Finally . . . my first wedding photos!

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Marcus, I use the flash head zoomed to 200mm on my SB-910 for bounced shots from walls (and ceilings). Ralph's SB-800's can go to 105mm and it can be controlled manually. I am not suggesting underexposing the foreground. Getting enough bounced light back for a correct exposure at high ISO and wide aperture has never been an issue for me even at large interiors though I wouldn't try it with dark or coloured surfaces. E.g. ISO 400, f/5.6? Sure, it is an issue, but I'm talking about a scenario where I'd use f/2.8, ISO 4000. Neil van Niekerk demonstrates an aisle situation by only going up to 1/125th @ f2.8 @ ISO 1000 here:</p>

<p>http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/flash-and-ambient-light/</p>

<p>The vantage point is rather strange I'll agree on that but it still demonstrates my point. Motion is adequately stopped and the light looks like it belongs in the scene rather than attacks it.</p>

<p>A bounce card would not yeild as soft light as wall or ceiling bounce, but at a close distance it would still be an improvement to direct flash. If the angle of the card relative to the flash head is 30-45 degrees such as in the Lumiquest Big Bounce, there is no significant ceiling bounce that would affect the colour of the subjects in the foreground (2-3 m range). I don't use them often as the light is still harder than ideal.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Personally I like the look of direct flash for some photos. But I was raised all wrong. I thought Weegee was a great photographer.</p>

<p>Even if it's not conventionally flattering, direct flash against a dark background can sometimes capture a nuance of humor or emotion, even if it's occasionally grotesque, that might be missed by more conventionally flattering techniques.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

That's why I like using the Gary Fong stuff. I have two white hoods, one black and several white and warm tops. I can mix

and match, fill, half fill bounce, shoot through direct, warm, use the black hood on a stand and feather. It's not perfect but

it works for me and makes my life easy when trying to balance out light.

[bob_bill]

<p>I'm with Illka on the bounce. Colored walls, so what. I've got 3 of the 4 light characteristics captured the way I want them, direction, diffusion and intensity. Color tint, if I can't correct it, and I often can, there is always b&w, tinted and you have soft, directional light with proper exposure. In my book, that is more important than color in a lot of shots or god awful straight on camera light with ice pick catchlights in the center of the pupil. That's uncle harry lighting. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Bob said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Actually a lot of his images can be corrected through Photoshop.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bob, my post-processing work has been typically limited to minor color correction. I generally don't make extreme adjustments to the characteristic curve, but I do like to play with certain images just for fun. From our initial meeting, the bride made it clear that she was very averse to the use of any "plug-ins," but this image was the bride's favorite:<br>

<br>

<img src="http://studio460.com/images/Valentina-procession-02-700.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<br>

I had fully planned to use two of Nikon's "worst lenses" on a Nikon D3200 to create organic lens flare (the AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D and Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5), but didn't have time to try them out this time around.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Rab said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>I have to say, I think the area you most need to address is basic composition, you don't seem to me to have paid any attention to foreground or background in any of the shots you've posted so far. Most of your images include details creeping into the frame which could either have been excluded, or included with a compositional balance.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Believe me, no one was more disappointed in those shots than me. I'm fully confident in my compositional skills, but there were like like 17 trashcans in that room, a half-dozen bridesmaids, a hair-stylist, a seamstress, and, yes, <em>another</em> photographer! I'm lucky to have gotten any shots at all. Yes, I know that's the job, but I assure you, it would've been difficult for anyone (time from first shot to last in the room was less than 14 minutes).</p>

[studio460]

<p>Marcus said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Your head on flash shots were or were not diffused?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. It was straight-on, direct-flash. I thought about attaching a white card (I have several PortaBrace white balance cards just for this purpose), but decided it wasn't worth the bulk. I also own Rogue Flash Bender (which I think is one of the best on-camera flash modifier designs available), and although it's effective at very close range, I thought at the distances we're talking about, the difference would be negligible. Maybe I'll give it go next time (for the non-processional/recessional on-camera flash work, my flash was bounced into an assistant-held 30" FlexFill).</p>

[studio460]

