HOW wide

[stephen_kinosh]

<p>I've been shooting weddings with a D300 and 17-55 2.8.<br>

'I've noticed with larger bridal parties, I really need somthing wider.</p>

<p>Recommendations?</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>Just a thought Stephen, not trying to be a educated donkey, couldn't you move back a little to capture an entire group?</p>

<p>Maybe I just don't get it.</p>

<p>Happy Holidays.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Ah.....so buy something wider. Or did I miss your point? Bob</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Nikon 12-24 f/4 or Tokina 11-16/2.8</p>

[stephen_kinosh]

<p>YEs, you could move back but then the group gets smaller......................</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>And if you use a wider lens the group is still going to appear smaller. That's the point, make the group 'small enough' to fit within the sensor/film frame (see Willie Wonka :D ).<br>

The only thing being closer and going with a wider lens achieves is distortion and maybe reducing the background exposure if using a flash.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Stephen......is this an honest, serious inquiry?? Assuming that it is, try this: Recompose your group into a more favourable ratio of height/width......Bob</p>

[stephen_kinosh]

<p>trying to work around the fact that a lot of small churches have seating close ot the altar area, so it's hard to get full length shots if you have to move back to get the whold group in the shot.<br>

I jsut did a wedding with 14 attendants, We did the stack em behind poses, but the bride wanted teh formal string em all out shots. SHe was OK with teh way they turned out, but I wan't crazy about it.</p>

<p> s</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>With the D300, you definitely should be packing a wider lens to go with your others. It's not always as simple as "moving back" or recomposing as some have suggested. I'd shoot for the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 as my first choice. The Nikon or Sigma 10-20 would be good too if you can't get the Tokina.<br>

In the words of the old Pontiac commercial, “E Aho Laula” (wider is better!). </p>

[savagesax]

<p>Some basic technique is needed to be discussed. With wide angle lenses a bride will look even wider! With long lenses the bride will like her photos a lot better. Also with split lighting you can slim the bride down a lot.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Any wider than 18mm and distortion becomes uncomfortably visible. Sure, you can get the whole group in, but it won't look pretty for anyone on the edges.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Which is better--having pew ends in the photo or wedding party members on the edges that have egg shaped heads? If you are talking about the formals, I wouldn't use anything wider than 28mm (non crop) and even then, I'd leave plenty of space on the edges (not put any people near the edges).</p>

<p>When people ask for the string em out shots and you know you'll have to go real wide, explain it to them and say you'll shoot one that way and shoot it, then stack em and shoot that too. Give them both. If she is/was happy, why worry?</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Respectfully.......this is not rocket science....<br>

1. Pose Differently<br>

2. Buy a w/a lens<br>

3 Consider taking up plumbing.</p>

 

[stephen_kinosh]

<p>I've noticed that when someone askes a question in the forum here most members take the time to give practical answers and solutions, but there are a few that just make coments to have something to say.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I'm with you on that Stephen.<br />As far as what to do, I'm in the step back a bit (if possible) or rearrange the grouping school. The D300 is 1.5 crop? 17mm is already fairly wide, I would guess like 15~16mm on Canon's 1.6 crop, which I'm more familar with. Go wider, say to 12mm, and your subjects <em>will</em> start looking like they've bulked up, I know from experience ;)</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong>"I've noticed with larger bridal parties, I really need somthing wider. Recommendations?"</strong><br>

<br>

I have mentioned several times 28mm is my limit too (FF), - occasionally 24mm, but very carefully and also with safe edges.<br>

<br>

My Primary recommendation, as others have mentioned, - efficient and precise internal group arrangements (posing).<br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>BTW -</p>

<p>That WAS meant to be helpful - I have worked with assistants, often: and on FF do not like them working wider than FL 35mm, for group shots, because of what I refer to as :"Fat Arms at the Edge Syndrome" </p>

<p>In mostly all cases with effort into arrangement at the front end, a 17mm on an APS-C should be able to get all the groups in shot, even in tight surrounds - even then at 17mm I would be seriously watching the edges, and the Camera Elevation, relative to the Subject's Height. </p>

<p>19mm would be my "safe" limit with your gear . . . <br>

<br>

This is not some arbitrary rule I have made for my employees – it is a safety net for me too, to allow thinking about more important issues . . . like always being three shots ahead . . . and having all the groups shots done in the ten minutes available. </p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I woud not be using much wider than a 20mm on a crop body for any groups that are formal.</p>

<p>I love wides though. I currently have 14mm as the wide, and on FF, its wiiiiide.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>The D300 is an APS-C sensor camera. In fact, my Sony A700 uses the same sensor (Sony sells them to Nikon). There are TON of uses for the superwide zooms at weddings that go beyond shooting church formals, although they can work in those situations too. Let me post some examples shot with the Sigma 10-20 below.</p>

