ejder

<p>If you bounce them consider 1/2 or 3/4 cto (or combine 1/2 with 1/4) if the surfaces are dark wood, since they project a certain amount of orange already.</p>

<p>Ambient light, check ISO/apertures for 1/125-1/200 shutters. If you can get ISO3200, f/1.4-ish 1/125-1/200, that's plenty of light IMO. If not, or if you don't have f/1.4 primes, flash is probably going to be necessary.</p>

<p>I use fast primes partly because receptions are so frequently dim.</p>

<p>Once you know ambient light levels, try on-camera flash bounced against the ceiling slightly behind and at an angle, see if your flash can keep up with that at ~1-3 stops below ambient. If not, try bare on-camera flash with the white popup pushing forward (or an omnibounce or whatever) as a last resort and see if you get consistent results. I don't use the latter for my own work, but some people do.</p>

<p>Gigantic monolights bare and direct in a place like that would probably be nuking (too much power). Then again, I use ISO1600-4000 regularly for receptions, so I need less power. Off-camera hotshoe flashes are typically enough for me. Mount flashes high, sometimes in opposite corners with different channels (if you can activate multiple channels at once), check exposures and see if you can blend with ambient light/mood. I encourage CTO filters/gels for flash/moonlight output to better match ambient tones.</p>

<p>But there are plenty of photographers out there who are better at lighting receptions than I am.</p>

<p>Well, photo.net deleted my entire post before I could post it...but the summary is this:<br>

I had about $3500 in camera equipment before I even attempted wedding photography as a second photographer. It was very limiting and I wouldn't do it again unless I had to.<br>

Multiple camera bodies = 100% must for wedding photography as a HIRED photographer. I've had at least 2 camera failures during weddings, including a newish camera, in the past several years.<br>

I've been using 5d2s for 4+ years I think. Still my most reliable cameras for weddings. I have a 5d3 that I strongly dislike (except for the silent shutter mode) and a D750 that I like quite a lot, but the 5d2s are still my "bread and butter" cameras. I would probably transition to 2-3 Nikon D750s and maybe a D810 alongside (for portraits) if I could afford to.<br>

Don't cheap out for wedding photo gear unless you want to miss tons of important shots like processionals, sudden/unexpected moments, etc., and then later have to explain to the clients that it was your equipment's fault.<br>

Gear opens up doors, but you have to walk through them yourself.</p>

<p>Within my first few years of wedding photography I discovered that the Tamron 28-75 would not focus nearly fast enough to get in-focus images of processionals or dancing subjects. It can't track well enough. It has great optics, but it focuses too slowly. In low light, it takes even longer to acquire focus.</p>

<p>IMO, focus speed is of extreme importance with wedding photography because of moving subjects and how many photo-worthy moments can happen suddenly. If your lens doesn't lock fast enough, you missed the shot. If your lens can't track the moving target, you missed the shot.</p>

<p>I bought the Canon 24-70 years ago, then sold it, then bought another and sold that later when I moved to primes. However, the focus was like lightning compared to the Tamron 28-75, and I can say without reservation that the faster focus allowed me to get many shots I simply could NOT hope to get with the slower-focusing Tamron 28-75. It tracked better, it locked faster, like night and day, the difference between Zt! and Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....zzzzzzzz...t. But without any sound.</p>

<p>As a primary/solo photographer, I would not use the Tamron 28-75 for weddings unless I had no other choice. If my second shooter was using the 28-75 (if I had a second), I would expect many more out of focus images because of slow focus speed, and I'd never expect a good processional photo from them. However, if ALL they are shooting is static, nonmoving subjects with no time constraints, then it's a great lens for that.</p>

<p>And just for reference, a lot of photographers don't know how to use 24-26mm focal length so they are oblivious to the kind of perspective distortion it can destroy a photo with. I never recommend the 17-50/17-55 variants for that reason. Plus, the Tamron 17-50 actually focuses SLOWER than the Tamron 28-75.</p>

<p>My answer is...Any system with competent enough AF so you can nail the shots you want, and with good enough noise control that allows you to get the shots you want in as many situations as reasonably possible.</p>

<p>You really need to try to translate your portrait and as-seen style/ideas for weddings. This is not the first time I've seen someone do portraits better than I do and weddings worse than I do.</p>

<p>A few things reduce detail...............</p>

<p>Shooting lens wide open to REDUCE fine detail...</p>

<p>Shooting farther away...</p>

<p>Shooting with more diffuse light...and changing your/the subject's angle relative to the light source (just like reflections and specular highlights show more at one angle than another)...</p>

