Finally . . . my first wedding photos!

[michaelmowery]

<p>Rab as beautiful as that first shot is something is illuminating the couple. If I could only have that type of flattering lighting for every shot. So either it is illuminated by a large window behind you or you timed it perfectly with the over head lighting. I do see reflections on the edge of the pews indicating some light source.</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>The point here for new photographers is to have a system that works and is repeatable time after time for guaranteed money shots no matter what the lighting conditions but I am mainly referring to the less than desirable. Once you have that in place then by all means experiment with your second camera and let the creative juices flow. Consistency gets you the next job more times than creativity.</p>

[savagesax]

Nice photo's Rab, Michael, and Marc Williams! You guys have it mastered as usual.

[pete_s.]

<p>This thread took an interesting turn after Marc Williams post. But it's kind of interesting though that even Marc started to talk about gear and what camera, settings etc he used instead of talking about the images - the art. It just shows how hard it is to talk about the images, not the technique or the gear.</p>

<p>After Marc posts we are talking lighting technique. And iso, f-stops, shutter speed and other things, still not about the images per se.</p>

<p>Now, I like the images that Marc, Michael and Rab posted. It's high quality work. No doubt about that.</p>

<p>Now back to Ralph's recessional shot.<br /> What is the image telling us?</p>

<p>It's giving us a context, telling us that we are at a wedding, that the B&G have been wed and are now exiting the building and that the building is a church. So far so good.</p>

<p>There is some movement in the image as we can see that the B&G is coming straight at us. There is some interaction between guests and the B&G. We could actually have been one of the guests leaning out and looking at the B&G. So there is some action happening and that's good too.</p>

<p>Now there are some deeper meaning as well as we can see that the B&G are happy and the people at the ceremony are also happy. And we get the feeling that the wedding is informal and everybody is relaxed and having fun.</p>

<p>Did Ralph consider this when he shot the image? Probably not. But he could have.<br /> Often, when we shoot something and we don't have a clear picture of what we are trying to say with the image it comes out as vague and not particularly strong. It's those images that usually takes ages to postprocess because you have to determine what the images actually is.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Given what the image is telling us it's the emotion of the B&G and the action we talked about above that we want to see. Anytime we want to show emotion we need to punch in because as we can see body language and facial expressions more clearly we can also feel stronger about the emotion we see.</p>

<p>The second image Rab L posted is good example of showing emotion as he visually isolated the B&G and framing them 3/4 we are seeing their interaction saying "we did it" or something like that to each other. That image is also strong because the B&G are clearly the center of attention and the lower vantage point Rab shot from is beneficial.</p>

<p>With Ralph's image we have visually a problem because there are many distracting elements in the image. Primarily the yellow dress. And also the fact that the B&G looks visually smaller than some of the guest and also less bright. The B&G are not the center of the image.</p>

<p>The dark background doesn't bother me because it is not of interest in this image except as context. This in stark contrast to some of the images the Marc W posted. To show the church as an environmental portrait without actually being able to see it would have been a big failure.</p>

<p>If Ralph had featured the B&G in a better way the shot would have been stronger. A B&W image could have been good for this shot as it would have removed some of the distracting elements. Also some dodging and burning to make the B&G visually brighter makes them stand out more.</p>

<p>Less depth of field would also work. A vertical image could also have been stronger but would not have shown the interaction of the guests. Less light on the guests and more on the B&G would also have been better.</p>

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

[dave_wilson1]

Lookin' good.

[wade_thompson1]

<p>Bruce's attack above is why I've heard people run from this forum in groves. Elitist mentality. But makes him look very small. :(</p>

<p><blockquote><strong> Moderator Comment:</p>

<p>You have been previously warned about this type of singularly focussed and off topic interjection.</p>

<p>REF: http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00c87B</p>

<p>This is another warning to please keep your comments on the topic of conversation.</strong></blockquote><p>

[fotografz]

<p>Pete, the gear comments were less about the gear, and more how to use it to avoid on-camera flash as key light. </p>

<p>As far as creative cropping on Ralph's recessional shot … as I mentioned to him I like the content … "the exuberance and body language". I'd probably isolate that engaging visual aspect and place more emphisis on it.</p>

<p>Something like this (bad resolution because I'm cropping a smaller area from an already 700 pixel wide frame grab … but it's enough to get the idea).</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

