Shooting at weddings wide open - technique and philosophy

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

Following on from the excellent threads on flash that Nadine started..

 

I want to start by saying that I'm not a wide open shooter. However I feel that

the biggest problem with my pictures is too busy backgrounds, not enough

seperation between the subject and the rest of the picture. I thought it would

be a good idea to start a thread on the subject of shooting wide open and

invite techniques, when and where, etc from members experienced with this type

of shooting as well as pictures which demostrate the use and need of wide open

shooting. (Please Mary?)

 

If people could add their thoughts and experiences on the subject of focal

lengths and distances to subject, focus recompose and the useability and

placement of off center focus points in low light especially with non pro

bodies, shooting wide open with moving subjects without using tracking focus

(pain in the neck to switch too and from with Canons as well as the fact that

the first shot in AI Servo is not focus priority, i.e. will probably be out of

focus), Whether using flash IR assist is a must for accuracy in low light with

such shallow DOF, Bokeh and the choice of lenses, etc, etc.

 

If anyone else has any questions then please add!

[ronaldo_r]

Sorry, I've got a question. Who's Nadine and what did she say?

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

Nadine Ohara is a respected poster here who started a couple of threads teaching flash and advanced flash technique. I assume you can search her name for the threads in question.

[david_jones11]

Interesting topic.

 

In comparison, I'm trying to think of many times I shoot at an event when I'm not wide-open or thereabouts. Looking at the exifs from an Indian wedding on Sunday it wasn't until the formals that I took a shot slower than 2.8. The camera was a 1d MkII, lenses were 16-35/2.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8.

 

I program a button with my favourite focus point (far right, when looking in landscape). This way the point is usualy nicely over the subject's eyes when in portrait, and I often leave it on in landscape as I like an off-centre composition.

 

Yes, I'd agree switching between one shot and ai servo is a faff and something I need to look into.<div></div>

[kari douma]

Great topic... I will be reading and following. I have tried to shoot wide open, but I have trouble with it. It seams that if I am wide open I have a lot more OOF images. Sometimes I'll play around with it, but I alwys stop it down to "make sure" I get the goods. When my wide open shots are focused, they are great, and I love them. But, I have a hard time relying on them, because I am worried about getting the shot.

 

I think part of my focus issue is a slow focusing lens. I have an old 80-200 2.8 Nikor lens that takes awesome pictures. But the focus on it is slow. When my subject is moving, it has a hard time keeping up. I went to the camera store this week and checked out the new VR lens, with the motor drive in the lens. That is SO quick to focus. I think I'll be making a new purchase soon!

 

When I use flash with my lens wide open, I have a tendency to overexpose with my flash. I haven't figured this out yet. I can have my camera set to ISO 400 or 800, and my lens at 2.8 ss 1/60. I will still be well under ambient light at a reception, but my TTL flash will just BLAST the subject. I can dial it down to -3, and sometimes it is still too strong. So, I end up stopping down again. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[jfr]

The one thing that I find different apart from the small DOF is the mood in wide open photos. Especially lenses of 1.4 and larger apertures are most of the time calibrated for smooth bokeh and nice tonal gradations instead of absolute sharpness. It is less critical that everything is tack sharp. Although it still looks far better when your subject is very sharp, the mood makes up for a lot.

 

On DSLR's AI servo should be avoided as you mentioned, you will hardly get any sharp photos. I almost always use IR assist. Most of the times from a flash that is there anyway even if the flash itself is off. I almost only use a SLR on longer lenses (>50mm) 50mm and under I shoot with a Leica, almost always close to or wide open. It takes some getting used to, but the lenses are so worth it. The noctilux and superbly corrected wide angles are phenomenons to be seen with your own eyes.

Using lenses wide open in daylight is cool too. There probably will be more contrast in the OOF-areas which most of the times looks quite cool and almost psychedelic in color.

[ronaldo_r]

shooting wide open doesn't necessarily blur the background. E.g, if you're shooting B&G from a distance there'll be lots of things in the plane of focus. You have to be relatively closer to your subject than the things to be blurred behind the subject. Otherwise your f stop doesn't matter, you can have everything in focus if shooting afar at even f1.0

 

Therefore, the subject line "Shooting at weddings wide open" doesn't necessarily mean "...sepEration (sic) between the subject and the rest of the picture..."

