Walking down the aisle!

<p>Hi all,<br>

I have recently started shooting weddings and I find that one of my biggest challenges is obtaining a sharp image of the bride and father as they walk down the aisle. I am fine with this in good light, but dimly lit churches are a nightmare for me! I have read lots of posts and articles on this topic, and have heard lots of opinions re using a tripod, fast lenses, use of flash etc.<br>

Firstly, I find it really hard to gain sharp focus in low light (despite using continuous servo mode). It's definitely a focusing issue rather than handshake as I always aim to keep up my shutter speed. I have experimented with different depths of field and ISO settings but seem to end up with lots of noise or just missing the acceptable focus range with larger apertures. At present I tend to stand by the altar and capture them walking down but am thinking I maybe need to stand nearer?<br>

I'm currently using a Nikon D300 with either Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 or Nikkor 50 F1.4, always handheld.<br />Having read that other photographers use ISOs of up to 2500 for these shots, am I simply expecting too much from a cropped sensor camera and therefore is flash my only option? I'm going to experiment with a monopod next but I'd be really grateful for any thoughts! Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but dimly lit churches are a nightmare for me</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Dimly lit churches are a nightmare for anyone. Period. Bottom line, any camera & lens needs light and subeseqyently <em>contrast</em> to focus. So one tip is to look for some contrast to aid in the focusing.</p>

<p>Next, I wouldn't use continuous AF, I would simply use Single AF and choose your focus point. The Tamron 17-50 isn't any kind of speed demon but the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 should be just fine in almost any church I have been in. That is going to be about as good as it gets in terms of focusing speed. If you are using a filter on the lens, don't. And again, look for contrast.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>that other photographers use ISOs of up to 2500 for these shots, am I simply expecting too much from a cropped sensor camera</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The D300 is a professional grade DX camera. Moving to a D700 might give you slightly faster AF, but I think that is splitting hairs. The newer D800 and D4 will might have a slightly faster system but again, it is probably splitting hairs. The issue is going to be finding contrast to focus on. No contrast, no focus. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>and therefore is flash my only option?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, if the light isn't good, then yes, supplement the light. To be fair, I am from the camp that doesn't understand this fascination with available light for shooting weddings. I mean sure, if the light is great, use it. But then what do you do when the light isn't good? Sometimes you have the opportunity to use off camera flash during the processional. Sometimes you have no choice but to use on-camera flash (although I would use a diffuser). But here's the thing, in wedding photography content rules. A sharp image of the bride and her father using "flat" on-camera light, trumps a blurry or no image any day of the week. </p>

<p>The lenses you are using are fine. Both are certainly sharp enough so that's not the issue. The limiting factor (assuming camera shake isn't the issue as you explained), it's the camera you are using. Other shooters may suggest going to a high ISO like 2500 or even higher, but this camera isn't capable of a clean image at this level. Shutter speeds need to be at least 1/60th as a bare minimum depending on how fast they are moving. I would want to be at 1/125 or higher if possible.</p>

<p>So you have a couple of options. Look at a camera better suited for weddings and the challenges they present. Shoot flash more often in situations like this and learn how to get flash shots that look natural and not snap-shot like. Or use an old trick that will work a bit better from time to time, although with light too low it won't always help. Use a tripod and go as wide open as is reasonable for the shot to give you the highest shutter speed possible, then focus on a 'mark on the floor'. Put the camera settings so that the shot is slightly over exposed to reduce noise if Higher ISO's are being used. This could be anything like a shadow or end of a pew. Turn AF off on the camera, Compose the shot and wait till their feet hit the mark and fire the shutter. There are risks to this, You only get one shot, maybe 2 if you are quick. The depth of field will be shallow and you might have faces and eyes slightly out of focus if you fire the shutter too soon or too late. You may capture them with eyes closed or looking the wrong way etc.</p>

<p>As a sidebar I'd like to comment on the choice of equipment used. I'm not picking on your choices particularly but the large number of people who've recently asked similar questions on this and other forums and wondered why they aren't getting the results they would like. So these comments are for the wider audience and for brides who visit this site and are choosing a photographer.<br>