<p>Ian said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Some nice ones.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Coming from you, Ian, I consider that <em>very</em> high praise, since you're one of the best (if not <em>the</em> best), available-light, candid photographers on photo.net (or, <em>anywhere</em>). Thank you!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Ilkka said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>In such a case something like the Lumiquest Big Bounce (or just a bounce card) on the on-camera flash and taking the recession shots with a 35mm wide angle would be ok for the foreground lighting. If using a tele, the "big" bounce may look like it was a small light source, but not quite as small as a pin prick light source like a direct flash. There is a bit of spill that helps enlargen the light source a little.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I went back and forth on whether to bring an on-camera flash modifier or not. I decided early on, that I didn't want to add even more bulk to an already unwieldy rig. I thought I was "safe" because everything <em>but</em> the processional/recessional was bounced into a FlexFill. But, I think I'll definitely give the Rogue a try next time for the processional/recessional shots.<br /> <br /> Regarding the bridesmaids' group shot, these girls were only willing to pose for a few frames, and this was the best of the bunch (everyone's eyes open, etc.). They were lit with a 4' x 6' softbox from about six feet away. I just checked the EXIF data: These girls posed for a total of 01:02 (one-minute, two seconds). If you look at the full-resolution, out-of-camera .JPG, there are no blown highlights on the black girl's face--exposure is spot-on.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Michael said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ralph . . . you did good.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, coming from an experienced wedding shooter of your caliber, I consider that <em>very</em> high praise. Thank you, Michael!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Lex said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Even if it's not conventionally flattering, direct flash against a dark background can sometimes capture a nuance of humor or emotion, even if it's occasionally grotesque, that might be missed by more conventionally flattering techniques.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're such a rebel, Lex!</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Ralph, you did some good, and some you didn't.</p>

<p>No one is more nurturing of initial efforts than I am. However, when others tell you to dismiss to a vocal critic, then I say take their advice with a grain of salt … at least at this stage.</p>

<p>Although delivered in an off-putting acerbic manner, Bruce has some very valid comments that can be more productive for you to consider than being told "you did great" … just because it was your first time out. You are an experienced photographer, which is more than a lot of beginning wedding photographers are. You should hold yourself to a higher standard than a rank newbie with a Canon Rebel and kit lens. </p>

<p>I've followed your diligent posts here for months regarding this wedding, and you went to it armed to the teeth with the very best money can buy … then in too many cases made ill use of it, or no use at all. Endlessly talking about gear is an internet phenomena, actually using the tools to good effect is an entirely different matter. </p>

<p>IMO, you were obsessed with gear, and got so complex and ambitious that when faced with reality, ended up juggling too many options … none of which you had mastered to the degree that makes using those tools second nature. I really believe that in your case "less would have been more". More mental energy to consider composition and angles. More awareness of what was going on around you rather than considering gear options. More time to do a test shot to set the camera/lens to open up the backgrounds, etc. Even now, your solution is to add even more gear, and more complexity by setting up lights for the background … which often is forbidden in many churches. </p>

<p>When being paid (a little or a lot), we should expect more of ourselves than just getting the shots required. IMO, too much is made of that. While weddings can be hectic, they aren't brain surgery … most of what we will be doing is known ahead of time so we can plan for it. However, one can over-plan and get overly excited and ambitious regarding all the possibilities to the point of creative paralysis. As my mentor once pointed out to me years ago … "Making a decision is difficult because it eliminates all the other possibilities". In other words, making a decision is the ultimate act of simplification … then you move forward with confidence, and just do it without worrying what could have been.</p>

<p>As I said, you did good in some instances, and not in others. Stroking you about the good stuff may bolster your ego, but paying attention to what can be improved is far more productive. </p>

<p>The future will tell whether you can beat the addiction to gear and simplify … then add stuff back in as you master the tools one by one when used specifically at a wedding. I have a lot of gear myself … but I use them one at a time, and only take them to a wedding when I feel one with the tool and do not have to think about it all that much. I do all the gear agonizing in the days preceding a shoot, not at it. If it doesn't fit my roller bag, it doesn't go … that's my way of disciplining my gear decisions. Try it, it is quite liberating .. and highly conducive to strengthening one's creativity.</p>

<p>Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear, but perhaps, just perhaps, it's what you needed to hear? </p>

<p>Best of luck going forward.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[randy_cooprider1]

Ralph, for diffusing flash you might look at Graslon. If you want to open the shadows in post you can do so in PSE or PS without too much trouble. I played with the aisle shot and could relieve the darkness but my eye is probably different than yours so please forgive details, just trying to show concept.<div></div>

[studio460]