[think27]

Rinaldo is right on. I've shot wide open when shooting family groups in low light. I just make sure I step back far enough. When I want the background to go out - I get closer. When I'm shooting a ceremony for instance - I'm way back with my zoom lens and at 1.4 or 2.8...No out of foucus problems whatsoever. If you get too close - you will have out of foucus problems behind and in front of your subject.

 

 

And Ben - this is exactly the type of thread where image uploading for examples is encouraged. Maybe someone should start a fresh thread where people can upload images (multiples allowed) to demonstrate and explain what they did.

[stacy]

Shooting wide open is one of my favorite things- and the 135 f2 is currently my favorite lens to shoot open. Since it's a long lens and focuses rather close you can get some very selective focus :)<div></div>

[allen_d.]

I shoot most of my receptions now wide open (WO) because they usually are so dark and I prefer to have some ambient light show if possible. WO will also give you some white balance issues, so shooting raw is a must. This was a 5D with a 24 1.4 at 800ISO 1/125s WO. Evaluative metering with flash dialed down 1/3. I felt the light blended Ok with this shot, but often these images will end up B&W. Even with a wide angle lens, shallow DOF is possible.<div></div>

[robbie_caswell]

I have better examples, but not the permission to use them. So here is a cropped example from my 85mm f/1.4 at f/1.6 and 1/60.

 

I was just came across a thread that had Jeff Ascough stating in his film days he never shot anything faster than 400 speed film rated at ISO320. I guess it helps having the F/1 Noctilux and knowing how to use the system. Still, I found that revelation just stunning.<div></div>

[picturesque]

Don't have any good techniques since when I shoot wide open, I tend to use manual focus as my 20D isn't exactly the best with autofocus.

[nicola inglis]

I have two theories about this...

 

Firstly I believe that we remember in f2.8. What I mean is when you remember things you remember the detail, or just one thing from the scene and the rest is 'OOF' in your mind. So my goal at a wedding is to record memories and memory triggers for the future therefore I often choose to be wide open (although I prefer 2.8 to wider apertures).

 

The other theory is that at a normal wedding (not Marc's paparazzi shoot out!) even if guests have fancy cameras they most often have them on A or P and so by using f2.8 I make sure my images will look different (and therefore more professional) than theirs!

 

So...two reasons, one a bit esoteric and one very practical :-)

[melody1]

I am the opposite of you Ben. I shoot wide-open almost all of the time. Not saying this is a good thing, but if you look through my portfolio, you can see that my images go well together.

I think my tendancy to shoot wide open comes from two things - 1) I'm an ambient light shooter. I am not experienced in flash, and until I am I shoot without because I know what will and what will not come out. 2) the way our eyes work it to focus on a point when looking at a subject near you, and the background and foreground blur. It 'feels' more realistic to me to shoot wide open when shooting subjects that are near the camera.

Anyway, to each their own, I'm working on closing my aperture in order to allow for more creative freedom.<div></div>

[melody1]

One more try.<div></div>

[stacy]

That's a good one Melody!

[allen_d.]

Concerning some of your other concerns: IR assist from a 580 is a MUST in these situations. And manually selecting the focus point is also critical as your subject is often not in the center or even what the camera may think you want! I don't think tracking is very effective with IR either. Be prepared to take several shots still as even the IR assist isn't 100%.

[uk]

Wide open<div></div>

[uk]

Wide open at 0.7m. Focus on near eye.<div></div>

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

Robbie, your picture begs an important question; namely, is it safe to use such shallow DOF for such an important very much must have shot? What if the camera misfocuses or starts to hunt and you miss the shot? With the hugely cermony intensive weddings I shoot I would say that unfortunatly 70% of my shots are 'must have shots' and they have to be shot fast with no time to redo. What do people think about this, does that shallow a DOF leave no insurance for a photographer shooting must have moments?

[robbie_caswell]

Well luckily the pro I was working for was shooting from the other side. I certainly understand what you are stating. By looking at the image I'm guessing at best I had a DOF window two feet to work with.