I don't want to start a fight here but as I've used both cameras, I totally disagree with John D. The D300 might be a well built unit but it's not a Pro DX body. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D300 is a professional grade DX camera. Moving to a D700 might give you slightly faster AF, but I think that is splitting hairs. The newer D800 and D4 will might have a slightly faster system but again, it is probably splitting hairs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll note that specifically in your case, I've used the D300 and compared to the D700, the image quality is night and day. Images are cleaner and sharper with the D700 over the D300. It's an investment that will pay off ten fold if you go that route.</p>

<p>Far too often it comes down to consumer grade gear being used for professional work. You need professional tools if you are charging for the work and consumer cameras can't cut the mustard. I could rant on and won't but if you are charging for this work, which is a once in a lifetime event for most people, you need to have the tools that are necessary to get it right. At the very least, I would recommend a Nikon D700 or Canon 5DMKII with lenses and flashes to match. People will complain that it's too expensive to buy gear like that and if that's the case, then I contend, you shouldn't be doing this if you can't afford the investment.</p>

<p>I would never, ever, ever ever...ever...use a tamron or sigma lens to track moving subjects. They can't keep up, are not accurate, etc. Back when I used a tamron 28-75 I had the same issue. It ceased to be a problem when I started using Canon L lenses that had smarter and faster AF. Same would probably be the case for Nikon. You can't expect a third-party lens to keep up with action nearly as well. Canon/Nikon or give up trying. </p>

<p>Noisy images are common in dark churches. I often shoot them at f/1.4-f/2 and some iso between 1600 and 3200 as needed. If I had cameras I would trust to handle higher ISOs better like a D3s, then I would boost ISO more.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> but it's not a Pro DX body.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The body is virtually identical to the D700, so in terms of the body, if the D700 is a Pro body, then so is the D300. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Images are cleaner and sharper with the D700 over the D300</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I can buy cleaner at higher ISO's, but certainly not sharper. As a matter of fact, with the current arguement concerning sharpness via shutter speed with the D800, one might conclude you have a <em>better</em> chance for a sharper image from a D300. I don't buy that, but to say images are sharper is simply misleading. Now a D700 is full frame and that will throw your background out-of-focus faster than a cropped sensor camera and perhaps that is what you mean by better image quality? But FX being inherently sharper than DX is just silly. Plenty of professional photographers use DX cameras quite successfully. If I had to "warn" brides on choosing a photographer, the body would be the very, very, least of my concerns. Rapport, Vision, Competence, Knowledge of Photography, Knowledge of Lighting (and the ability to light something), and good lenses would all mean more to me than the camera body. For what it's worth, I have used both cameras as well (although I don't own a D700 and I am not thrilled about potentially upgrading to a D800 36MP beast [does that mean I should spend $6000 on the D4 to get that extra stop of dynamic range and better ISO?]). And I have also used the Tamron 17-50 quite a bit, and it <em>is</em> slower to focus than the Nikon 17-55 OR the Nikon 50mm f/1.4. As a matter of fact, I doubt you see any focusing speed difference using the 50mm on a D300 vs D700.</p>

Ok this will probably go against what most people will tell you, but it always works for me. The trouble with shooting as

they reach a pre focused spot is, as has been said already, they may not be looking up at that point, the bride will

frequently look down to navigate her way without tripping on her dress. You want to be able to choose the moments that

appeal to you.

I stand about half way down the aisle and as they approach me I walk backwards so they gain on me but much more

slowly than if I stand still. No flash, 1600 iso on a 5d mark2, and usually with an 85 1.2, so your 50 on a D300 would be

about the same. Usually the exposures will be around f2 at 30th of a second, but I shoot in short bursts so by the end of

the aisle I might have 12 shots which I'll edit down to four or five. The trick with walking backwards is to try and have a still

pause at the top of each stride, much easier than it sounds but it is quite effective.