<p>Marc said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>As I said, you did good in some instances, and not in others. Stroking you about the good stuff may bolster your ego, but paying attention to what can be improved is far more productive . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Marc, but I wasn't looking for high-fives all around--I was happy to just receive general comments along the lines of, <em>"Glad you didn't totally screw up!"</em> As far as the recessional, I decided going in to shoot on-camera flash only this first time (as previously advised by others here). My only goal for the processional/recessional was to be sure to nail my focus on the bride, and to make sure she was properly exposed. I do expect to improve my recessional shots next time using the techniques discussed. Also, while purely technical discussion has its place, I think it would be helpful to see more examples of others' processional/ceremony/recessional shots, plus any narrative to go along with them.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Randy said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ralph, for diffusing flash you might look at Graslon.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I think those are an intriguing design. I almost bought a Graslon several times, yet always decided against it at the last minute fearing the additional weight and bulk (plus, potentially adding yet another discarded Speedlight modifier to my "collection"). Do you own the small or large Graslon?</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

Ralph, I am an ancient amateur who does weddings for friends and family as a second shooter. I have a Sunpak potato masher style flash with a Lumiquest bounce diffuser. It loses more than than the 0.6 stops that Graslon does so there would be a luminance gain in changing diffusers. However, I don't have to lug a pro camera with external flash for perhaps 12 hours so weight is not as much of a factor as it would be to the main photographer. I tried to find the Graslon weight but the vendor did not post it on the Graslon web site so the only weight I could find was on this web site which also shows some comparison pictures

 

http://www.slrlounge.com/graslon-prodigy-insight-review-soft-lighting-for-speedlight

 

The Graslon weighs maybe 12 ozs that could be a deal breaker no matter how good it is.

 

Regards,

 

Randyc

[studio460]

<p>Yeah, I have a Lumiquest Big Bounce as well (I bought it years ago, and never use it). Thanks for the link, Randy, but I've also read the Graslon reviews, and although it looks like an interesting product, I'm probably better off using either a bounce card or my FlashBender. Speaking of on-flash modifiers, Marcus mentioned earlier:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"In such a dark area, without a reliable bounce surface, I come prepared with a simple piece of gear: a 8 1/2 x 11 piece of white cardstock folded in half and rubber banded to the speedlite . . . "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is probably among the best on-camera solutions--it's cheap, light, and easily removed or re-attached. Though I didn't use it on this occasion, I have a similar set-up using a 5" x 7" PortaBrace white balance card, which is easily attached to the back of a Speedlight using a bit of Velcro:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/portabrace3.jpg" alt="" /><br /> 5" x 7" PortaBrace white balance card ($3.99).</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If you can find a piece of plastic that gives a 30 degree angle you can use some velcro tape to attach your card at an angle so that the ceiling is not directly lit by the light from the flash. This way you avoid ceiling bounce (and possible colour shifts due to it) and can retain a really lightweight solution (but this kind of setup gives soft light only in the near field).</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Akkk … more pictures of gear and discussion of gear minutia.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Marc, but I wasn't looking for high-fives all around--I was happy to just receive general comments along the lines of, <em>"Glad you didn't totally screw up!"</em> As far as the recessional, I decided going in to shoot on-camera flash only this first time (as previously advised by others here). My only goal for the processional/recessional was to be sure to nail my focus on the bride, and to make sure she was properly exposed. I do expect to improve my recessional shots next time using the techniques discussed. Also, while purely technical discussion has its place, <strong>I think it would be helpful to see more examples of others' processional/ceremony/recessional shots, plus any narrative to go along with them.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>IMHO, that's the better question Ralph. </strong>Brackets, and big bounce diffusers are vitally necessary only when you insist on using on-camera flash as the key or primary source of light @ 1/250 and f/5.6 or f/8 … as opposed to using it as fill by dragging the shutter. This is exactly what Bruce was talking about.<br>

