Finally . . . my first wedding photos!

[rab_l]

Thank you Marc, I'm genuinely flattered coming from yourself.

With most all my aisle shots, including from that wedding I do have shots taken in a portrait orientation showing the dress

full length. That particular sequence had about 8 usable shots and I changed the orientation a couple of times mid

sequence.

I tend to be in one shot mode and often walk backwards shooting in my mid stride and try to minimise my movement as I

trip,the shutter. I find the focus to be more accurate this way than my standing in the one spot shooting as the couple

approach even in servo mode. When I next get to the computer I'll post some thumbs of the sequence.

Having said all this, it's a little like us all telling Ralph how he should dress and have his hair cut, what works for me or

anyone else is not necessarily going to suit him. None of the advise being given is wrong, but it is coming from a variety

of philosophies, all of them legitimate.

[savagesax]

In most cases, unless the people are walking very fast you can shoot at a 60th of a second and the

flash will stop any movement. Even as the people, the bridesmaids and the bride are walking down at

the start of the wedding. The flash freezes this movement. I'm set at F5,6. and the background is

excellent. Well lit up.

 

With the "Canon 24-105L IS" it has an image stabilizer. In a dark church or a temple, somewhere dark,

during the ceremony, if the people aren't really moving much I will expose for the ambient lighting, not

using a flash. I have no trouble shooting at a 15th of a second, F5.6 and picking up the background,

such as the altar. I will of course take a few shots just to be safe. It really isn't hard to do. If needed I

use my favorite tool. A tripod. The pod goes to every wedding. The ISO settings are almost always

around 400. Most of the time I also use a 4 point star filter for a few shots.

 

I'll try to find a pic with a star filter. Anyway think about how to achieve a beautiful image by seeing it

first. The camera is just there to document this image. Forget about shooting at 250th of a second. It's

not needed and it can actually get you into trouble.

[savagesax]

OK, I found an example of a star filter. Look at the candles. It's not a perfect photo but it shows what this

special effect filter can do. So the photo isn't just a candid. It's a well thought out plan using mainly available light. There is a hint of flash to balance out the front of the cake; keeping the cake from going dark. You really can't tell that I used a flash. This surely wasn't shot at 250th of a second. To pick up the star effect I was most likely around 30th of a second. ISO 400. At 250th of a sec this star effect wouldn't work. It wouldn't show up on the picture. I repeat, this isn't a great photo, however it is a decent example.<div></div>

[michaelmowery]

<p>slow shutter speeds may work when there is no video light shining on the bride and groom Otherwise keep your shutter speed up to 125 and faster. Use your iso to open up the background.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Rab said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Having said all this, it's a little like us all telling Ralph how he should dress and have his hair cut, what works for me or anyone else is not necessarily going to suit him . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not at all! This kind of <em>specific</em> information regarding a shot sequence that lasts only a few seconds is incredibly helpful! Thank you for sharing both your images and your technique! I look forward to seeing the full-sequence thumbnails!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Bob said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>It's a well thought out plan using mainly available light. There is a hint of flash to balance out the front of the cake; keeping the cake from going dark . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gorgeous! An excellent example of balancing multiple sources. I especially love the exposure through the window, and the "hint" of flash, side-lighting the texture of the cake. Well done!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Michael said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>slow shutter speeds may work when there is no video light shining on the bride and groom Otherwise keep your shutter speed up to 125 and faster.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Michael. Luckily, there was no video shooter on this one. There were however <em>two</em> other photographers: one with a Canon 7D with 50mm f/1.8 mounted, the other with a Canon 7D and a 70-200mm f/2.8 (neither had any flash equipment of any kind, nor did either of them use their pop-up flashes).</p>

[fotografz]

<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).<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even better Ralph! That you "created" the directional ambient where there was none, is exactly what I meant by using lighting for the off-camera key light. You did a good job of balancing it all on with many of those candids. <br>

<br>

<strong>RE: Ghosting.</strong> There really is no pat answer to that Ralph. It depends on level of ambient, focal length used, and degree of subject movement. To that, I'd add creative intent … where safe-and-sound practices may come into conflict with depicting emotional content. <br>

<br>

If you are using a wider focal length (like when wading out into the dance floor), then f/5.6 is usually not necessary because a wide lens provides more DOF at any given distance to subject compared to a normal or telephoto lens. <br>