<p>Yikes. From what is written, you'd think gear, particularly autofocus, has an enormous lot to do with shooting sharp processional shots.</p>

<p>I was trained old school, using manual focus cameras, yet I'd say at least 98% of my processional shots were in focus. This is using either 'framing in the viewfinder' or 'pew as a guide' pre-focus techniques, along with a medium-wide aperture for some DOF margin of error. I also never took more than 1 shot of each processional subject(s) and no more than 2 full length shots (sometimes 3 if I had the time) of the bride with her father. All of them would be in focus. This is back in film days.</p>

<p>Yes, I also used flash. Below is an example of how I light processionals. I don't consider it all that ugly. Particularly if I don't have to risk quality due to extremely high ISO, or focus due to extremely wide apertures. I use an off camera rim light.</p>

<p>Jillian--if you want to know what the above techniques are, I will explain them. However, I would recommend the following first.</p>

<p>1. Stop using continuous focus. Allow focus assist from the flash to help you in dim light. This is only possible using single focus. While high end cameras and lenses certainly are better than mid and low level cameras and lenses at focusing speed and accuracy, sharp processional images are certainly possible with your D300 and Tamron lens.</p>

<p>I know, because I use a Tamron 28-75mm lens on my 5D, and a 17-50mm lens on my 40D (which I have used as my 'main' camera from time to time).</p>

<p>2. Use the center focus point on the bouquet. I personally use the focus on the shutter button (with focus assist). So I acquire focus and press the shutter in one motion, with the center focus point on the bouquet. Why the bouquet? It is contrasty (good for the autofocus to acquire focus), and it is slightly ahead of the subject, so in the millisecond(s) it takes for the shutter to open, your focus point is now on the subject.</p>

<p>3. Don't take zillions of images as the bride and her dad walks down the aisle. Pick and choose when you shoot, being sure you got the shot, rather than praying you got the shot. Wait for the 'money' shot, which is not the tele shot--take the tele shot, of course, but be ready for the full length shot, somewhere around 50-35mm (full frame) because...</p>

<p>4. ...you are taking maximum advantage of a medium wide aperture, for DOF, since a wider focal length means 'more' DOF as a margin of error. I tend to use f5 on my full frame. On a cropped sensor, you can probably go f4 or even f2.8 if you get good.</p>

<p>5. Know your flash metering, so you don't underexpose, which makes noise worse. Know whether you can successfully bounce. Know how fast your recycling is, so you are not caught short.</p>

<p>6. If you really must go with ISO 2500 and above and no flash, know what you can get away with re shutter speed (1/125th is a good minimum for slow walking) and figure out if your camera and lens can indeed 'handle it' re autofocus and aperture in dim light or whether it is user error. I don't use AI Servo much, but I know it requires practice to use correctly, and that one should expect a certain percentage of throw aways.</p>

<p>You can set up your flash so that the focus assist works but the flash doesn't fire, if you want to take advantage of focus assist (again, using single focus).</p>

<p>Going extremely high ISO and no flash is by no means the best, all the time. As John D. says, a flashed image is probably totally fine with the client if it is sharp and one can see the details of the faces and dress. I also question the non-use of flash when you have horrible, off color lighting. Every time I see a black and white processional shot, I wonder if the color balance was awful or the subjects had racoon eyes.</p>

<p>And yes, if you want to go no flash, high ISO, it might be time to buy that D3 or D4 or D700 with a Nikon lens. The purchase might help you a hair, but only a hair (IMHO). Good technique and working with what you have would be my recommendation.</p>

<p>Specs: Canon 20D, f5, 1/30th (flash freezes subject motion), ISO 400, approx. 46mm (full frame), 29mm with 16-35mm f2.8.</p><div></div>

Sorry, I just realised you are talking about the bride entering, and as the bride enters I don't like to be too close and

therefore blocking everyone's view of the bride, so ignore my earlier advice. I don't tend to use flash but sometimes needs must.