<p>A good makeup artist (as one should have on their wedding day most times)...</p>

<p>I don't think it's hard to break into, but it's often difficult to make enough money to live off of independently.</p>

<p>Second curtain sync.</p>

<p>Shutter speed is too slow, ghosting occurs from blending on-camera flash with keeping ambient exposure close to proper at shutter speeds too slow to prevent motion blur. The crisply frozen detail is from the flash burst, the rest from a comparatively dragged shutter blurring the ambient-lit moving parts in the sensor image. </p>

<p>When you deal with approximately correctly-exposed ambient light, you MUST have a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the motion, or else you'll get blurring (ghosting if blended with flash). However, if you deliberately underexpose the environment's ambient light and make flash your primary light source, then the ghosting becomes less visible because the ghosted areas are darker - and you can still drag the shutter. If you increase shutter speed at the same time, the problem may be completely avoided. You CAN have ambient at correct exposures and blend it with flash (though not a ton of purpose in that sometimes), but you have to have a fast enough shutter speed to prevent motion blur/ghosting.</p>

<p>1/60-1/100 is not fast enough for that situation. Either underexpose ambient and use flash as main light, increase shutter speed, or both.</p>

<p>OTOH, people sometimes purposefully drag the shutter to catch an aural/ethereal/fantasy-esque motion of lights in the room while blasting flash to freeze the subjects. That's a different purpose, same cause.</p>

<p>I can't fathom using f/4 lenses for receptions anyway, usually I don't go past f/2-ish all night. Faster shutter speed and subject isolation (through tighter cropping, background blur from wider aperture) are things that can make the 70-200 images look subjectively better.</p>

<p>I am confused why or how this person is booking weddings without having adequate equipment or knowing the technical aspects of photography. Weddings are one-time-only events and you cannot be unfamiliar with your camera's focusing system, tracking system, exposure concepts, shutter speed, motion blur, camera shake blur, flash exposure, aperture and its functions, ISO, general lighting methods, etc...</p>

<p>Canon 24-70 or 17-55 for standard zoom, 70-200 f/2.8 IS for long ceremony lens. If you can't afford it, that basically means you can't afford the equipment versatility necessary for professional wedding photography - which means perhaps you should consider a different line of work until you can afford the appropriate equipment.</p>

<p>The 5d3 is a better sports camera than wedding camera. I have shot 10 weddings with one and the only real benefit I have gotten out of it over my three 5d2's is the silent shutter mode. All other things considered, the autofocus isn't as godly and flawless as so many people claim it is...not for weddings anyway. Not for low light focusing on and tracking faces, suits, etc...</p>

<p>For birds, decal-coated objects and other high contrast objects, I'm sure the 5d3's autofocus system is great. But for the subjects I deal with, the 5d2 tracks comparably and one-shot locks more consistently accurately (yes, the 5d2 is better at one-shot, and MUCH faster too - like 1 second or less vs. ~3 seconds) in/on <em><strong>low light/lower contrast</strong></em> subjects.</p>

<p>I find 1/180 flash sync speed and lack of a pc sync port basically make the camera unusable for too many of the situations I deal with for weddings for me to ever consider a 6D. However, others seem to not mind those or the other limitations (1/4000 shutter max).</p>

<p>Just make them look pretty and establish a consistent pattern for color, contrast, and styles. If it involves old style stuff like heavy blurring (blur-glow that makes it look dreamy and superfake) and selective color...don't do that if you want to stay modern.</p>

<p>I won't ask anything else, but I still want to know what the OP can identify in their own photos that differentiates their photos from the common craigslist photographer folks' photos.</p>

<p>I'm not specifically passionate about photography, just about doing things well.</p>

<p>The best short way I know to get fairly good at photography is to learn the basic rules of composition and portrait lighting, comprehend the value of context and selective focus, learn what is necessary to break down and understand photos that may be particularly impressive, learn how to manipulate body parts and how body language is interpreted, and learn how to see by feeling what looks good vs what doesn't feel or look right. Listen to the sensation of something feeling out of place and resort to rules understood about joints and facial structure and expression and what to hide and what not to hide and so on.</p>

<p>But this won't get you good at photography, only moderately good.</p>

<p>What about your photos is better/different from craigslist photographers?</p>

<p>Since you say your photos are better, you should be able to identify at least some differences.</p>