<br>

At any given aperture, ambient exposure controlled by shutter speed. Due to strobe duration, a slower shutter speed has little effect on flash. So, you can select a shutter speed to suit the level of ambient you desire. <br>

<br>

ISO can effect both. Modern cameras have raised the acceptable limits of ISO. However at any given f/stop, it also increases the influence of the ambient on the main subject by shortening the duration of the flash (less flash lighting needed). So, it all depends on prevailing levels of ambient (like Michael's video lighting, or some strong ambient from the DJ) and how fast the subject may be moving. <br>

<br>

Personally, I use ghosting on purpose to convey movement or high energy for some images. My cameras are always set to second shutter flash so I can intentionally drag the shutter at very low shutter speeds while moving the camera in the direction of the key subject's movement.<br>

<br>

Here are two contrasting approaches. The top one was an intentional use of a slower shutter speed and second shutter TTL flash on-camera that would ghost for effect … an attempt to capture the energy of movement in a still shot. (16-35/2.8 @ 17/3.5, ISO 1000 @ 1/20 shutter).<br>

<br>

The second one was using off-camera strobe for key directional light (600 W/s battery @ 320/W/s), and on-camera TTL speed-light for fill. No ghosting of main subjects despite the slower shutter-speed because the strobe and speed-light combination over-powered the ambient enough that "duration" froze the subjects. Use of ISO from 200 to 400 with a strobe makes post processing a LOT easier because skin tones and dress colors are correct, and less infected by any wonky looking ambient temperature or mixed temps. (24-70/2.8 @ 24/2.8, ISO400 @ 1/50 shutter).<br>

-Marc<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

</p><div></div>

[pete_s.]

<p>Another thing to keep in mind when dragging the shutter is the difference in color temperature.<br /> When we are indoor almost every light is warm, no matter if it's tungsten, CFL or whatever. Say 3000 Kelvin or so. Candle lights being warmer than that. Flash is more like 5500 Kelvin.</p>

<p>What happens when you drag the shutter is that we are mixing these two light sources. How much depends on the ratio of flash / ambient. However everywhere the flash light doesn't go we get 100% ambient color temperature.</p>

<p>This is especially apparent when shooting off camera flash as we get shadows even on our subjects, for instance when side lit.</p>

<p>So to color correct an image with mixed color temperatures we would need one white balance setting for shadows that are lit only by ambient and another for the parts that are lit by flash & ambient.</p>

<p>No software can fix that for us even if there are software that can do different white balance corrections for shadows, midtones and highlights.</p>

<p>Best way to get cleaner images is to gel the flash, preferably as close as possible to ambient. Then all light have the same color temperature and can be color corrected together. That way you also get rid of the murky orange tint that many dragging-the-shutter images have, especially in the background.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_wilson1]

Color film, along with the paper and printing process in general, was more forgiving with mixed color temps. Digital

reminds me very much of using transparency film where everything is very critical. I use gels sometimes, that's another

reason I like the Gary Fong stuff, I buy the kits and pieces I want, everything fits together to mix and match how I want

easily. I can use a white cone with a warming cover which is a favorite of mine for some circumstances. It's just warm

enough to blend the flash in with the warmer tungsten lights, but keep in mind the recent trend in flourescent bulbs goes

into other ranges, which it's a good idea to be familiar with. That said, we don't always time to get real picky with all this

so knowing your light modifying equipment and keeping it simple is a good practice.

[savagesax]

First off, Marc as usual these are nice photo's. Perhaps I didn't get my message accross correctly. I'm

not sure.

 

I always light up the reception rooms. This again keeps the backgrounds from going black. Sometimes

when it is so dark and the flash is hunting for the distance as well as the camera looking for focusing.

Both units can't find the focus point. If you turn on the modeling light the camera and your flash units

wont hunt trying to focus. The photo below shows the side lighting as the maid of honor recites her

speech. You can see a few people looking and you can see the cake in the background. I wanted the

cake to show up. They probably spent $800 or more for this.

