Can New Techniques Replace Old Ones for Wedding Basics?

[picturesque]

<p>With advances in digital technology, new techniques are emerging for many of the 'old' wedding basics, such as processionals, low light handling, bright sun, and reception shooting. For instance, many wedding photographers now photograph processionals in dark churches without flash at all, using continuous focus, wide apertures, and the much better autofocus capabilities of modern digitals.</p>

<p>Here are a few others.</p>

<p>1. Processionals (as mentioned)</p>

<p>2. Bouquet and garter toss with continuous framing, even with flash. Are all the extra images really necessary?</p>

<p>3. No use of flash whenever one can shoot without. Is any kind of ambient light really better no matter what?</p>

<p>4. Bright sun. We've all heard the 'dark background, expose for the shadow side, keep your subject between you and the sun' rule. How blown do you go? Is this really nicer than well done fill flash?</p>

<p>5. Extremely high ISO for receptions, some with no flash, others with minimal flash. What's your opinion?</p>

<p>I'd be interested in how you do the above, your take on things, and if anyone has anything else, feel free to add. Illustrations would be good.</p>

<p>Let's share.</p>

[curt_kalkstein1]

<p>In every profession there's some degree of practitioners performing for other practitioners - not just for their clients. I remember my days in radio news, we'd sometimes get so caught up in the complexity, fascination and uniqueness of a story, we'd run it regardless of how interesting or meaningful it might have been to the public.<br>

I love great light, but I also know mom is more concerned about an impossible cute smile from her 1 year old than she is about Rembrandt lighting. As digital technology has given a slew of "photographers", the assurance that they're leaving a wedding or other photo session with at least something recognizable, the public has also compromised its expectations. It's far more difficult to fully fail at an event, so brides and grooms and other clients are willing to put cost before quality because they know they'll have something/anything to remember things by.<br>

So, while it's important to professional photographers that fill flash be used to get rid of/prevent raccoon eyes and any other problem, the increasing number of "photographers" who don't care, who don't educate and don't adequately deal with it, increasingly offsets those who do. People going to a wedding consultation might not even be exposed (no pun intended) to these issues. And, of course, there are some photographers who might be good enough on the computer to fix problems that unfold on the scene, regardless of how long it takes them. <br>

That's my broad view on things. Technology improves in all realms, so just because we remember a time when it was a nightmare to go without flash in a dark banquet hall and be out-of-luck because of it (maybe we forgot our flash, maybe we didn't take enough batteries...), we see that things have evolved to the point that it's not a dire situation. I'm sure when some of us started in the 1990s we just took certain things for granted that people who started in the 1970s groused about because they had to do without it for 20 years (flash sync at 250 comes to mind).<br>

Curt</p>

[ed_farmer]

<p>I shoot far more available light than I did when shooting film. I can run my D7000 at ISO 1600 for almost any wedding photos and regularly go to 3200 and 6400 when needed. I pretty much have two cameras with me at all times. One on a bracket with flash and one with a fast lens for available light. Even when shooting WITH flash, being able to use high ISOs allows for faster recycle times and more shooting.<br>

I am NOT convinced the more shooting is a good thing! </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>WRT your point #5, since I got my d700, at receptions, I find myself using somewhat high ISOs (ie, 800 - 3200) and bouncing flash off of neutral surfaces (in back of, and above me) that, in past years, would have been too far away to do any good. Now, I can use the bounce flash as my main light, dragging the shutter just enough to keep some of the color and directionality of the ambient sources and keeping the background visible.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - The background in the attached shot was too confusing to make the final cut, but it illustrates the more gentle fall-off with flash bounced off of the tent (well in back of me) at the reception.</p><div></div>

[dave_wilson1]

I think by far the biggest factor is being able to use the higher ISO and everything that goes along with it. I don't shoot

weddings any more, but whatever type shooting I'm doing I use very mild fill flash very often, but for any sensitive

environments/situations where I want to remain as subtle as possible I use ISOs up to 3200-4000. In bright sun, I balance

with flash, I don't blow out highlights, better yet I avoid the whole idea and find better light if possible.