<br /> I do not care how you modify on-camera speed-lights … when used as the key source you'll get amateurish looking results like a newbie who simply set their camera on Program. Over-flashed foreground and cave-like backgrounds … with only the subject properly exposed. <br /> <br /> Today's cameras have liberated us from most extraneous tack-ons and such. Much improved higher ISO performance, way better Dynamic Range, superior AF all add up to "less is more". Not that speed-light modifiers do not have their place … but mostly it's when you are quite close to the subject before you'll realize any effect. <br /> <br /> Brackets are necessary to keep the shadows dropping down behind the subject … but that is due to such a strong dominance of the on-camera that it creates the shadow in the first place. I haven't used a bracket in eons … and none of my pro pals do anymore either … but I recognize that's strictly subjective opinion, and to each their own. I mostly just use a Stofen type diffuser on the speed-light, but remove that if shooting outside (unless I'm very close to the subject, then I use a Metz bounce made by Lumiquest), or no modifier when using an 85 or 135 indoors at distance. <br /> <br /> <strong>The aesthetic philosophy is this: </strong><br /> <br /> Use as much ambient as possible to render each scene in as natural a manner possible (people pick these venues and places for a reason, so try to show them off). Ambient is the key light whenever and wherever possible. Use on-camera lighting as fill in balance with that ambient.<br /> <br /> When the key directional ambient is truly poor, create it with off-camera lighting. Do everything in your power to avoid using on-camera as the key light source. Tattoo that on your forearm … LOL! <br /> <br /> As you requested, I'll show what I mean with images and explanations. These are everyday type processionals and recessionals. (<em>BTW, I wanted to say that your recessional content was great, love the exuberant expressions and body language! But how you lit it left a lot to be desired and took away from such strong content). </em><br /> <br /> Here's a recessional is what looks to be a well lit church but wasn't as well lit as is appears. It was shot with a Nikon D3 and 17-35/2.8 five years ago. ISO 800, 35mm @ f/2.8, 1/50 shutter, on-camera SB800. The camera's I use today would do better. Slower shutter speed is what opened up the background as did f/2.8. If I had shot it at 1/250 and f/5.6 or 8 the foreground would have been over flashed and the background badly under-exposed. <br /> <br /><br /></p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>Here's another one … a processional in a cave of a church … however, in this case I wanted to really try to capture the ambient nature of the enviornment with it's interesting architectural details and textures:</p>

<p>This was done six years ago with the D3 and a 24-70/2.8 … ISO 800, 27mm @ f/3.2, 1/50 shutter. I this case I probably should have plus compensated the speed-light 1/3 to 1/2 stop to get a wee bit more on the subject. As it worked out, I ended up liking the ambient side lighting on subjects as it was. </p>

<div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>One more … a B&W. Very dark venue … especially where they were at the time I shot this. </p>

<p>I can't recall the exact specs on this one … but I think it was with a Canon 5D and 24-70/2.8. The guy's "Thank God that part is over" facial expression was priceless. </p>

<p>Hope this spurs more discussion and focus on pictures as opposed to gear, gear, and more gear.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

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

[savagesax]

Ralph - put away all of that dang expensive gear in a closet. All of it. Lock the closet door and don't

open it up for a month. It's useless. I'm kind of in fear with your comments and answers to everyone.

You avoid talking about the photo's you took and you then show off the camera attachments with that

weird white reflector! What about your photo's? I had a few laughs with you on your other post, but it's a totally new ball game

now. If a bride and groom took you to court for poor quality photo's they may win. This stings. Not for

you but for the couple, because you didn't keep your promise. Your fancy photograpic gear overwhelmed

your logical and artistic thinking. The result is this may have been the most special day of their lives. I'm

worried. A lot of the people posting their views saying that you did a good job, well it's your very first

wedding so I'm not spending time regarding how they were sugar coating the few photos you showed

us. I can't make a true judgement call because there's not even 10 photo's.

 

Some of us gave you some really great sound advice about keeping things simple. I think I said

something like myself being able to shoot the whole wedding with a 24-105 zoom canon lens in your

last post. I hardly ever change the ISO and it's almost always around 400, because I want to be able to

enlarge images up to a 40X60. At an ISO of 2000 this can't be done, never. Ralph, whats going on? You

are still talking about camera settings, changing the ISO settings all over the place and telling me and

others that you really don't use Photoshop and you give the people the images without or with very few

corrections. I'm at a loss for words and I'm actually scared for you and the people at your next wedding

unless you get prepared. A few of the people that posted here so far kind of sugar coated how great you

did. I adjusted 2 images and made them somewhat better. You didn't respond. Actually you went back

to talking about camera gear and showing off that big white useless thing on top of your flash! Don't

buy stuff until you try it out. I can get the exact same results by cutting a piece of white cardboard. (for

free!) I'd cut a much smaller piece of cardboard before using that oversized thing that probably weighs

more than a truck! Lot's of needless toys.

