Natural Lighting Inside Church

<p>I shot an indoor wedding yesterday trying to not use a flash. (I normally do use a diffused flash but wanted to try natural light.) Unfortunately, I ended up having to change all my settings to correct lighting issues in just about every shot. For starters, my equipment: Canon 6D, EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6. I'm attaching 3 images to describe the situation. The first image is just to give you an idea of the lighting--tall cathedral ceiling, large open windows on both sides and from behind. The wedding was around 1pm, and it was overcast outdoors. The second image is just to show how noisy the shot is close up due to the ISO being so high. And the 3rd image is to show my settings. <br>

I would never have used such a high ISO but I started out setting my camera to aperture mode at f/5.6 thinking that would keep my subjects in focus and create a little background blur. But that didn't produce enough light. So I kept bumping up my ISO until I topped out. Bad idea. Then of course, there were issues of the shutter speed being too slow to accommodate for the lack of light, so then I had camera shake issues. So I changed to shutter priority and set it to 1/160 and then of course everything else got thrown out of whack. <br>

I'm preparing for another wedding in a couple weeks but am visiting the church and reception hall a week beforehand to test it all out this time. I will also be taking lighting with me. But as a general rule, how do wedding photographers do their indoor lighting? Surely photographers can't all walk around with umbrella flashes and even bouncing a flash may seem impossible when the ceilings are too high. Help!</p>

<img src="http://www.karenmorelandphotography.com/img/s4/v9/p1870623357-3.jpg" alt="" />

<img src="http://www.karenmorelandphotography.com/img/s6/v143/p1864216320-3.jpg" alt="" />

<img src="http://www.karenmorelandphotography.com/img/s4/v11/p1656033711-11.jpg" alt="" />

<p>There looks like there was enough ambient to get a decent shot. Personally I would have used a much lower f-stop than 5.6 to lower the ISO. They were standing in a line so focus wouldn't be an issue. You didn't need to stop down so much IMO.<br>

Tripod could have sorted out this issue as well.</p>

<p>Thanks, Ian. I will likely be shooting in manual mode for the next wedding and am going to used a fixed 85mm lens also. I think the zoom lens threw me off a lot. </p>

<p>In answer to your question, we use fast zooms (f2.8) judiciously, and diffused on camera lighting (when Off camera, or bounced lighting isn't an option). LOL! ISO 1600 used to yield the same results as ISO 25600 does now...</p>

<p>According to your image info, you shot @ f22 (!!!), not f5.6.... which certainly explains why you needed ISO 25600 (!!!) to get a decent exposure. To be honest, this looks like a finger flub. I know I've done it before... but learning is often about making errors once....</p>

<p>Shooting manual again is pure idiocy though... Not until your are <em>vastly</em> more capable and experienced... screwing up somebody <em>elses</em> wedding pictures is NOT worth the pride or artistry or whatever that shooting M brings you IMO.</p>

<p>Thanks Marcus. Yes, I think I posted the histogram from the 2nd image instead of the full image I posted first. I started off at 5.6 and then by the time I changed it to Tv mode and tried to set it to 1/100, that's when it must've chosen f/22! I think I learned my lesson on using zoom lenses with Av or Tv mode indoors. Not good!! </p>

Hi, if those settings, 1/100 shutter, f/22, and ISO 25600, are correct, this means that you could have opened up the lens to f/5.6 while

dropping the ISO speed down to ~1600. Which on a Canon 6D ought to be pretty clean, noise-wise. So I'd just chalk this up to not having

used the best settings you could have.

 

I just wanted to make a comment about the facial shadows, which bother me. Clearly the shaded eye sockets and the deep shadows under

the cheeks are a result of the main lights being high above, so I think your only real option, should you want to fill these in, is to supply your

own light. I get that you specifically tried to not use flash, but in this case I think it would have been preferable.

 

If you want to keep the "natural light look," you could add a bit of flash, just enough to lift up the shadows a little. This is a little trickier than

meets the eye, since the color of the flash is almost certainly different from the ambient light. If the ambient is tungsten light, for example,

the flash would give bluish shadows (which are not very flattering). The cure is to put a colored filter over your flash, to roughly match the

flesh color to that of the ambient light. Then the photos seem to be from ambient light, but the objectionable shadows are gone. Now this is

not something you do on a whim - you generally have to use trial and error to find the best filter. This is something of an advanced

technique, but this is something you might want to look into for the future. Since you plan to check out your next church ahead of time, you

might want to try some test shots. To find out more, look up "gelling the flash." (Be careful to get the right camera white balance; if you let

the camera set white balance for the flash automatically, it probably doesn't know about your colored gel.) Ps, you can get the lower power flash by setting "flash exposure compensation" to something like -1 or -2. Pps, be sure to remove the gel and reset the white balance as soon as you're done with that sequence.