[markonestudios]

<blockquote>

<p>...processionals in dark churches without flash at all, using continuous focus, wide apertures, and the much better autofocus capabilities of modern digitals.<br>

Here are a few others.<br>

1. Processionals (as mentioned)<br>

2. Bouquet and garter toss with continuous framing, even with flash. Are all the extra images really necessary?<br>

3. No use of flash whenever one can shoot without. Is any kind of ambient light really better no matter what?<br>

4. Bright sun. We've all heard the 'dark background, expose for the shadow side, keep your subject between you and the sun' rule. How blown do you go? Is this really nicer than well done fill flash?<br>

5. Extremely high ISO for receptions, some with no flash, others with minimal flash. What's your opinion?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can certainly attest to the fact that digital sensor technology has allowed me to do some things that were nigh-on impossible during my film days. For one, having access to ISOs higher than 400 has been a Godsend. First with my humble XTi and now with my 5D2. I don't even flinch at or above ISO 2500 these days. Recently I shot a wedding where (admittedly), I forgot to dial the ISO down from 3200 while doing a short session with the bridal party. I only realised it later, when uploading my images. However, I have just completed their wedding album which included some 12x18 inch double-page spreads from those very photos which look superb in print.</p>

<p>1. Since I got my FF DSLR, I have increasingly found that I am shooting almost entirely <em>sans</em> flash until perhaps the bridal session, where I sometime use radio-triggered off-cam flash (again another benefit of modern tech)</p>

<p>2. Much as I have the ability to do so, I almost never make use of the continuous burst mode. Admittedly, I often do, for the bouquet toss. There can be such a glut of expressions and motions, so I prefer to have a few options. Of course timing is still crucial, and I will always coordinate with the bride before the toss.</p>

<p>3. As mentioned previously, I believe my style has truly evolved in large part due to the equipment that is now available to me. I do know how to use flash and, importantly, when to use it. But by and large, I prefer ambient whenever possible. Granted though, I live in a part of the world where I don't need to deal with too many environmental ermmmm...unpleasantries ;)</p>

<p>4. Which leads nicely onto this next point. Sometimes I just don't have a choice but to blow out the background, fill flash or not. I regularly shoot alone, don't much like head-on flash, and more often than not need to shoot in directly overhead tropical sunlight. It's the nature of the beast. My style precludes the setting up of too much by way of auxiliary lighting. I restrict myself to simple reflectors and hotshoe flashes to fight off the African sun :D But more often than not, it has been easier to work <em>with</em> the sun than against it. Once in a while, I will over-blow out the background. But I try not to. I'm not a fan of overly blown out highlights.</p>

<p>5. I generally use high ISOs at receptions, circa 3200 and up. However, I will mostly use that with flash at receptions, for several reasons: Often the disco/DJ/venue lighting isn't too flattering on the skin, so I need to expose for that correctly. Also, the flash assist beam is a great tool. Finally, I love mixing creatively-bounced flash with mixed coloured lights. It just gives the image a good, authentic feel and captures the ambience without compromising on correct exposure.</p>

<p>All in all, I would definitely say that technology has informed and, more importantly, helped <em>refine</em> <em>and expand</em> my shooting style. I don't shun or ignore the "'old' wedding basics," but I certainly don't feel limited by some of the constraints I used to face when shooting 35mm film :)</p>

[shawn_mertz]

<p>Yes they have. Is it always a good thing? No<br>

The new cameras give us the ability to use many more techniques than in the past. Knowing how to do these things and when to use them is important too. <br>

Fill flash is easier than ever to do well. There is no excuse for someone calling themselves a pro to not know how to do this and when to do it. there is nothing wrong with making an artistic decision to blow out a background if that is why it is being done.<br>