<p>Someday soon I'll post a new thread discussing gear just before I get booted off the forums. :-) The gear does matter otherwise we should all sell our expensive stuff and go shoot with iPhones.</p>

<p>Nadine's post is excellent with great advice and tips. I find it interesting that both Rab L and Nadine posted replies while using professional full frame cameras for their work.......</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The gear does matter otherwise we should all sell our expensive stuff and go shoot with iPhones.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I never said the gear didn't matter. And shooting a wedding with an iPhone is as ridiculous as saying DX sensor cameras aren't "professional" enough for weddings. If sensor size is of upmost importance, you should be shooting medium format.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I find it interesting that both Rab L and Nadine posted replies while using professional full frame cameras for their work.......</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And even more interesting that the posted shot is from a Canon 20D? That's a cropped sensor camera you know?</p>

<p>Hey Peter--you can post any thread you want discussing how important gear is. :^) The gear matters to some extent, but does not <strong>necessarily</strong> stop us from doing something like shooting sharp processionals. There's that word again.</p>

<p>My example shot was with a 20D and 16-35mm f2.8, using flash. The camera is what I used for a number of years for professional work. I use a 40D for professional work now, alongside my 5D.</p>

<p>Hi again! Thanks so much for your quick responses... some really helpful things for me to think about! I had in fact planned to upgrade to a D700 in the near future anyway and will also invest in some more lenses, I just wasn't sure if I was missing anthing obvious other than the kit!<br>

Just a couple of things to clarify. Firstly, is my prime 50mm 1.4 lens much faster at autofocusing in comparison with a zoom lens at the same aperture (also the prime is a Nikon, the zoom is the Tamron)?<br>

Also, shutter speed of 1/125 was mentioned for walking down the aisle - taking this into account, would a tripod therefore be not much help to me then? With my D300, to maintain a shutter of 1/100 or more, I would most definitely need to crank up the ISO a great deal even with large apertures on the 50mm lens (this is maybe where a D700 or better might come into its own)?<br>

I also thought to mention, I always use my camera on manual mode. This was the way I was taught and have become attached to it as I like to have full control of my settings! I have been told in the past that aperture priority would be better for shooting weddings as you can operate much faster. Any thoughts on this? I also tend to use spot or centre weighted metering for weddings to make sure the dress is exposed ok!<br>

Nadine, I love your photo and would be very happy if I could get my flash to look as flattering as this - definitely on my list of things to improve on. I do find that bouncing flash in churches can be challenging though due to very tall ceilings, often with dark wooden beams etc.<br>

Thanks again for all your helpful expertise! : )</p>

<p>Also Nadine, I would love to know more about your 'old school' pre-focusing techniques! Thanks.</p>

<p>Hi Jillian. When I first started, <strong>the processionals gave me the jitters and flop sweat</strong>. I had exactly the same problem you do, especially in dark churches. </p>

<p>So I decided to think it through and solve it once and for all. It wasn't my equipment, it was my technique. Here's what I learned, and use to this day.</p>

<p><strong>First what didn't work consistently:</strong> Servo AF: forget about it, an almost guarantee OOF photos (I think it's because the subjects are walking to slow/ stop start erratically, or something). Fixed point manual focus with a decent f/stop for DOF: pretty reliable sharpness, unreliable for getting the right moment, eyes closed etc. While you can walk backwards and keep shooting to assure good expression, that couldn't be done at every church, and I didn't like the intrusion of doing that even when I could. Long zoom and zoom wider as the people move toward you: also didn't work reliably at the long end because some distances required so much flash that diffusers/modifiers were useless, then as you zoom wider the flash ratio need to be adjusted, no time for that. Bounce flash, forget about it, distances and surfaces to unreliable. Jacking up the ISO past 800 rarely works because you are shortening the dynamic range and introducing color shifts. </p>

<p><strong>What did work consistently:</strong> I go up front for the VIP seating and use guests being seated to refine my settings for each church. I determine what ambient exposure will provide some sense of the surroundings then set the TTL flash compensation to get the amount of supplemental light just right for a full length figure at about a 35mm focal length. I use a 24-70 zoom most of the time which allows me some leeway on either side of my 35mm standard, but have done this with a fixed focal length also (35 or 50mm). I start with ISO 400 and inch up if needed trying to not exceed 800. </p>