<p>I specifically use this lens for shots like these (in addition to other less wide focal lengths for other kinds of shots) because it brings a whole different perspective to the scene. All of the below shots are at 10mm. Yes, people close to the outside edges do get distorted, but as you can see from these shots, that's not always a bad thing. If you choose a low angle, as with the groomsmen shots, or from a 5' stepladder, as with the bridesmaids, the heads are drawn to the center, and away from the distorted sides. I always allow for an 8 x 10 crop factor to lose an inch from the sides anyway, and that's where this lens distorts the most. </p>

<p>The cool thing is that the straight lines remain almost totally straight, which is wonderful for architecture. The 10mm really brings in the drama of the sky in a way a 17mm or shorter lens cannot. The fireworks and other scenic shots simply would not have worked at 17mm. I never would have gotten in the drama of the sky while keeping my couple close enough to have good flash coverage. The bride by the lake has a dramatic perspective with all of the background elements that a shorter lens could not reproduce. The bottom image could not have been done without it, because my back was pressed against very prickly bushes. The shot of the African American groom and his guys was in a VERY tiny closet with a Lightsphere held off-camera. I could not have gotten them all in and captured the humor of the moment any other way. And the garter toss was shot with a single Lightsphere, and the 10mm brought everyone into the shot without the distortion of a fisheye (I had no room to back up anymore).</p>

<p>Now, I sometimes use a software lens correction with some superwide shots of large formal groups, so I often overframe a bit because you lose some on the sides. I've shot large wedding parties without getting the pews in the shot (with all their books and papers), and then corrected to reduce the distortion, and it works quite well. It's like having your cake and eating some of it too. This is why I say "wider is better".</p><div></div>

[steve_c.5]

<p>The other thing I love about shooting this wide is the way it takes trees, clouds, buildings, and ground elements and turns them into diagonal elements that draw interest to the subjects. You can't get this effect any other way in many cases.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Steve C:<br>

<br>

I think it might be necessary to define the subject matter we are addressing in this post, I assumed the OP was about Group Shots ONLY - my answer should be taken in that context.<br>

<br>

***<br>

On wider issues (pun intended) . . .<br>

<br>

Your script makes sense and with most of it I concur and moreover, I personally like the variety of the images you posted. <br>

<br>

I like working wide angle. Personally, I think some controlled distortion is good - but I have more my business hat on at a Wedding.<br>

<br>

Addressing ONLY the Groups Shots you posted - I am confident I could cement the three casually posed images of the Men into my most of my Client's Album Choice, but NO other of the Group examples would sell, for me.<br>

<br>

I think this is why Style, Client Base and Client's expectations and business structure are all considerations of the equation when addressing these questions - everything is interlinked.<br>

<br>

I agree entirely that an Ultra Wide and Wide Lens are useful, and I carry: 15mm Fish; 16 to 35 zoom and 24 Prime and have used all of those on my 5D, at a Wedding.<br>

<br>

But, for the Group Arrangements I am very careful: I know that if I showed in my Presentation Group Shots like those you posted, it would seriously cripple sales, and perhaps deter ongoing recommendations.<br>

<br>

I particularly compliment you on the Tango Style Kiss and Fireworks - I find that image both passionate and technically well executed, apropos containing the wide.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<div></div>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Perhaps I'm missing something, but I feel all the comments here so far have been in the spirit of giving practical answers and solutions, and everyone here has their own take. The OP feels he needs a wider lens, statedly for group shots, so my posts have been directed to confirming that need, and expressing other ways the wider focal length is useful in addition to group shots. Some of the responses seem to dismiss how such a wide lens could be needed in wedding work with the D300.</p>

<p>WW, I appreciate your kind comments. On the point you made about whether certain images would "sell", my client has already bought everything I shoot anyway, so individual print sales are typically made by their friends and family online. However, for studio fulfillment, many of my superwide shots are selected by my clients, as well as the narrower focal lengths.</p>

<p>I'm careful too by shooting both superwide and narrower shots for important group shots. I give the client the choice of having shots at, say, 20mm or 24mm with church pews dominating the lower corners and cutting off the wedding party's legs, or the wider shots with minimal pews and the party full visible. I let them pick the one they want printed. But when you see me shoot a lot of wide shots like this, it's because the clients have seen my work and expressed that they like this particular wide look.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I don't think there is reason to say that one shouldn't use a superwide in wedding photography in general, but if you want a <em>normal looking</em> group shot without disproportional body parts, you probably don't want to solve the fit-everybody-in problem with a wider angle than you have unless your shot includes <em>a</em> <em>lot </em> of surroundings with the people in the center. If you're specifically <em>looking for</em> a shot where people look funny and they're fine with it, then the superwide may be the right tool for the job.</p>

<p>My stomach can't handle looking at superwide group shots. :-)</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>with a wider lens the group gets smaller, also, if backing up or recomposing are not an option, then a wider lens, sigma and tokina are excellent lens.</p>

[wentbackward]

<p>I just bought an F75 for 50 bucks, that will be ultra wide with the lens you already have and can use all your existing Nikon equipment, including flashes etc.</p>