 

About 5 or 6 weeks ago I was doing the portraits of the families during this wedding. I set up the whole

family, uncles aunts, the grandparents, brothers sisters, their kids, all of them. The whole group shot of

the family. Here's the key. Then I divided them up. Just the parents, then the grandparents, the

grandparents with the grand kids, you have to do these. The lighting must be spot on, the posing needs

to be really fun, but very artistic and flowing. Then I asked the folks what other pictures they'd like to

have taken. Girlfriends, boyfriends, not leaving anyone out. I don't give out CD's because of wanting

quality professional lab reorders. Take a guess how much I made on the reorders? $100, a $1000, nope,

somewhere around $3000, just for 30 minutes of work. For me the money is nice. I get to drive fast cars.

Shooting that A+ wedding and the excitement of these pictures makes you and the people feel so great.

Lets move on and talk a bit about photo's.

 

You need to hit the larger book stores and look at the wedding and portrait photography books. When

the stores close for he night hit the internet. Don't just look - study hard. When you can't keep your

eyes open any longer well you've done enough studying for the day! Look at photos from the 1970's,

study them, study everything. Figure out what makes these older images as well as the newer images

capture your emotions.. The cloths are different of course, but whats exciting about all of them?

 

I've shot some very emotional portraits. Here's just one of them. A very true story. I photographed a

wedding many years ago, when film was still around. The wedding was great. I did all of those shots

listed above and more. I carry a list with me just in case I forget something. Way back then one of the

shots I took was the grandmother in a wheelchair with the bride bending down and getting really close

so that their faces were touching. Nicely done. However I added an extra touch. I had the bride put her

hand gently on the grandmothers shoulder carefully positioning the wedding ring and the grandmother

placed her hand gently covering a very small part of the brides hand. It was a closeup without the

wheelchair showing. Well lets move on... Put this long post to the end.

 

They went on their honeymoon then came back and about 5 or 6 weeks later the couple stopped by the

studio to take a look at the pictures. Remember those were in the film days. We put the actual pictures

in a 5x5 book album and it took a few weeks to get everything in order. As they were looking through

the photo's they laughed, giggled, said how cute, all of those fun things. All of a sudden the bride burst

into uncontrollable tears for about 3 minutes, seemed like 3 years. This scared the heck out of me.

Even Craig, my photo partner came out of the back studio to see what was going on. We didn't know

what was wrong. Finally she started to compose herself a little. Still whimpering a little she told Craig

and I that her grandmother had just died. WOW This wasn't just a candid photo. Remember I took the

time to add emotion with the hand placement and posing cheek to cheek with happy faces.

 

Kindly don't respond to this post. It's surely not needed.

 

Ralph you could become a very good photographer. I've asked for you to study older weddings as well

as newer weddings along with portraits, now you know why I've asked.

 

One single emotional photo is timeless - forever powerful.

 

 

[michaelmowery]

<p>Good points Bob! Ok, now I know most of you are flash bouncers or flash fill with High iso's. I want to show the other side of the spectrum with flash direct utilizing room lights for a 100% flash exposure. I could have shot this with iso 100 but I chose 800 to save on my battery power profoto room lights. The trick here when using 100% flash is to approach it just like if you were bouncing the flash and balancing your ambient but in my case I am balancing the room lights with my direct flash. Its a look either you like it or you don't and also you got to have all the extra equipment to pull it off. I am in NYC and shoot in the hotels which has no outside light and the decorations are all spot lit so we tend to use a lot of flash but we mix it up with photojournalistic high iso shots to show the true ambience. I am always switching back and forth from flash main direct and ambient with flash fill or no fill at all. </p><div></div>

[rab_l]

<p>Just to offer an alternative to flash in any form, these are both without flash. The B&W image was taken with a 70-200/4 @ 80th f4 1600iso. The second is a December wedding taken with 85/1.2 @ 80th f2.5 2500iso<br>

I'm sure they won't be to everyones taste, but personally I find it more flattering, but also it's how the couple will remember the moment.<br>

If you use flash it usually floods the area with light and transforms the space into something it wasn't.<br>

I always think it's like going to a nice restaurant with candlelit tables, if you throw a floodlight across the room the ambiance is lost.</p>

<div></div>

[rab_l]

<p>and second.</p><div></div>