<p>Lots of equipment rentals and other costs + no net profit = not a fun way to do photography. I have always believed equipment rental is 99% wasted money because of how much it costs and how you don't keep anything in the end. It's every bit like leasing a car, which I also would never do. If that's the way it's going to be for you then it sounds almost totally unproductive. I would rather use what I have to do what I can, then earn money some way to get better equipment that I would then KEEP, and expand my abilities that way.</p>

<p>But that's me. BTW...I'm a craigslist photographer.</p>

<p>AI servo, 1/200+ sec shutter speed, whatever ISO it takes to get that.</p>

<p>As an ugly substitute to a fast enough shutter speed, add eTTL flash with second curtain sync.</p>

<p>I am always amazed when people use/suggest super small apertures for these dark places like churches. I use f/1.6-f/2.2 for processionals most of the time unless I'm forced to use f/2.8 because that's as wide as the 70-200 goes.</p>

<p>You have everything it takes to be an amateur craigslist wedding photographer, some of whom charge more than I do. </p>

<p>However, your images are not significantly better than any GWC (guy/girl with camera). You just happen to be charging to do what anyone could do if they had a dSLR.</p>

<p>You're starting with the same lack of understanding most people start with. Your images reflect that lack of understanding. My photos sucked too when I started photography, and they are still not great. But I wouldn't try to shoot weddings if my images came out like yours. I would tell people, I don't do weddings because I'm not ready for that.</p>

An intelligent and competent photographer would probably

require you to have bare minimums plus maybe 70-200 and

then whatever else you feel most comfortable using as long

as they have seen good past results with you using what

you use.

 

You're in the spaghetti against the wall phase, your shots

are extremely random as far as focus point, framing,

posing, and somewhat in lighting. You are in the most basic stages of learning flash use of any kind, and I suspect you still shoot jpg. And you have that apsc habit of lots of

inappropriate closeups looking much like 80-85mm used at the wrong time.

 

Therefore you need wider lenses and lots more learning and experience.

If you have no experience and don't know much about

photography, I don't see you as a very useful second

shooter. I wouldn't hire someone who isn't already

competent and doesn't know their equipment. I've done it before and basically got nothing usable out of them, just another person in my way when framing. Those people have then gone on their own shortly after and claimed to be competent wedding photographers themselves when they still didn't know what they were doing.

 

 

On topic...being a 35/85 user I find them both useful, but it is more about what focal length the specific person works with best. Some do top notch work with 24 and 50, others want 35/85, etc. Among newbies the cost appeal of 50 on aps c sensors is apparent in how often that combo is seen, leadin to every newbie shooter having an effective 80-85mm lens as their main prime. This is stereotypical and the commonness of it makes me wish they had something wider.

Based on the first page, the op has already made up his mind before posting here. Therefore, no accounts of better

flash capability, focus speed/accuracy, lens variety, burst function, live view performance, focus tracking,

shutter lag, write speed, overall practicality, etc., will change his mind anyway. He's obviously used to taking things

slowly and methodically with medium format and that's the kind of wedding style he will have. Spontaneity and fast

moving subjects will just have to get missed sometimes.

<p>I think auto ISO is bad on any canon camera. 5d2 only goes up to ISO400 in auto mode and doesn't pick it intelligently. And even the 5d3 doesn't have exposure compensation for auto ISO (which is a really important thing). <br>

I shoot getting ready and ceremonies with all available light 98% of the time and receptions with off camera flash and on camera fill 95% of the time. The only time I don't use off-camera light for receptions is when there's plenty of ambient (e.g. daytime reception). I shoot manual mode 98% and aperture priority 2%. I don't like some computer to think for me and get it wrong all the time just because the foreground is darker than the background, etc...</p>

<p>I would find a 40mm f/2.8 prime lens worthless as a prime lens because it doesn't offer ANYTHING a zoom can't do except small size. That lens is designed for a few specific things and the main one of them is videography. 50 f/1.8 is dirt cheap, 50 f/1.4 is still cheap...I would buy another 50 f/1.8 before I got a 50 f/1.4 again after experience with both. However, the only 50 whose IQ and overall function I was ever that happy with was 50L. But it's a weird focal length, not long and not wide...so I don't use it often. I use 35 and 85 for almost everything.</p>

<p>With my mainstays 35 and 85, I have more access to available light and dof control than if I used zooms regularly. I find the aesthetics desirable and the available light flexibility invaluable. with the exceptions of the width of 16mm (environmental or dress photos) and 200 2.8, the images I get from zooms are generally (not always) not as pleasing to my own eye as the ones I shoot with primes at wider apertures. However, for me 200 2.8 with IS is absolutely necessary for church ceremonies and the only reason I still own a 70-200 lens at all. </p>

