Wedding photography with 50mm lens.

[phineas_tarbolde1]

<p>Thanks Andrew for your input encouragement mixed with a little bit of caution --- which is always good. I have taken photos at office outdoor functions as the "official" photographer, and have consistently had pretty good results.<br>

The bride and groom knows that I take decent candids/docu type photos. They really are not interested in the usual fare (soft focus, close ups of flowers, rings, bride's maids and groomsmen arranged like piano keys on church steps steps etc.) This is her second wedding, so the pressure is somewhat less to produce the usual expected wedding photo package.<br>

The entire wedding will be held out doors, in a park, with a garden party aftewards. I will not be using a flash, but will have reflector. The bride will be wearing a simple summer dress, the groom will be wearing a regular suit (not a "tuxedo"). To be sure, I'll be taking a LOT of photos as you have done.<br>

Frankly I find that "wedding" photos nowadays evoke a certain predictable packaged look...that to me looks entirely artificial.<br>

I look at wedding photos from the past, including my parents pics (black and whites) , they are so simple, candid and honest. I figure if Cartier-Bresson, Eugene Smith etc, took their photos with often ONE lens (no zooms, no flash)I was hoping to do the same.</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p> "I will not be using a flash" -- Phineas, a flash is almost as important outside as it is inside. One of my mistake pictures from my early wedding days was the bridal party posed nicely around a bench in front of the church, bride and groom seated, people around them, etc. Plenty of light, shot with no flash. But the proofs (before digital) showed a mish-mash of faces in full sun and faces in deep shadow that looked awful. Fill flash would have evened it all out. Anytime you have the sun behind the subject you need fill flash and anytime the sun is overhead leaving big dark shadows under the eyes you need fill flash, and the list goes on. The fill doesn't have to be so strong that it looks like it was shot with flash -- the trick is to make the pictures look natural. Not to say that it's impossible to get through a wedding without flash, but it's not easy. Reflectors can help but aren't always strong enough and since it sounds like you're a one man band who is going to hold them, and do you have reflectors big enough for groups? Another warning: the bride and groom might say they don't want traditional shots, but lots of people say that before the wedding and then afterwards ask where the formals are. Especially the parents and grandparents, who might not be footing the bill on a second wedding but will still have their opinions.</p>

[wmervine]

<p>Hi there. Thought I'd add my 5 cents as I've just done a wedding in similar circumstances.<br>

I got asked to help a friend out who simply didn't have funds for a professional. And if I didn't they were going to rely on friends with point and shoots.<br>

The gear I had to hand was a Nikon D5000 with a f1.4 50mm prime and SB-600 with stofen.<br>

Even with alot of zooming by foot, it was a challenge. A decent zoom would have made my life alot better. On quite a few shots I've had to simply crop. At least shooting RAW at 12mp helped.<br>

And the flash is a must. Even outdoors it was so helpful for filling in.<br>

The challenge with weddings is there is not time to try redo or compose. Alot of the best candid shots are simply point and shoot. And yes, a 2nd body with another lens option would have been so much better. A 2nd photographer heaven.</p>

<p>BTW, this is my 1st post, and I'm still very new to the hobby.</p>

[buri]

<p>Welcome, Wayne. Thanks for taking the time to post. Your experience reminds me a lot of one that I had. Which I why I had posted warnings earlier.</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>Why not?</p>

<p>When I first started with wedding photography I used a Minolta SRT-101 with a 50mm lens. As I recall it was a f1.8. It was the only lens I had. It was the only camera I had. <br /> It worked then & I'm sure what you have can work well for you.<br /> Today, 95% of my wedding photography is with one lens, a 24-70 f2.8 on my Canon 5D.<br /> I'm now taking my Hasselblad stuff and making B&W photos! Clients love it and it reminds me of the old days but I couldn't afford "Hasselblad" stuff back then!</p>

<p>Smiles & Fun!</p>

[tsuacctnt]

<p>Find a friend who will let you use their body for backup. Buy a backup battery or two. If you start popping off lots of photos using that built in flash you might be surprised to find your battery doesn't last you through the preparation, ceremony, & reception. I use my 50mm f1.4 quite a bit as a portrait lens / low light lens, but I think you'll miss the wider focal lengths. Maybe that extra body you borrow will be a Nikon and have a 18-55 kit lens attached to it that you can throw onto your camera. </p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>The equipment you state you have is going to severely limit your ability to adequately cover this wedding Phineas. Even if this wedding is outside, you are still going to need to be able to add fill flash to open up dark shadows. The lens you have, on a DX body, will also require a longer than normal distance in certain situations.</p>