 

I'm starting to see the advantages of the 50mm. Really an inclusionary, compositional decision vs isolating portraiture qualities of the 85mm. Though the greater DOF is a bounus.

 

Sometimes I feel something is left out of the story. Gary tells a story with his two images while Melody's, while beautiful, leaves me wanting to see more. A pattern, I have a hard time with as well....

[jfr]

I don't couple my AF to the shutter release, so a ring shot and other shots with stationary objects are quite safe to shoot wide open IMO, just focus and wait for the right moment and take the shot. If there is too much time between the focussing and the shot I refocus after a few seconds. I feel perfectly comfortable shooting them wide open. I find it no more scary than choosing the right shutter speed. As long as you know how your shot will look when shot wide open.

 

Wide open puts even extra attention on a subject that is clearly the subject of the shot and keeps the shot simple and easy to look at with high impact. But that's no news probably.<div></div>

[uk]

Robbie, your picture begs an important question; namely, is it safe to use such shallow

DOF for such an important very much must have shot? What if the camera misfocuses or

starts to hunt and you miss the shot? With the hugely cermony intensive weddings I shoot

I would say that unfortunatly 70% of my shots are 'must have shots' and they have to be

shot fast with no time to redo. What do people think about this, does that shallow a DOF

leave no insurance for a photographer shooting must have moments?

 

Ben,

 

A shallow depth of field is an essential artistic technique and must be used extensively to

create interesting images. The opposite is to do 'record' photography and provide literal

interpretations which have a place, but over used is very boring unless it's in a catalogue

for achitectural pieces.

 

"Isolate and emphasise" is something I try hard to do in most pictures and is demonstrated

by the other contributors above. DoF is a key tool in your box for this, but focal length

and positining also help.

 

Doing this job we all have to deliver 150+ good images and playing safe is no good. Every

Saturday is a wonderful opportunity to practise and perfect your techniques with models

supplied.

 

Get the "wages" shots and then provide an artistic approach to each element of the

proceedings. The lack of light in bedrooms and churches should be forcing wide

apertures, but 3200 iso is working against you in this I suspect.

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

Large apertures, with a shallow DOF, is a particular look. One of the things that a client buys, when they hire a photographer, is a "look". So one of the first questions is, do I want to sell that look? A lot depends on the tastes of your clients. Some clients think that a "good" picture is a sharp picture. Ben's generally traditional clients probably place more importance on sharp than art.

 

I have yet to shoot with any Nikon lens (prime or pro zoom) that was as sharp wide open as it was stopped down a bit. (I can't tell squat about critical sharpness from 72dpi pictures posted on the web.) I also run into a quite a bit of variation as to what different photographers consider sharp.

 

Since I think sharp is important, I choose an aperture that depends on the subject I'm shooting and the look I want. If I'm shooting someone, or thing that isn't moving fast and I know I'll be able to get in focus what I want in focus, I'll do some shots with shallow DOF. A fast horrah in a dark room? No way.

 

To avoid clutter in the background: pick a different spot with a simpler background, light the subjects so that the background goes dark, crop tighter, get the subjects closer to you and farther from the background.

[melody1]

"A shallow depth of field is an essential artistic technique and must be used extensively to create interesting images."

 

Although I am a wide-open type of gal (and THAT shouldn't be taken out of context, heh), I disagree with this statement.

 

It's about storytelling, and at times the background is key to the story.

The example I'm attaching is made of two photos. Had there been more light, I would have stopped down to get both in focus. Instead, the shot had to be wide open, and looses some of what it is supposed to portray. (FYI, it's from a baby shower, and is the hands of a father and son, one 92 years old and one in his 60s.)There would be more of a story in these pictures if I could have had both in focus.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is aperature and depth of field are tool. When used correctly, it turns a blah image with too much happening into a striking portrait of the subject (whatever that subject may be). At the same time, there are instances where the background is a vital part of the whole, and composing your subject and background to show the relationship between the two is very important.

 

Also, I didn't add in my first post, I shoot manual focus at all times. It used to be because I didn't have a camera that auto focusses. After buying an F100, and a D200 I do it now because I find it too time-consuming to tell the camera where I want to focus, when I can just do it myself. Especially since my subject doesn't usually fall on those little brackets in the viewfinder anyway.<div></div>