<p><strong>FOCUSING:</strong> Here's the important part ... I use the center focus point because it is always the most sensitive one, and single AF because it is the most accurate focus mode. As the subjects walk toward me, <em><strong>I half press shutter button AF to follow them towards me,</strong></em> (If your camera allows you to assign the AF to a separate rear thumb user button rather than the shutter release button, that is even better ... read your manual to see). The reason I track them moving toward me is that it significantely shortens the time the camera needs to acquire focus when you do take the shot. I found this to be critical because if the camera takes more time acquiring focus the subject can be in mid-step and actually move out of the sharp focus zone in that split second.</p>

<p><em>BTW, if you can assign AF to a rear user button, you may find that a lot more other photos will be in sharper focus. Separating the act of focusing and shutter release has its benefits with practice. </em><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>Framing</strong><em>: </em>I generally use two ways of framing<em> </em>processionals: Wider in landscape orientation IF the background and guest attendance warrant inclusion...and tighter in Portrait orientation to capture the emotional aspects close up and/or to block out distractions in the background.</p>

<p>Here is a typical landscape oriented shot in an ill lit church ... Sony A900 on manual exposure, ISO 800, 1/50th shutter, 24-70/2.8 @ 24/4, Speed-light with a forward Lumiquest modifier to spread the light wider, flash compensation set to + 1. <em> </em></p>

<div></div>

<p>That upload is a bit darker than the original BTW, but it is razor sharp.</p>

<p>Here is an example of a portrait oriented shot up close to capture the expressions while eliminating the background distractions and backlighting, like the one above, it is cropped.</p><div></div>

<p>I have a couple dum suggestions. Keep in mind I am not a working pro and I only photographed a family wedding. But, I myself would rent a full frame camera and set up a mock wedding at a church and practice and see how they come out. I during this session would use my D-300 with the flash on a off camera bracket with a diffuser so the light does not flatten the subjects. I would set up a tripod on wheels and and as they walk down the aisle I can from specific locations use the 2.8 lens get the shots and move out of the way fast enough not to interupt the ceremony. I think with the 2.8 zoom I may be able to set up the tripod on wheels at the alter and shoot from that location at various zoom settings. Like I said I am not a pro so these are what I would try to do to solve the problem.A secons shooter can assist with the mobile tripod if necessary</p>

<p>Sorry, one more ... what I'm speaking to is the more challenging processionals in very poor lighting conditions ... if the ambient is better, then the issues fade. Here's one that was particularly challenging as not only were they coming up stairs, I had no room to maneuver, and the only real ambient was behind them and none in front ... I had to add flash as the primary to get this shot. </p><div></div>

<p>Wonderful shot Marc, great framing of couple and background!</p>

<p>Two tips:</p>

<p>1. Ask the bride before the wedding starts: please pause for 5 seconds on the escorted trip to the alter.</p>

<p>2. Focus on a pew or a person sitting at the spot the bride (...should she agree to pause those 5 seconds) stops. Then take your images.</p>