<p>If you do go ahead with this, having never done this before, I would STRONGLY suggest you go pick up a good book on Wedding Photography and read it cover to cover at least twice before doing this. At least then you will have a better idea of what shots are pretty much considered obligatory. A wedding is a no-do-over event. If you screw it up, there are no re-shoots. And backup equipment and batteries is pretty much a must.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>What about using a film body as a backup?</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>“Do you think it is possible to cover an outdoor wedding (afternoon) with a 50mm lens [on a DX Camera]”</em></strong><br>

<br>

Yes, but, apropos the equipment you listed for a small outdoor Wedding of up to 20 Guests, I would take all three prime lenses: I expect I would use the 35mm lens for about 90% of the shots as using the 35mm lens would be easier and more suitable for me.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

[gr]

<p>Oh! There go the nay sayers! Of course you can do it. Lot of good wedding photos have been taken using cameras with "limited" capabilities. The way I see it is that it's a small wedding. The bride is not paying for a professional wedding photographer and should not expect a top notch job. Have a talk with her and express your concerns and see if she is willing to go forward with it. If I were you, I would send an email with concerns and get an email reply. People tend to think a lot harder when they put things in writing.<br>

The fact that you asked these questions in the forum tells me that you are aware of the so called "limited" capabilities of your gear and, more importantly, you are ready to get prepared. That's a character trait that no gear can top. Being a gear head myself, I know the temptations we have to think that it's the gear that gets the photo. It doesn't. I look at the photos taken by my 8 year old with her trusty old Nikon L11 and wonder sometimes why I spend so much money in buying expensive equipments.<br>

Since it's outdoors, I am assuming light is not going to be aproblem. Note the time, scout the area the day before. Look for shades where you can take some special shots. Beg/borrow/steal a decent off camera flash (you will need it). If you have a 2 way radio use it instead of shouting instructions. Deputize somebody from the group to be your assistant. From your post it sounds like a well knit group, you will be surprised how easy that makes your job.<br>

Should you carry and extra body? I would if I were you. But if you don't have it, would you buy one for a wedding? I wouldn't unless I was going to do more weddings for money. Maybe you can rent. But fully charged extra sets of batteries is a must.<br>

At the end of the day all that matters is whether you got the shot or not.. your gear is good enough to get the shot in THIS wedding. Don' t let the nay sayers bog you down with reasons as to why you shouldn't do it.<br>

All the best.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Phineas - glad to help, if I've not misled you. I'll be attending another wedding soon, again as a guest but again planning to take back-up photos in case the official photographer doesn't know what he's doing; since I can't take a huge kit bag with me, I'm interested to see what people tell you. (This time I'll get my hands on a fast autofocus longer lens though, which would help a lot in dim light.)<br>

<br>

Craig - I'm sure a flash would help, and a reflector won't overpower direct sunlight, but would it not suffice for the shade? I'd be concerned about shooting bridal shots in direct sunlight anyway, just because of the harshness of the light and contrast (not that I'm an expert portrait photographer, even by the standards of my general lack of photography expertise). The last wedding I attended was helpfully cloud-covered, and a reflector or two appeared to be plenty - although I'll admit it was a large-ish reflector and only used for small groups. Assuming that it's a small and friendly gathering, I'd have thought a guest could be roped in to hold it - something you obviously wouldn't want to resort to as a professional shooter. I'm happy to be told that I'm mistaken about this: because I was only taking candids, *I* wasn't the one with the reflectors! They are, nonetheless, cheaper than flashes and much better than nothing.<br>

<br>

That said, I'm not a great believer in flash photography (at least without a ceiling or a studio set-up), so I bow to the experts as to what's necessary when shooting a portable flash in the field. Bear in mind that there are rumours of the SB-600 being hard to find/discontinued and that the 400 and 900 don't play with film cameras if you get one as a backup - one reason I'm likely to go on an SB-600 hunt myself soonish.<br>

<br>

I have to wonder how many more photographs Cartier-Bresson might have made with a zoom lens. Being ready to pick the decisive moment is critical, but I still think he must have seen a number of photo opportunities go by that might have made a good image if only he'd had a 21mm or a 135mm on the Leica at the time. A wedding isn't like hanging around on a street corner until something interesting happens (cue flames from Leicaphiles; I'm just trying to make a distinction, not criticise a master) so I'm not sure that you can extrapolate.<br>

<br>

Best of luck, whatever your approach.