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

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I can see why Ralph used flash and a relatively fast shutter speed for the processional/recessional photos - that venue looks like cave. Literally. Dark stone walls, tiny windows, dim yellow overhead lights. Yikes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Bruce's attack above is why I've heard people run from this forum in groves. Elitist mentality. But makes him look very small. :("</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, we've heard similar complaints about the entire site for years. The place is infested with curmudgeons chasing away the newbies and intermediate photographers who are trying to learn. I don't know what the solution is or why some experienced photographers can't manage to do what Marc did very ably - offer frank, constructive criticism without making it a personal issue or ridiculing anyone.</p>

<p>Thanks, Marc. One reason I occasionally read this forum is to pick up tips from folks like you. Even though I only do weddings and events on rare occasions as gifts and favors for family and friends I'm alway eager to learn and refine my technique.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

You know, when I signed on almost 15 years ago, I had already been shooting weddings for 13 years and had several

hundred under my belt. I shot my first solo wedding in 1986 or so, and of course it was all film and big flashes. I was

never rude to anyone over the years, there's no reason for it. But, I've had some very nasty people to contend with and

for a few years I didn't participate, but I did read along. Later when I got into digital I started using the board again and

thankfully Nadine was around and a few others that gave me some good info.

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p><em>. . . I think it would be helpful to see more examples of others' processional/ceremony/recessional shots, plus any narrative to go along with them.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now <em>that's</em> what I'm talking about! Excellent examples, all! Thank you, Marc, Michael, Rab! Three different photographers, displaying three different techniques! I <em>really</em> appreciate all of you sharing your images here, as well as posting brief descriptions of the technique applied--this has been <em>very</em> helpful! Thanks, guys!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Although I'd much prefer to get it right in-camera, I thought I'd take a shot at a bit of post-processing myself . . .</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/recessionpostcolor1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/recessionpostbw1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[studio460]

<p>Vertical crops . . .</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/recessioncropcolor1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/recessioncropbw1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[fotografz]

<p>Rab L, I wanted to say that your second image using available light is wonderful!</p>

<p>Limited DOF used to achieve subject isolation places the attention on the subject with their delightfully happy expressions. This is an example of newer technology providing a helping hand to produce superb results when in experienced and talented hands. Relatively clean ISO 2500, and fast aperture AF lens made this shot technically possible … and Rab made it happen.</p>

<p>While not always possible, it is an option to consider when it is.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>Processional/Recessional Orientation:</p>

<p>Pete said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>A vertical image could also have been stronger but would not have shown the interaction of the guests.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and that's a decision I suppose some may make on the spot--horizontal or vertical orientation. Or, as someone suggested they tend to do: Employ portrait-orientation on the procession, landscape-orientation during the recession. That was my initial thinking as well--get the processional in a vertical (to "debut" the dress), then fall back to a landscape-orientation on the recessional, with the intent of including more guest interaction. But, I suppose there are no "rules" to this--whatever seems to be the best fit for the particular venue, as well as most accommodating (or, <em>un-accommodating</em>) for the particular guests in the frame (I'm thinking of, <em>"Miss Pregnant-Yellow Dress"</em>).<br /> <br /> Marc, your vertical shots (including the square-format image, an aspect ratio which I really like) work quite well with the guests in attendance. And, Michael, I do love the crisp, "studio quality" of your 100%-strobe shot (also taken as a full-length vertical). What I found most interesting is Rab's 85mm-lensed horizontal frame (second shot). When I shoot personal work, I rarely shoot verticals, and am naturally inclined to shoot landscape-orientation for everything (I suppose mostly due to my long career in film and television).<br /> <br /> Rab's second shot is a very "cinema-like" image, exhibiting both slight compression and shallow-focus (admittedly, not every venue will have the light available to support this type of shot). But, had I the choice, I would spend my precious few recession seconds of coverage attempting this type of framing, i.e., a "cowboy" (mid-thigh) two-shot in <em>landscape</em> orientation. It does crop the bottom of the dress--but does anyone care? Does anyone do this type of shot at the expense of <em>not</em> getting a wide-angle and/or full-length processional/recessional shot as well? Does everyone try to get both?</p>

[studio460]

<p>Since we were just discussing how next time we need to completely stage the room beforehand. Although I was attempting to shoot <em>actual</em> candids (i.e., un-staged), I'm actually very comfortable directing talent and staging shots, so I easily could've taken more control over the set had I realized that was within my purview. That "stroller" was a guest's wheelchair, but of course I didn't notice it until I saw it in my first edit. Needless to say, there are a million elements which a first-time wedding photographer may overlook his/her first time out, but I'm learning.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Here's one of the few shots I <em>did</em> stage in that room (I think, the <em>only</em> one) since I was completely obstructed during their first toast:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/vtoast.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[fotografz]