Processional photo made using the technique you describe are far better than the old way of waiting for them to be in that one prefocused spot, (what if eyes are closed no backup shots)<br>

why not shoot up bouquet toss etc. as long as the lighting is good. so what if there are extras, once in a while a tenth of a second is the difference between so so and great. edit out the garbage later.<br>

what's it matter what iso we use at reception as long as the photos look good. Usally I have two bodies one high iso with a flash on it pointed to wall/ceiling but turned off until I want it. the other a traditional iso 400 with bounce flash for when it is needed.</p>

<p> </p>

[fotografz]

<p>My take on "things":</p>

<p>The advent of digital brought a couple of advancements that allowed more people to do competent work, not necessarily better than before, just more could then do it "well enough" ... the immediate review LCD and software replacing the lab/darkroom for more creative control (or fixing user mistakes).</p>

<p>Now, digital resolution has advanced, higher ISOs allow shooting in ambient light that was more difficult or impossible in past, flash photography is easier to learn, and the post software is exponentially better ... plus, the web has disseminated photographic information at an unprecedented rate.</p>

<p>IMO, this has resulted in a homogenization of photography, an oddly an averaging effect of dumbing it down in general. People talk a great game, but the work in general doesn't match the rhetoric. The average is better, the bad is worse, and the best isn't better ... also being worse in many cases.<br>

<strong>Specifics:</strong><br>

<br /> <strong>AF hasn't become better</strong> ... only has been improved for digital cameras. The Nikon F5 and more so the F6, still can out AF any digital camera made today and do it more consistently accurate. Only recently have the digital cameras come close ... but still look at all the issues with the D800 and 5D-III that have come to light. I process wedding images for many different digital cameras/photographers, and the amount of mis-focussed images is appalling.</p>

<p><strong>Machine Gunning</strong>: Personally, I do not subscribe to the notion of "shoot them all, and sort them out later". This mind numbing process is a myth that was debunked numerous times when motor driven sequences were compared to a couple well anticipated and timed shots. Automation has never replaced observation and timing ... whether film or digital. The guy that invented "decisive moment" photography did it with stone aged manual tools and ultra slow film, and is yet to be equalled let alone surpassed.</p>

<p><strong>Much higher ISOs</strong> is a double edged sword ... on one hand it can lessen the need for flash or eliminate it altogether ... on the other, it produces ghastly color casts and tints from mixed lighting that are all but impossible to correct in post, and high ISOs shorten the tonal "dynamic range" to ill effect. Yet many don't care as long as they get the shot, even if flat, blocked up, lifeless, with nuclear skin.</p>

<p><strong>Always ambient?</strong> The above also is my take on those that insist on zero flash no matter what. There is a big difference between people who study the prevailing light and wait for the opportunity to use the best direction and best quality of light, and those who will shoot anything anywhere. See Jeff Ascough's ambient approach for the former approach, rather then the latter.</p>

<p><strong>Blown highlights</strong> are okay if done for effect, especially back-lighting ... but most seem due to ignorance or lack of flash skills/improper technique/lack of proper gear. Wedding photographers are frequently forced to shoot in less than ideal lighting due to wedding day schedules. However, if you have a great location that happens to be pounded by the sun, why lose it?</p>

<p><em>Sample of balanced lighting in harsh back lighting:</em></p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>One anticipated, well timed shot rather than 10 per second.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>Use of ambient only ... where to stand to use the light, and wait to shoot ...</p><div></div>

[starshooter]

<p>Some things never change. "Look at the light" is still what a real photographer does. You can have the world's highest ISO but if the light is garbage -- coming from below to make everyone look like murder suspects, for instance -- your photos will be garbage.<br>

I remember when at the traveling Leica School, sponsored by Leitz, instructors said one could not possibly use a motor drive with a still cvamera because the built-up static electricity would ruin the film. They were devotees to the old sytle of photography when you took a lot of time before you took a photograph. I left the Leica School and proceeded to shoot film with my motor drive-Nikon F, as usual.<br>

In every era you have to sort out the pig food from the pearls. If a commercial jetliner crashes in front of you you probably would want to rapid fire your camera. But at a wedding you just might want to put a little thought into some of the photos from time to time.</p>