<p>Thanks, Bill! I really appreciate that! Yes, I will definitely be using the flash at the next wedding. It will be an all day/night event, so I certainly can't rely on the available light there. I'm glad you mentioned the shadows. They killed me in post! I couldn't pull them up for anything, even though I shot in RAW. I will also check out the gels. I have a Gary Fong Lightsphere diffuser that works great especially if I'm having to use it head on, so I will see how that can help. I'd rather use flash and get good shots than to be stuck in this situation again, delivering images that are subpar. Lesson learned! <br>

I think I'm also nervous about shooting in full manual mode for a wedding because there's so much running around that I might forget to change some settings if I move locations. As it is, my nerves make it a little hard to focus on the important things in the moments I need to make sound decisions. I suppose that will subside after I get more wedding experience. </p>

<p>My advice is to practice your lighting on your own time and not on your clients time. This can surely cut your career short. Figure out a lighiing set up that you can use all the time in any indoor lighting senario. At the very least you could have used your speed light as a fill and would have had well lit images and good files. In the end the client does not complain about what type of lighting you used or did not use. All they care about is a clear image that is exposed properly and well lit. As you get better in your lighting you can do fancier lighting techniques. You need to first learn how to see how the available light is falling on your subject and know how to correct bad lighting.</p>

<p>Thanks for the critique, Michael. I really appreciate it. I am definitely new to wedding photography. I've been shooting altogether for 2 years but mainly outdoors (and use a fill flash most of the time), or if I'm in my studio it's with powerful strobes, so this indoor stuff on location is a bit of a challenge for me!</p>

<p>Karen, indoor flash photography is the same as outdoor flash photography except you are working at lower light levels which means your flash is set lower. All the ratios are still the same.</p>

<p>Ok good to know, Michael. I will just have to practice more!</p>

<p>It doesn't matter to what image the histogram refers and it doesn't matter that the two images are different shots: both images appear to be reasonably close in their exposures and the B&G are standing in very similar positions in both shots. Somewhere during the resetting of the camera you chose ISO 25600 and that appears to be the major error.</p>

<p>A relevant fact is: F/22 @ 1/100s @ ISO 25600 ≡ F/5.6 @ 1/100s @ ISO 1600, which means that both those shots could have been made at ISO 1600. As Ian already mentioned, using even a larger aperture (than F/5.6) would have reduced the ISO even further. F/4 is available at FL=28mm on that lens, thus making ISO 800 available. Also that lens is <strong>Image Stabilized,</strong> so, 1/100s should really not be a concern apropos Camera Movement, especially for a wide shot at FL=28mm. <br>

<br>

An 85mm Lens will not allow you the same Perspective as a 28mm lens for such a wide shot encompassing the height of a large dome or ceiling. <br>

<br>

There are many flash techniques and really no general rules: when bouncing a Flash is not appropriate I would have generally used an off camera cord and a modifier on the flash - holding the flash the non camera hand, <em>but that technique I would mainly use for shots on the hop. </em>The sample images are shots which were pulled in a <em>controlled environment </em>- the Ceremony appears concluded. The group portrait has been arranged in the ambient light such that the Subjects are back-it and top-lit, therefore to ensure the exposure of the stained glass and also so that no deep shadows appear in the eye sockets of the Subjects, I would have chosen to use a more sophisticated flash as fill, for those particular posed portraits.<br>

<br>

WW<br /></p>

<p>another pointer if I may. When doing formal pictures try to fill up your frame with more of the subject than the background. One or two wide shots ok but in the end your clients will want to see themselves more than the vaulted ceiling. When you work closer to your subject you don't need to use as much power on your flash and the lighting will appear softer.</p>

<p><strong>Why are you planning to shoot weddings in <em>"full manual mode"</em> - </strong>when the thought of doing so makes you <em>"nervous"</em> in addition to <em>"as it is ... nerves make it a little hard to focus on the important things in the moments I need to make sound decisions" </em>?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses William and Michael. @William, do you suggest I shoot in Av or Tv for the next wedding instead of all manual since I'm nervous about changing all the settings every time? What would you recommend be the top priority in my settings? I would much rather choose some sort of auto (Av or Tv, not full Auto), but I'm also afraid something will be messed up that way! I guess for starters I'll just make sure not to bump my ISO past 1600 or so and use a fill flash. <br>

@Michael, I agree! I was posting the full cathedral for reference. The customer will be receiving images shot mainly close up. I do like to just leave a little room though for print crops, etc. </p>

<p>Ok, so if you were closer to your subjects then why could you not see the bad lighting on there faces? As to your question on auto settings it depends on the scenario, mainly the lighting conditions and if you use room lights or not. Assuming you have no room lights your number one main priority should be your shutter speed. You can have all the well exposed images but if they are blurred because of slow shutter then what is the point? One answer is not going to be the fix all unfortunately you will have to rack up experience to learn what lighting scenarios require specific camera settings. learning on the job as a second shooter is my best advice.</p>

Ok, thanks Michael.