<p>Nice bridesmaids shot Ralph!</p>

<p>You have a lot of nice candid available light shots, some of which can be tweaked, but the "moment" is there to work with. </p>

<p>Part of being a professional is consistency throughout a whole wedding. Much of of that comes with time and practice … however that time can be shortened if you select what is working for you, and strive to wrangle what isn't working to be more in line with the good stuff in terms of "look and feel".</p>

<p>This is the reason I suggested altering how you go about working with on-camera flash using a different technique that makes more use of the ambient … they will marry with your other shots more seamlessly. What other people do isn't right or wrong, it is what they do. You have to determine what is going to knit your wedding coverage together into a whole cloth.</p>

<p>RE: Portrait or Landscape orientation … I once read that Denis Reggie always shot his digital cameras in Landscape mode and cropped Portrait mode later … citing that these cameras are so good now that it wasn't necessary. Take it or leave it.</p>

<p>My consistent style is to hunt for the unexpected. I sell that, and those who hire me expect it. It's not for everyone, but it's a challenge I enjoy and strive for … or I'd get bored really quick. Like my shot of the Champagne toast below … a purely candid catch with a sprinkle of luck thrown in … funny thing how luck favors the prepared. <br>

-Marc</p>

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

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>Rab's second shot is a very "cinema-like" image, exhibiting both slight compression and shallow-focus (admittedly, not every venue will have the light available to support this type of shot).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would have been possible. In this case the ambient light levels where the same in Rab's second shot and in your available light shots.</p>

<p>I think in EV (at ISO100) kind of similar to cinematography guys who think in foot candles.</p>

<p>Ambient was around 5 EV, which is typical indoor light in the evening. I've seen ambient in darker churches (cathedrals actually) go down to 1 EV but when you get that low (1-2 EV) it's hard to see where you place your foot. 5 EV is about 80 lux or 8 fc.</p>

<p>Regarding focal length and verticals or horizontals...<br>

With primes it's obviously easier to shoot wide in low light as you can use a longer shutter speed, both from the perspective of camera shake and subject movement. Verticals or horizontals also depends on the architecture. If it's high ceilings you can go with a wide vertical. But if you shot for a storybook type of album it would be more similar to shooting video. Then you'd want different types of shots for instance establishing shots, medium shots etc.</p>

<p>Think about the purpose of one particular image. For instance if the purpose is to show emotion then if we see the full dress or not is irrelevant. </p>

<p>Another aspect to think about when it comes to framing is how the images are going to be used. For viewing on a computer or TV or for instance a slide show it would be better to stick to horizontals. If it ends up in an album it depends on the page sizes. I used the vertical type albums, about 8x12 or so, so a vertical could fill one page and a horizontal could fill a double page spread.</p>

<p>Just a couple of things to consider.</p>

 

[dave_wilson1]

The danger with not using even a slight blink of flash is dark eye sockets and dead eyes. With the new high ISO capable

cameras we can easily balance decent ambient light at 1/125 or 1/160 to stop most ghosting, adjust the aperture f4 or f

5.6 I prefer for most average stuff and use a low hit of flash to compliment. ISO up to 1600 will still give a clean shot on

most newer cameras, but I try to stay 400 or 800 max if I can. I do use higher of course for certain effects and some with

no flash too. You have to know every technique and use them well. Sorry, I have not a single file of any social event to

post because I do not work weddings or social events for myself any more, and only shoot on big events with

some colleagues and turn the cards over at the end.

[dave_wilson1]

A few other things I got thinking about. Converging lines in the background. In years past one of the advantages of using

the Hasselblad if you're tall like me, is the 45 degree prism and of course that you could just compose on the square and

not have to turn the camera. Being able to keep the camera lower and your head looking down more naturally you were

able to easily square up the vertical lines especially so that they are not making your photo look crooked or as such. Now

with the smaller format, this is not so easy and why I like using a bracket most of the time. I can just hang the camera

from my left hand look in with my left eye and head slightly tilted and doorways, windows, woodwork etc. line up nicer

than the problem of aiming down or some other contortion.

