a different matter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've nothing to add from an equipment perspective. But I have some remarks as a UK photographer.</p>

<p>First - very few churches over here permit flash photography. I'm sure there must be some that embrace it, but I've not found any. I've attended ceremonies in around 11 different counties, and 4 denominations, and they've all had a 'no flash' rule.</p>

<p>Second - it's extremely unusual to do the formals inside the church. The layout isn't usually conducive - most village churches and many town churches are very small - so standard procedure is generally to do the formals outside in the grounds. Even in rainy day scenarios, most officiants seem to prefer that the formals are conducted in an outbuilding or in the vestry rather than inside the church. Photos at the altar are not part of the UK tradition.</p>

<p>There will of course be exceptions for every rule, but just from a probability perspective alone, I'd suggest that if the OP is planning on pitching up with light stands, softboxes, umbrellas or flash extenders he may well encounter substantial difficulty.</p>

<p>Of course, the quickest way to find out is to speak with the officiant. So Geraint - if you haven't done this yet - do a search online for the church, find details of the rector / vicar and give them a call to discuss.</p>

<p>Marc--I don't see where I 'dismissed' your recommendation. In my opinion, and considering what had been said, I still don't think Geraint will need one (this is all I said), but my opinion is not based on theory, either. Am I not allowed to say that? Even though I have not used that specific product, I understand what it does and how it does what it does. Does the fact that I haven't used one mean I can't say anything about it?</p>

<p>I also took Geraint's first wedding status into account, as well as the fact that he didn't want to spend a lot more money. He will have lots to think about and while such a device might help him maybe, should the conditions be challenging, I think, and this isn't the only reason I said I didn't think he'd need it, that in the heat of the moment, such a device may be yet another thing 'to do' to confound and confuse. I guess he could throw it on and leave it there, but then, and I do this even now, forget it's there and end up botching the next shots and not know why immediately. This is just an example. Keeping things simple in one's first effort at something is one of the reasons. And, new photographers tend to glom on to any piece of gear recommended to them that they think might solve a potential problem without realizing the ramifications of it's use, because they have little previous experience to go on...particularly with something like photographing a wedding ceremony for the first time. Obviously, I don't know Geraint and don't presume he will do any of the things I mentioned. However, based on my experience with new wedding photographers, these things happen.</p>

<p>Another reason, and more pertinent, is that he can do things with the gear he already has, that will allow him to 'make things work'--it isn't just theory. Sure, I don't know the lighting conditions, but I do know his flash, when zoomed, will reach out x feet with certain settings. He knows how long the aisle is, or the ceiling--those numbers I gave also mean he can bounce with those settings, off a 70 foot ceiling (give or take).</p>

<p>Answering questions is not a competition--at least, I don't regard it as such. So I am a bit surprised to hear you say you have to compete with recommendations. Your status on these forums is solid and, almost legendary. You've been contributing for a long time, and I, as well as everyone else, appreciate your expertise and willingness to share. I personally have learned a lot from you. So why should you 'waste your time'? To help the person asking the question, because as both you and I said, he can choose what will work. This is why I answer questions.</p>

<p>The fact I am a moderator should not add more weight to anything I say outside of matters directly related to moderating. If anyone feels this is the case, let me ask you to respond to and treat me, the photo.net member, as you would any other. I am careful to separate my comments one way or the other, I hope.</p>

<p>Neil--I was hoping you'd chime in since you are in the UK... Geraint said that the church does allow flash photography (I guess for the ceremony), but it sure doesn't hurt to double check, and get specific about what, exactly one can and can't do for formals. For one of my early career weddings, I had a bride whose parents were from the UK. This is when I learned that everyone who attended <strong>must</strong> be photographed on the church steps. Now this is at a church in California, and on land which is pretty flat, meaning, the church had no steps, so I ended up carting a 10 foot ladder to photograph 120 or so people outside in the blazing sunlight. I was sweating, and more than just physically.</p>

<p>'Flash allowed' - oops! - sorry for missing the first line of the OP. I think my eye jumped right into the heavy duty equipment list.</p>

<p>hi again all, yes the church aint a very big one at all , the ministor is quite a joker, so hes easy to speak to, as i said we are all up there 2days before the big day so ill know more then. I agree with neil that most churches here i uk dont allow flash. All the family photos will be outside in the church grounds which are kept very nice. So ive already had a long meeting with the bride and groom, and i requested that her sister is going to be the runner who will group and find all members of the familys for the photos, she has a copy list as i do. after the group and family photos its onto a big club about 10mintues away, not really the best location....shame as they have spent out lots n lots of money for example £ 800 on balloons..lol. Any way they then want some speach and cake cutting etc photos then onto the first dance......</p>

<p>just one more thing , i hope i havent caused any friction here between people, as i have said i take onboard what everyone suggests and am really greatfull for everyones advice.<br>

I always thank nadine as she has always helped me in the past, but that dont mean im not thanking everyone, so i hope u guys are ok with each other, as us new photographers really look up to all you guys who have been doing this for years and you all have different styles and ways of doing things and for us new ones its good to hear all of this.<br>

One last simple question.....when im taking pics of bride and groom, and im exposing for the brides dress should i use SPOT METERING or Evaluative metering? what do u sugeest as i been reading up and ive had two different answers???</p>

<p>Geraint, everything's cool ... I'm sleep deprived and cranky : -)</p>

<p>Spot metering is okay if you firmly grasp how to place the light values in the proper place using exposure compensation. If you just spot meter the dress, the image will be badly underexposed because meters are based on making everything middle grey. Shoot a white wall and the result will be a middle grey wall. Shoot a black wall, and the result will be a middle grey wall. Think of a spot metering of the bride's dress as the white wall.</p>

<p>Generally, I use averaging type metering and have learned to select parts of the scene that are a middle tone to meter ... or include equal amounts of lights (bride's dress) and darks (groom's tux) which averages out to middle grey.</p>

<p>The caution here is that if there is a very bright area in the shot (like a spot light) it will trick the meter and the result will be an underexposed image.</p>

<p>Also, maybe look up how to use your camera's histogram. Set a custom white balance so that's correct for the lighting conditions, then take a shot and look at the histogram ... adjust your camera & lens settings so the histogram reads to the right as much as possible without clipping the subtile brights where you still want detail.</p>

<p>If you have a "Highlight Warning" feature on your camera turn it on. If you are blowing out the brights it'll warn you and show you where it's happening.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>THANKS MARK, GLAD TO HEAR EVERYTHINGS OK HA HA. iVE GOT ONE OF THOSE exspo discs coming for the white balance, ive heard good reviews about them. yes i have highlight clipping set on my 50d....so my camera is normally set and left in evauative metering mode, should i just leave that set? being my first wedding i maybe worrying too much about everything and getting myself all worked up, its just ive read so many people saying the brides dress was over exposed with no detail, i dont wanna be one of those if i can help it, if u know what i mean! so im trying to gather as much advice as possible from you pro's....thanx marc</p>

<p>Which metering mode to use is a personal choice. But no matter what you use, the flashing highlight warning will help keep your attention on exposure regarding overexposure of the dress.</p>

<p>Now, specular highlights WILL flash in warning, which is fine and should happen, it's when large areas of the dress are flashing that you need to attend to it.</p>

<p>Also, a scene without any flashing highlights doesn't mean it's exposed correctly ... nothing flashing just means it isn't overexposed ... but it could be underexposed. So read up on the use of your histogram. </p>