<p>For most of the day, generally, I shoot in Av - especially when shooting portraits, and group shots, I want to have specific control over DOF. When in very low light dynamic shooting environments, I tend to switch to Tv, to ensure that I am keeping my SS high enough to prevent significant motion blur - since the camera otherwise (in Av) will change the SS based on the metering which can lead to less than ideal results in low lighting. </p>

<p>On your 6D, I wouldn't limit myself to ISO 1600. You could probably easily shoot at ISO 6400 and beyond, and at least at ISO 3200. I shot at both of those (ISO 3200 -> 6400) for years happily on my 5D2 (though I tried to shoot only at ISO 6400 when I needed too), and your 6D is more capable with respect to ultra-high ISO than the 5D2. </p>

<p>However, unless you are a <em>very</em> capable prime shooter (and <em>highly</em> experienced in shooting weddings), shooting 'natural light' weddings in general is a very bad idea. You need to have, <em>at a minimum,</em> speedlights, and the experience and knowledge to use them effectively. 2 or 3 Yongnuo ones can be had for a few hundred bucks, and the basics of experience can be self taught with some decent books and a pile of practice. If you want to shoot weddings professionally, you <em>must</em> be willing and able to use on and off camera lighting. There is a reason 'professional' wedding photogs use ON/OFF camera lights... and you can see the difference when you see their work.</p>

<p>Marcus, thanks for the input. I do have 2 6D bodies and 2 600EX-RT speedlites. I usually use a diffuser on-camera when not bouncing, and when off-camera, I usually shoot into an umbrella with a wireless transmitter. Studio lights are another story. I have 2 Profoto D1s in umbrellas and a wireless transmitter. I feel comfortable using my lighting most of the time, I guess I decided to try something new, and it was not the appropriate time to do so. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>A relevant fact is: F/22 @ 1/100s @ ISO 25600 ≡ F/5.6 @ 1/100s @ ISO 1600, which means that both those shots could have been made at ISO 1600.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could someone throw more light into this statement? Thanks. </p>

[Nish] " Could someone throw more light into this statement? Thanks."

 

Nish, he means the same thing as I said earlier, "Hi, if those settings, 1/100 shutter, f/22, and ISO 25600, are correct, this means that you

could have opened up the lens to f/5.6 while dropping the ISO speed down to ~1600."

 

People who learned about photography prior to auto exposure typically memorized the sequence of standard full f-stop numbers, so they

can easily count through, thinking, "f/22, 16, 11, 8, and 5.6" Since each full stop doubles the light, this is 4 "doublings." Now, each time you

double the light, you are able to halve the needed ISO speed, so if you count through four "halvings" you go from ISO speed 25600 to 12800,

6400, 3200, and finally 1600. It's sort of second nature to old time photo people, and I for one tend to overlook that not everyone "sees" this.

So thanks for the "heads up."

<blockquote>

<p>Could someone throw more light into this statement?<em> [<strong>A relevant fact is: F/22 @ 1/100s @ ISO 25600 ≡ F/5.6 @ 1/100s @ ISO 1600</strong>]</em> Thanks.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What Bill C wrote. Thank you for the detailed explanation. </p>

<p>The symbol '<em>≡' </em>is the mathematical symbol for "identical' or 'identical to'.</p>

<p>In terms of the exposure of the film, or of the sensor, those two exposure equations are identical, i.e. both will produce the same highlights and shadow and tonal range, (without respect to any limitation of the ISO of the film or sensor). NB - this is about the EXPOSURE and not taking into account the differences in DoF created by changing Aperture; or the differences in blur created by changing Shutter Speed; or the differences in Grain/Noise created by changing ISO </p>

<p>It is indeed second nature to many "old time photo people" (that made me giggle). At technical college we would use those equations all the time. To write or speak in: Aperture Stops; Shutter Speeds and ISO in either full; half; or third stops is second nature to me, simply because that was the language I learned. There's no magic to it, just learning a very simple and logical language and very simple mathematics. Using Studio Flash one sometimes reckons in one-tenth stops, for critical work. </p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"@William, do you suggest I shoot in Av or Tv for the next wedding instead of all manual since I'm nervous about changing all the settings every time? What would you recommend be the top priority in my settings?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As already mentioned a few times in this thread, there is no 'general rule' - the exposure settings one chooses are solely dependent upon the LIGHTING scenario and the VISION of the final image.</p>

<p>If you did answer my question, I didn't understand the answer: please explain <strong>WHY</strong> do you want to choose to use MANUAL MODE? </p>