<p>Auto-focus systems in dark places and with white dresses are not always 100% good.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wow, such problems! I did part time weddings years ago with film and manual focus cameras. I'd just focus on a pew where I thought I could get a full sized shot of the couple. Then I just waited until they arrived at that spot and I took the exposure. Never really was a problem, can't see why the same thing cannot be done with an autofocus camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Firstly, is my prime 50mm 1.4 lens much faster at autofocusing in comparison with a zoom lens at the same aperture (also the prime is a Nikon, the zoom is the Tamron)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. First, the Tamron isn't a fast AF lens. I have used both the Nikon 17-55 and the Tamron 17-50, extensively, and the Nikon version is noticeable faster. And again, a camera needs contrast in order to focus. Contrast depends on light. f/1.4 lets in more light than f/2.8 (a lens only stops down your set aperture when you completely depress the shutter release). I have both a Nikon 50mm f/.18D and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Between these 2 lenses, the Sigma 50mm wins in terms of AF speed (and everything else for that matter).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, shutter speed of 1/125 was mentioned for walking down the aisle - taking this into account, would a tripod therefore be not much help to me then? With my D300, to maintain a shutter of 1/100 or more, I would most definitely need to crank up the ISO a great deal even with large apertures on the 50mm lens (this is maybe where a D700 or better might come into its own)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D700 will have a lower noise higher ISO. Although I don't think simply using a higher ISO in low/poor light is the solution. Shutter speed will be more important when you aren't using flash. Flash has the ability to freeze your subject and give you a sharper image. Without the flash, you need the faster shutter speed. Or the tripod with a slower shutter speed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have been told in the past that aperture priority would be better for shooting weddings as you can operate much faster. Any thoughts on this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Use what works for you. I tend to prefer manual but there are plenty of times I throw the camera in A to shoot. If I had to generalize it, I would say the the <em>situation</em> determines which mode I use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also tend to use spot or centre weighted metering for weddings to make sure the dress is exposed ok!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are shooting manual, then the metering is only a guide. If you are using the meter to get the camera meter to -0- (or any other predetermined metering point), then by all means, shooting aperture priority will be much faster. That is all aperture priority does: get the meter to -0- (or +1 or -1 or however you have it set). Shooting manual means understanding exposure and metering to arrive at the exposure you want regardless of what the meter might say. But again, you can use it as a guide.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Nadine, I love your photo and would be very happy if I could get my flash to look as flattering as this</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why can't you? Now in a <em>dark</em> church, your image will look more like Marc William's first image. But, IMHO, that image rocks. Had it been shot at ISO 3200 to use available light, it wouldn't look nearly as good: the available light isn't good. Period. It is a matter of learning how to use your flash. Now in general terms, I use matrix metering when using a Nikon flash. But again, it is learning how to use your flash.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>with the flash on a off camera bracket with a diffuser so the light does not flatten the subjects</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And to learn to use flash, I might not rely on anything we say! Using a flash on a bracket is still going to give you flat light. <em>Direction</em> of light is going to give you depth, color, and texture. But then keep in mind <em>what</em> you are photographing. You aren't setting up a portrait shot with controlled ratios. You want to get a clean shot of the bride and her father. And the one thing flat light beats: no light.</p>

<p>Don't do it! Oh, you mean photographs.</p>

<p>Manual focus. And if you can't manually focus something as slow as a bride moving down an aisle, you have no business even shooting a wedding.</p>

<p>1. Your 50mm f1.4 lens <strong>may</strong> be very slightly faster than a zoom or Tamrons. However I would be very surprised if the difference made any difference in successful autofocus without you doing other things to help yourself. Anyway, a 50mm lens on a cropped sensor camera is 80mm--too long to take advantage of margin of error with the f stop.</p>

<p>I want to make it clear that while speed of focus acquisition is important, it is by no means the primary reason for successful autofocus. Asking any camera (low, mid or high end) to autofocus consistently and successfully in dim conditions without focus assist is a tall order. It is amazing to me how spoiled we get. Hopefully this isn't too much of an old timer's complaint, but I remember being grateful for autofocus, period, let alone autofocus in extremely challenging conditions.</p>

<p>Notice that in Marc W.'s post, he 'exercises' the focus so that the camera/lens has the least amount of travel to do before acquiring the actual focus point. This is one of those things you can do to help yourself.</p>

<p>2. Re the shutter speed mentioned (1/125th). The speed was mentioned as a minimum for slow walking, without flash, with the subjects approaching or receeding toward or from the camera. Perhaps review the kinds of shutter speeds needed to stop motion. See the link.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.passingimage.com/clients/pc_class/Motion_Blur.pdf">http://www.passingimage.com/clients/pc_class/Motion_Blur.pdf</a></p>

<p>In the above, 1/60th is recommended as the minimum for head on motion. I said 1/125th because I like margins of error, as you see.</p>

<p>So if you are not using flash (or even using flash only for fill), you will need to pay attention to the above. If flash is the main source of light, you can do what's called 'dragging the shutter'. Also do searches--particularly start reading Neil van Niekerk's blog--the tutorials on using on camera flash.</p>

<p>Notice in my shot, I used 1/30th, a shutter speed that would most certainly have resulted in subject blur if I didn't use flash as the main source of light. Dragging the shutter is often used to 'bring in' background detail, as Marc W. explains.</p>