 

On the subject of brackets, I like my main rig on a bracket for several reasons, one of which I mentioned above. The

second is that sometimes things are very dark, as in a job I did in December. The hall for the reception was terrible dark,

so flash was more the ticket to success. The bracket kept the flash on rig better positioned and then I was with another

shooter who's job it actually was, but due to a medical situation he couldn't shoot properly, so I was doing most of the

shooting, he was lighting second light, but he is a very fine top level shooter. Regardless, flash was the ticket here and the bracket

was the way to go. I also like the bracket and coiled wires for a little bit of ego. Today there are SO many people with

cameras snapping all around us, and I just feel that when doing the family groups or the cake etc, if you haven't already

figured it out folks, yes, I am the one getting the paycheck to produce results. I also like the bracket because I tend to put

my camera down frequently during portraits or families to adjust something, so I use an old medium format flat plate

bracket so that I can just plunk it down and not worry. Yes, we all work a little different but sometimes we have to adjust

and be ready to go a different path. Cheers!

 

I almost forgot about why I like the D5100 too. I like the fold out screen so that I can hold it over my head and more carefully compose some of the party shots in the live view. It works great for that, I don't use a bracket on there, but I do use a Gary Fong collapsable white hood, usually with the cap off so that the bright flash bounces and the cone acts as a source closer up without burning out the people in front of me, say for the hora or some other circle type dance especially when they raise the chairs, I can keep my camera high, see the screen and the flash freezes the motion.

[studio460]

<p>Marc said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em >You have a lot of nice candid available light shots . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Marc! However, everything I shot that day was lit (all the bride's room shots were lit with a 45" Westcott soft silver umbrella--there was no window light), the only exception being the actual ceremony (the ISO 2,000, f/1.4 shots).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>My consistent style is to hunt for the unexpected . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I really like your "unexpected" candid. The "visual riddle" aspect of it is really cool. "Unusual," and "cool," are what I'm aiming for as well. My bridesmaids toast is a little too staged and conventional for my tastes.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Pete said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I think in EV (at ISO100) kind of similar to cinematography guys who think in foot candles . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, when lighting for television, I measure everything in footcandles. I actually did take a footcandle reading in the center of the church just for laughs . . . it read 0.1 footcandles!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Regarding focal length and verticals or horizontals . . . Think about the purpose of one particular image. For instance if the purpose is to show emotion then if we see the full dress or not is irrelevant.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>All good points, Pete! Yes, I really like that about the more tightly-framed, landscape composition of Rab's second shot--he had the "freedom" to not worry about the dress, and instead captured those priceless expressions. Certainly, if you have a hero venue as in Marc's photos, shoot it wide. Thanks for your comments!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Dave said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>With the new high ISO capable cameras we can easily balance decent ambient light at 1/125 or 1/160 to stop most ghosting, adjust the aperture f4 or f 5.6 I prefer for most average stuff and use a low hit of flash to compliment.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks again for your comments, Dave. What would everyone agree on being the "safe" ratio between ambient and flash exposure to prevent ghosting? As I said, I would think two stops to be completely safe, and anywhere from 1.5-2.0 EV may be "workable." Just a one-stop difference sounds risky. Does anyone have more reliable numbers than my mere guesses?</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Ghosting is not really about the ratio. The flash exposes whatever it can reach during the time it takes for the flash tube to burn, around 1/1000s or faster for speedlights. Simultaneously we have the ambient part of the exposure for as long as the shutter is open. It's the ambient part of the exposure that is the reason for subject motion and also camera shake.</p>

<p>So while the ratio will determine how bright the ambient part of the ambient image is, it's the shutter speed together with focal length (image magnification) and the movement of the subject and camera during the exposure that causes the ghosting. Just as it would when shooting ambient light only.</p>

<p>If we would set the shutter speed to whatever is needed to "freeze" the motion there will be no ghosting regardless of what flash to ambient ratio you select.</p>

<p>I say "freeze" because we are not really freezing anything - it's really how much the subject can move during the exposure before we consider it too much. If you put an image on instagram or you blow it up to a 24x36" will make a huge difference to what we consider acceptable.</p>

<p>So stick to shutter speeds that would do a decent job with ambient only and you're safe.</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>Gotcha! Thanks for your comments, Pete. I did some dragged-shutter tests in Las Vegas where I had a near-perfect balance between the ambient and the strobe (an assistant-held 3' octa), but I realize now that it wasn't a valid test because my subjects remained static. On the next one, I'll be considering the ambient lighting conditions far more carefully (meter, test, etc.), since it's a key hero shot with a huge pay off when done well.</p>