<p>However, without my having the understanding of why you seek to use M Mode and also as a general comment - it occurs to me that you have been used to shooting in <em>controlled environments</em>: that is to say you have both TIME to set up the shot and a reasonably amount of CONTROL of the lighting.</p>

<p>On the other hand, at many times during a Wedding Coverage, one is required to <em>shoot on the hop. </em>Such is the same for shooting Sports Action; some genre of Street Photography and similar. In these genres of Photography, when having to shoot on the hop, sometimes the BEST lighting scenario must be compromised so one can get the shot and importantly one is working under the pressure of time because there is often not a second chance to get that shot.</p>

<p>So my comment is the ‘general rule’ is twofold:<br>

> anticipation of the next shot and to be in the best Camera Vantage point for it;<br>

> whilst moving to that position have already computed the necessary/approximate Exposure Settings to realize the Vision of the Final Image.</p>

<p>I think what may be happening for you is that the pressure of working under limited time to set up the shot, is resulting in mistakes: there is really no quick cure for that.</p>

<p>It is very important that you understand the automation of your camera: in my experience many novice Wedding Photographers (actually many Photographers) do not understand the functionality of the Metering MODES of their cameras. Whatever Camera Mode you choose (P; Av; Tv or M) – IF you are using the Camera’s TTL Meter for exposure GUIDENCE, then you must understand how each of the Metering MODES works and appreciate the information that it is providing to you: thus you are able to apply EC appropriately when using the Automatic Modes (P; Av and Tv) or compute the Manual Exposure when using M Mode.</p>

<p>WW <br>

</p>

Maybe I missed it but has anyone mentioned a tripod. I shot film weddings when ISO 800 was risque and I

mounted a tripod with a telophoto in the back of the sanctuary. As long as there was little motion I got good

pictures of the ceremony.with slower shutter speeds. It was even better when there was a balcony to shoot

from. You are getting lots of good advice from some very accomplished professionals that have been around

photonet for quite awhile. One thing I found shooting solo at weddings was to keep things as simple as possible.

It is possible to really screw up a wedding with overly complicated lighting schemes particularly when working by

oneself. I know this from doing it to a degree myself. One nice thing about shooting from the back of the church is that

you don't interfere with the ceremony. I was once thrown out of a church for using flash to record the ceremony

even though I had prior permission. But, I got a picture the bride very much wanted. So she was happy. The priest obviously was not.

<p>Thanks to everyone for their continued commentary. I am getting some great advice, that is why I come to photo.net! @Dick, yes, the tripod is a great idea. My husband actually was in the balcony with a telephoto lens during the shoot and got some great shots, and I'm grateful because it salvaged some of the shots I had taken but that had poor quality. He was shooting with my 2nd 6D body and set his ISO to 3200 so they are all great even after cropping down. Also, I will be approaching the next bride about the use of flash during the ceremony. I hadn't thought about the ramifications of inconveniencing others with that. I would think the photographer takes precedence with whatever is needed to get the shot, not the guests who are merely attending. But I will definitely run it by her first!</p>

<p>@WW, I think you are absolutely right, I have been nervous that I would not have the proper amount of time to make the correct adjustments in M mode, thus increasing the chances of me flubbing it up at the most critical moments, but on that note, I have an interesting follow up to all of this exposure learning that I'm doing... Yesterday morning I went out for a sunrise drive to shoot local barns, which is a favorite pastime of mine. While doing so, I experimented a bit. The conditions were outdoors, but because it was just before sunrise, the lighting was poor. So I set my ISO to a relatively low number (maybe 400 or 600 given the situation), then I tried Av mode to see what it would choose for my shutter speed. Although I'm not providing visual examples of my shoot yesterday, the camera actually WAY underexposed my shot! I bumped up my ISO and it still chose to underexpose things. That's when I decided it was the right time to experiment with M mode again. It was the perfect time to do so because no one was rushing me, etc. Once I switched it over, I once again moved my ISO down to a lower number and set my aperture and SS to reasonable numbers. MUCH BETTER! Even while moving from spot to spot in different locations on my early morning journey, I ended up getting some awesome shots and feeling a lot more confident with my selections over what my camera was choosing for my exposures.</p>

<p>So, that said, I think I'm going to shoot this upcoming wedding in M and use on-camera flash with my lithosphere diffuser set to low (so it will be less noticeable). I will test it all out beforehand though. And the day I go up to do my test shoot and meet with the bride, she is also having me do an engagement mini session so I will also have the chance to really test my skills. I will tell you one thing, all this trouble has really got me learning quickly how to correct some of these issues I'm having and really forcing me to be more comfortable in full M mode to be able to fully control what I get. I really appreciate everyone's help on this issue!</p>