<p>Yes, to maintain a shutter speed of 1/125th (or even 1/60th), one normally has to push the ISO way up and open up the aperture. Pushing the ISO up is definitely more of an option these days. I started out shooting weddings with ISO 125 film, then thought myself lucky when I could use ISO 400 film. With my 5D, I don't go much beyond ISO 1250, because that is where I draw the line for image quality. Remember--don't underexpose, and noise will not be a huge issue--even with a cropped sensor camera. Anyway, I choose not to use the extremely high ISOs because dynamic range is still lacking from the extremely high ISO photos, and while processing software is getting better every day, IMHO, it still isn't something I like to do as a matter of course.</p>

<p>As for extremely wide apertures--well, let's just say that it doesn't help with the margin of error, and focus is still hit and miss with even the best, high end cameras.</p>

<p>I would not use a tripod for processionals. I can't imagine having to deal with that while in aisles and (if allowed) at the front of the church, and I <strong>like</strong> tripods for other uses. Anyway, a tripod is not necessary for processionals due to subject motion. Hand holding 1/125th is not difficult--even 1/60th, if you aren't using a telephoto lens longer than about 80mm (remember--the money shot is at a shorter focal length than that).</p>

<p>A D700 will help you in many ways, but just the fact of using one will not help you shoot sharp processionals (Peter, feel free to comment).</p>

<p>3. I don't see the point of using aperture priority for processionals unless you are not using flash, and the lighting varies a great deal, such as an aisle that has numerous bright spotlights shining down, <strong>and</strong> you are shooting a lot of frames. Additionally, you absolutely can predict your camera's auto exposure, cold.</p>

<p>If you use aperture priority, you are 'forced' to accept whatever shutter speed the camera wants to use, so you lose control over that.</p>

<p>In the above condition, I would pinpoint the spots along the aisle that I would take the pictures, probably not under the spotlights (for either no flash or flashed shots), and pinpoint my 'money shot' position. I would use manual camera mode, after having determined my exposure. Whatever method of exposure works for you is what you should use. For most any kind of flash shot, I am in manual camera mode. With flash only images, spot metering is moot, I think, although I do not know how Nikon cameras work spot metering in with flash, if at all.</p>

<p>4. If I am in a church with extremely high ceilings or dark ceilings and walls, where bouncing is totally out of the question, I would use white card bounce. I use some white card bounce anyway, even if I can bounce off ceilings and walls. That is what was used in my example. Fortunately, as you see, the ceilings and walls are light colored.</p>

<p>It is highly unpopular but I use a flash bracket for processionals, many times, particularly if I am forced to use white card bounce or even go direct (I often put the wide angle diffuser down if I go direct in a very dark situation, using higher ISO).</p>

<p>I think I've said enough so I'll save the old school techniques for another post. :^)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>1. Your 50mm f1.4 lens <strong>may</strong> be very slightly faster than a zoom or Tamrons. However I would be very surprised if the difference made any difference in successful autofocus without you doing other things to help yourself. Anyway, a 50mm lens on a cropped sensor camera is 80mm--too long to take advantage of margin of error with the f stop.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Nadine, I have used both lenses on a D300 and there is no comparison. The Nikon lens <em>will</em> focus faster. Again, even the Nikon 17-55 is noticeably faster than the Tamron 17-50. I am not sure what you mean by taking advantage of the margin of error with the f/stop? I'm not suggesting shooting the 50mm @ f/1.4. But let's say you are shooting both lenses at f/2.8: the f/1.4 is still letting in 4 times more light than f/2.8 even if it does stop down to f/2.8 to take the shot. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With flash only images, spot metering is moot, I think, although I do not know how Nikon cameras work spot metering in with flash, if at all.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In general, when using Nikon's flash system, I prefer to keep the camera in matrix metering. You can certainly use spot metering, but then the flash will default to standard iTTL mode. In other words, Balanced iTTL is not available in spot metering. Balanced iTTL is Nikon's version of "fill" flash whereas standard iTTL treats the flash as more of a key light. In Canon vernacular, I believe the flash is always a fill flash unless you are in the Program mode with the camera.</p>