[william-porter]

 

<p><br />I was the first person in this thread to provide all of the warnings that have been issued since: this is harder than it looks; you should have a backup body; you should have a flash. Obviously I think those are prudent warnings and the repetition of them by others has been appropriate.</p>

<p>But perhaps the most important warning of all is this: if you know that YOU are actually responsible for covering the wedding—if you are not in a position to put your camera down and go get another glass of champagne—then you should be aware in advance, that shooting a wedding can be very stressful. It's stressful because it's surprisingly difficult. It's stressful because you know that the bride and groom and their families will be disappointed if you screw up. It's stressful.</p>

<p>Given this unavoidable fact, the best thing you can do is, make things as easy for yourself as possible. Use what you have and know. DO NOT use new, unfamiliar equipment. Take everything you've got but don't plan on changing lenses constantly. Make sure in advance that your equipment is in good condition. Do bring extra batteries (always good advice). Make sure you have plenty of storage.</p>

<p>And then use the camera in the way that you are familiar with. If you tend to leave the camera in P mode, then leave it in P mode. If you don't have much experience with flash, don't get fancy: point the flash at the subject, put your system into its auto-flash mode (i-TTL or whatever) and let amazing amount of intelligence built into your camera help you out.</p>

<p>Know in advance that you will for sure (a) miss some photos that you will wish you hadn't missed and (b) that some photos you didn't miss won't be very good. C'est la guerre. Try to relax, and spend as much of your time thinking about positioning yourself and framing your shots.</p>

<p>Once again, good luck,</p>

<p>Will</p>

 

 

 

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Andrew, I definitely don't advocate shooting the bride in glaring sun, but at a wedding you have to be prepared for whatever comes up. Shade is obviously preferable. A reflector might or might not work in the shade, depending on how much light there is to reflect. But a flash will work anywhere. I understand your comment "I'm not a great believer in flash photography" but wedding photography isn't a place where you get to believe in things or not believe. It's an area where you have to deliver what the customer wants. Not that every single picture has to have flash, but by and large flash is a fact of life in wedding work. You can bounce them, diffuse them, use an umbrella or a softbox or whatever you like, but it's very difficult to get by without them.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>As we are discussing the possibility of shooting in Bright Sun . . . Flash will <em><strong>NOT</strong></em> work anywhere. <br /><br />In fact in Bright Sun - A Reflector is often a better tool for Fill, than Flash, <strong><em>because at the apertures one will be working: Flash will be severely limited by distance. </em></strong></p>

<p>Most "On Camera" type Flash units have a Working Distance of about 12ft to 15ft at the maximum for Flash Fill, in Bright Sun.<br /><br />This is only one of the reasons why the 35mm lens is most useful lens choice.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[alberta_pizzolato]

<p>I wished I had a bright sun problem when I shot a wedding for a friend. I only have one body and held my breath all day that it would get me through - it did. I have an SB-600 and couldn't have done a thing without one. And a bought a used 35-70 mm f/2.8 Nikon lens (for my D700 fx camera) - a lifesaver. But the sky - turned from black to partial sunny to bright sunshine and back every 5 minutes. Be prepared to make lots of quick adjustments if the weather presents inconsistent lighting.</p>

[alberta_pizzolato]

<p>Cannot get the photo to upload :(</p>

[pavol_bigos]

<p>I'm photographing wedding for a long time, latest years only with prime lenses and all my zooms are sold...You can check my work on www.bigi.sk<br>

Previous year my girlfriend start to shooting wedding also and for her fist wedding I give her only 50 mm lens and all day she cover only with this glass. The results are here:<br>

efka.bigi.sk<br>

I believe that with 50 mm you can make much better pictures as with any zoom, because you are focusing only on composition, emotions etc...and you do not need to wondering about "how to zoom"...<br>

I definitely recommended you this approach</p>

[phineas_tarbolde1]

<p>Hi Pavol,</p>

<p>Thanks for the encouragement. Great images! It is very inspiring and thanks for sharing. I love the natural look of your style. I just find the majority of wedding photos has a real artificial packaged look. It seems most couples nowadays have become accustomed and expect a certain "the look". -- which I hate and I'm guessing it's partly because a lot of wedding photographers have gravitated towards the similar gear. <br>

What sort of flash equipment are you using?</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>I don't think the gear has much to do with a packaged look, but the photographer does. However, if couples expect 'the look', then they are perfectly justified to look for a photographer who can give them the look and expect to get it, no?</p>

<p>If you hate the look, I'd suggest you don't produce it, given your bride is agreeable. Whether you have a single prime lens and no flash really doesn't have anything to do with the look. It is all about how you shoot with what you have.</p>

<p>If it were me, and you didn't buy anything else, I'd use the 35mm on the Fuji. And use the 85 and 50 as well. As you see with Pavel's girlfriend's images, one certainly can shoot a whole wedding with a 50mm (non cropped sensor and what your 35mm will become on the Fuji). This is what wedding photographers of old used to do. Your 50mm (80mm non cropped) will definitely be harder to use for the whole thing.</p>