<p>I owned the 85 f/1.8 and it is very good in most aspects (sharpness, bokeh, focus speed/accuracy), but it has huge purple fringing wide open and handles flare worse than any other lens I can remember. I owned two 24-70L lenses, the first was very bad IQ until it went back to Canon 4 times, and the other was great from the start...but I still sold both for the apertures of 35 and 85 primes. Of all the lenses I have used, the only one whose IQ really made me go "wow" when first trying it was the 135L. Color, contrast, background blur, minimum focus distance (and autofocus to some extent) all are great, though flare is pretty bad (about as bad as 70-200 f/2.8 IS v.1). However, it almost never gets used anymore because it lacks IS and/or a faster aperture (meaning I have to keep shutter speeds above 1/140 at all times AND at a fastest aperture of f/2). Basically, the 70-200 is good for almost everything the 135 is good for, and better for many other things...because of the IS and zoom. If the 135 had IS, I would probably use it MUCH more.</p>

<p>I think 24-105 f/4 is too slow to give much flexibility for lighting (forces flash under many conditions). I find that 24-105 wedding photos have a very consistent appearance that I do not prefer (related to f/4 minimum aperture). But, again...personal preference. And, contrary to someone else's opinion, I think a pair of primes can catch most of the moments zooms can, and in darker places than the zooms, and with better isolation of the key subject. I didn't find that the Canon 50 f/1.4 did a very good job with background blur, and it has a trait of strong halation (leading to contrast loss) up until towards f/2.8. Of course the 50 f/1.8 also doesn't have great background blur and the overall contrast is faded looking until you stop down (not from halation necessarily), but it's dirt cheap...</p>

<p>But then again, I know a wedding photographer who is fairly expensive and very good who uses a 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4 (depending on whether the f/1.4 broke recently) for a fair number of photos during weddings. She also uses 24-70 a lot, and again, produces nice images. Personal preference and appreciation for what the equipment offers makes a big difference, and so does skill.</p>

<p>I'm a proponent of the benefits of fast apertures for various reasons practical and aesthetic. But they do take up more space than zooms (besides 70-200) since you need multiple primes for the focal range of one zoom. And you need either more cameras or more lens swapping. It's a trade-off.</p>

<p>I'm also a proponent of making photos stand out when compared to those of the guests with dSLRs at almost every wedding...and the ways I know to do that are 1. aperture-related narrow depth of field, lots of ambient light gathering, and/or absence of flash use where others might need flash, 2. Skill with off-camera lighting as needed or for effect, and 3. compositional skill with use of environment, posing, lighting, framing, etc...Personally, since I lack much skill in the third (and most important) field, I need the other two. It's pretty amazing how much the first two can compensate for some (not complete) deficiency in compositional skill.</p>

<p>Do you have the compositional skill to make your 24-105 images stand out from the dSLR guest photos? It would be difficult indoors, I should think...and standing out is part of business. That's one of the reasons why tilt-shift has become a strong presence in wedding photography too.</p>

Shoot manual, you should already know exactly the right exposure settings by the time the bride does her walk. I

would not be allowed to use flash for most church ceremonies so everything is ambient and manual. Much easier to

deal with that than fighting an easily confused ettl system anyway.

 

Yes churches in my area don't usually allow flash during ceremony. Others might allow it during processional only but

there is not much benefit from blasting a distant side wall of undetermined color and hoping for enough residual

bounce.

This forum has almost always been slower than many others I visit. However, probably slower in past 6 months. I don't post here anymore most of the time either. I've gone back to watching without interjecting.

On a side note, I hate apple's iPod predictive text error correction.

Strato II is basically 100% reliable but all my triggers have broken from extended use with the ettl oncamera flashes mounted on top

as pass thru just like Nadine warned. (Maybe she found my lost with sample photos in another forum.). However, they come with a

screwlock pc sync plug that also works great and they can be bel tied on something, maybe the flash body. <br><br>

 

Until someone brought it up to me, I never realized that ettl plus manual flash could be a bad thing giving inconsistent results.

Because the offcamera manual flashes aren't fired yet when ettl is calculating exposure, the ettl can often overexposed thinking the

scene is going to be darker than it is with the addition if offcamera flash. I have gotten more consistent results by setting my

oncamera flash to manual exposure, but this is impractical when subjects are coming towards you and exposing brighter as they get

closer. The only quick reduction (one click in a wheel) of oncamera manual flash exposure is aperture, which darkens your offcamera

and ambient light. In those situations, setting oncamera to ettl with -1 to -2 exposure reduction is probably safer.