 

Anyway side lighting is a must for me and as well as alot of other photographers such as Marc extra

lighting above. I'm sure I shot this at ISO 400, 60th of a second and at F5.6. This 5.6 number works very

well for me because the background is still pretty much in focus. Also I trust the Quantum flash a lot

more, compared to F8 or F4. The rooms second light is pretty much set at one stop or a 1/2 stop under.

This isn't a really great shot because you can't see the brides face. However I moved over and got a

clean photo of her face, along with the bridesmaid.

 

What I'm trying to convey to Ralph is studying photo's, lighting, looking for nice composition. We cannot

get a photo like this unless we understand lighting. Often I may use 2 to 4 lights depending on the size

of a room.

[savagesax]

I hate AOL<div></div>

[savagesax]

This will be my last example. It's pretty grainy because of reducing the size to fit this forum. Again this is at ISO 400 and at F5.6, however I used a pod and the exposure was around 15th of a second. Although it's a backyard wedding I did an OK romantic shot using the pool

lights, my fill light, and the moon. Nothings perfect, however I like this shot. And when you study lighting

and posing this becomes somewhat routine because I'm always looking around. Needless to say I metered

for the background. Even pool lights can add some depth to a normally weak photo. This is a backyard!

Yuk, backyards are very hard to light up when it's dark.<div></div>

[rab_l]

<p>With regards my earlier post, these are the thumbs I mentioned. All one camera and shown in the time sequence they where shot in. These were all acceptably sharp, not that I always get as many that work, but I would always expect to have a few to choose from.</p><div></div>

[dave_wilson1]

Very nice Rab. May I ask what program you posted those from?

[rab_l]

<p>It's a screen grab from Bridge.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Marc said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Here are two contrasting approaches. The top one was an intentional use of a slower shutter speed and second shutter TTL flash on-camera that would ghost for effect … an attempt to capture the energy of movement in a still shot. (16-35/2.8 @ 17/3.5, ISO 1000 @ 1/20 shutter).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Awesome samples images, Marc! Thank you for the additional tips! Much appreciated!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Pete said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Best way to get cleaner images is to gel the flash, preferably as close as possible to ambient.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Pete! Yes, I keep color-correction gel taped to the top of each flash.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Bob said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I always light up the reception rooms. This again keeps the backgrounds from going black.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that was my plan for this reception as well. I had everything set-up (backlight, pole-mounted, off-camera key, etc.), then at the last minute I scrapped the plan (due to several factors), and decided to <em>only</em> shoot the flash-fired body (but mostly bounced into an assistant-held 30" FlexFill).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Again this is at ISO 400 and at F5.6, however I used a pod and the exposure was around 15th of a second.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Awesome, Bob!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Rab said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>With regards my earlier post, these are the thumbs I mentioned.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey, thanks, Rab! It's <em>very</em> helpful to know how experienced pros shoot this very short sequence of shots. Thanks for all your help!</p>

[studio460]

<p>The Next One . . .</p>

<p>Well, thankfully, it looks I may soon get a chance to redeem myself! I found out today that a friend of my step-sister's is getting married soon--she pitched me over a few texts, and it looks like I'm in (and, once again, at no charge). The bride is a svelte, attractive brunette, and should shoot very nicely in a wedding gown. I asked about the venue, and they're looking at Los Angeles-area venues right now--a bit more upscale than the reception hall at the last wedding (which was pretty hideous). With a local venue, this time I'll be able to scout the heck out of the location, meter, test, etc.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p><em>"I'll be able to scout the heck out of the location, meter, test, etc"</em><br>

I really don't know any successful wedding photographers who take this approach. You can't 'shoot by the numbers' and get natural results. Just bounce your flash, drag it a bit and work with the available light. Check out some of the people on the WPPI site, some great work over there.</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>Ian Don't knock the efforts of Ralph to scout, test, ect. I am sure all successful photographers did plenty of testing and scouting in the beginnings in order to better understand how to deal with lighting and there equipment. All of that helps to learn to recognize and handle lighting scenarios.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>It's one thing to check out a location, we've all done that. But filling your head with technical details does not help IMO. Photography is about 'seeing', not ratios and f-stops etc.<br>

Trying to recreate a bunch of tests on the day is really really tricky, to put it mildly. </p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>Ian, I agree with you whole heartedly, but let him travel the path that he has set before him and encourage him. When he is ready he will do as all of us do. </p>