<p>As for flash, the pop up flash is fine if you just want some fill. With digital, a lot can be done with adjusting the dynamic range in processing. In Pavol's wife's images, the outdoor ones are either overcast lighting, even shade (no flash needed and no special handling), or bright sun. I would think the bright sun ones were processed so the shadows were lifted. And a good amount of highlights were allowed to blow. This looks better in black and white, and many people convert to black and white in this situation, but color can be handled as well, although one starts to get that milky brownish tint. If you look at the group shot, the people in front are filled by reflected light off the concrete. The people in the back have harder, denser facial shadows. Pavol--your girlfriend does very nice work.</p>

<p>With color negative film, blown highlights were not so much an issue, but it was a lot harder to lift shadows.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I believe that with 50 mm you can make much better pictures as with any zoom, because you are focusing only on composition, emotions etc...and you do not need to wondering about "how to zoom"... I definitely recommended you this approach"</em></strong><br>

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

Pavol, the images taken by your girlfriend are very nice.</p>

<p>It appears to me that, if a 50mm lens was used, <strong><em>it was used on a 135 format camera ("what is termed "Full Frame")?</em></strong><br>

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

<em>You might like to confirm what camera the 50mm lens was used on, please?</em></p>

<p>If I am correct, then, the closest approximation to that Field of View, Phineas, would be to use the 35mm lens.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong><em>"It seems most couples nowadays have become accustomed and expect a certain "the look". -- which I hate and I'm guessing it's partly because a lot of wedding photographers have gravitated towards the similar gear."</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong><em> </em></strong></p>

<p ><strong><em> </em></strong></p>

<p >If customers have become accustomed to “the look” I don’t think it is anyway attributable to Photographers using similar gear, literally speaking. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But, if your meaning is that as most Wedding photographers use a Zoom Lens as their main working lens, rather than a set of Three Primes, for example; and as a result of that fact, many do not “think in steps” such as:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >1. What Shot do I want? (Tight Head / Half Shot / Full Length)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >2. What Perspective do I want?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >3. What Focal Length is therefore required to achieve 1 + 2 </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Then, I agree with you. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But I note that a Photographer using a Zoom Lens (e.g. 28 to 75 on a 5D for example) can still work that lens as if she were using a set of primes being 28, 35, 50 & 75. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Or, as another example, a Photographer using a 16 to 35 on a 30D, that Photographer could "think in steps" described above and he could use that zoom lens as a set of Primes (equivalent to) 28, 35, 45 & 58 (nearly).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So if you are referring to the nowadays common practice of using Zoom Lenses – <em >it all about how the Zoom is used</em> and not the literal fact that it is a Zoom, or that many today might not learn how to use Prime Lenses and appreciate the value of Prime Lenses, which IMO goes way beyond the “Step Thinking” approach which I outlined above. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[trw]

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2587049479_4b8bb06a5e.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>

<p>Here is an example of a group shot with 50mm on a 1.5 crop factor body. Lighting however was 2x sunpak speedlights, crosslit.</p>

<p>There was a large shaded lawn to work on.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Belatedly, Craig and William - thanks for the advice regarding flashes; I wasn't trying to disparage flash photography or suggest that it wasn't appropriate for a wedding, just proclaiming my own relative inexperience with fill flash (I'm a keen but incompetent amateur, not a wedding photographer). Given your feedback, I might try to get my hands on an SB600 before I attend a friend's wedding next month; I do have flashes, including a 550EX from my Canon shooting days, but nothing for Nikon with an SB600's flexibility. A flash isn't exactly conducive to staying inconspicuous, but I'd like to be prepared in case the official photographer doesn't seem to be coping.<br>

<br>

I should say: Phineas, for all we've said that taking the other primes would be a good idea, *do* take the AF lens. With posed shots, manual focus isn't a problem; for most candids the same is true. However, sometimes you want to get people walking around (the bride and groom walking back past the guests or their entry at the wedding breakfast) and there's no substitute for autofocus when tracking movement. I just didn't want you to get the impression that manual focus was worthless - although I got some decent shots with a 135 f/2.8 manual focus, autofocus would have got me more. Getting dancers was hard enough even with autofocus and a 50 f/1.4. Good luck!

[picturesque]

<p>There is such a thing as pre focus. This is what wedding photographers used to do before we had autofocus lenses. It still works.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"(the bride and groom walking back past the guests or their entry at the wedding breakfast) and there's no substitute for autofocus when tracking movement."</em></strong></p>

<p>. . . I think with the pre focus point being that Pew end, just there . . . is 15ft away and that means F/8, for Manual Flash (bounce card) using ASA400 . . . and that gives a perfect 10 x 8 frame with head & feet room using 645 format using the 80mm lens . . . we walk backwards a few steps if necessary, to keep the 15ft until the <strong><em>one shot</em></strong> is good.<br /><br /><br>

WW <br /><br /><br>

PS (DoF is a safe 6ft plus a bit).</p>