Wedding Photography - keeping it simple?

[tdodd]

I've got my first gig as an assistant/2nd shooter on 16th August. I've got some reasonably decent kit for the job - 30D, 40D, 10-22, 17-55, 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 50 f/1.8 and 17-85 as emergency backups. I also have a couple of 580EXs. My usual subject matter is wildlife, landscapes and a bit of motorsport, so I'm not that au fait with lighting and shooting people, especially at a wedding, where time does not stand still. I'm basically looking for ideas on how to approach the lighting side of things and how to keep things nice and lightweight and simple.

Now, as part of my research I've been watching the two "Masters of Wedding Photography" DVDs. I think both make superb viewing and are a great insight into the different working styles of some of the world class wedding pros. What I find interesting is how little use is made of flash and, when it is used, how simple and modest the kit is. Basically, as far as the DVDs go, virtually none of them use flash at all during the day, certainly outside, and in some cases inside as well. When the flash does come out, it's nothing more complex than a bare 580EX/SB800 bounced behind, or the same thing with an Omnibounce fitted. There is not a flash bracket, better bounce card, lightsphere, flip-it or any other contraption in sight.

This approach seems to be in stark contrast to the discussions and advice that flow on these forums and others. The impression I get here is that flash is virtually essential at all times of day and night, to fill shadows, or add catchlights, to make a subject "pop" or simply to provide a main light. "If you're not balancing light you're not doing it right." seems to be the mantra. Obviously off camera is better than on, but I'll be at a wedding, not a fashion shoot. Then there is the flash bracket - a great idea for sure, and I have two of the things - but if the world class pros get by without then is there a good reason why I need to use one (or two)?

Another point about the DVDs - with the limited use of flash during the day there is clearly no way to balance subject lighting with the background, and the impression I get from the DVDs is that many (beautiful) images have blown out skies, windows and other background elements. I know such things would have the pixel peepers gnashing their teeth, but it does not appear to matter one jot to the images, apparently not to the photographers that created them, and judging by the results, not to me either.

So, what is it all about really? Does wedding photography have to be so damn demanding? Do we need the complications of so much equipment, knob twirling and light balancing, or have many aspects of photography got completely out of control, with excess pixel peeping? What's really important in a wedding photograph - a histogram that fits between the left and right hand edges, or an image that captures a fleeting moment for ever?

By the way, throughout the DVDs I saw precious little evidence of knob twiddling going on. There was some chimping, for sure, and I could even hear the little focus beep from some of the togs. How very reassuring :) But there was no visible evidence that any aspects of the equipment handling were hard. I never noticed any adjustments to exposure settings, or AF points, and it seemed as though AF was linked to the shutter button for many of them. Basically, everything was so simple from the technology viewpoint. All their efforts could be dedicated to image visualisation and composition. For all the appearances they could have been shooting in green box mode - it was really made to look that simple. The only camera controls that seemed to get regular use were the zoom ring and the shutter button. How wonderful! I don't know if it was their skill and expertise that made things look so easy, or the way the DVDs were edited, but I sure wish that shooting people was that simple for me.

At the end of all that rambling waffle the question I'm seeking to have answered is - If shooting a wedding is seemingly so fuss free for these pros, why does it all seem so damn complicated for us amateurs trying to take our first steps? What am I missing? Oh, and do I really need to use a flash bracket or shall I just shoot like the "Masters" and bounce behind me?

[tim]

It's only complex if you let it be complex. The more experience you have the more you learn, and the less equipment you need to get the same effect. Also your style evolves and you realise technical skill, which was difficult when you started, is now trivial. Their experience makes things look easy.

I haven't used a flash bracket in two years, I don't need one either, does that make me a master? ;) I use on-camera flash as fill outside, and I do use room lighting at some receptions.

The masters dvd is only a few pros approach, there are as many different successful approaches as there are photographers.

[tim]

Oh - if it's your first time don't assume you'll be taking photos. Ask the main photog what they want equipment to bring, if any. You'll learn more watching than shooting.

[tdodd]

Thanks for the replies, Tim. I've already met with the pro and the bride and groom, at the venue for the service and reception. I will be there to learn and will regard myself as an assistant first and foremeost. From our discussions so far I have a feeling the demands on me as an assistant will be quite modest, at least once the formals are done. In fact, he's already suggested I take some shots from the balcony behind the B&G during the service, while he is at the front, lurking behind the registrar. If things should change on the day then so be it. I'll be glad of the experience one way or another :)

[cdifoto]

If shooting a wedding is seemingly so fuss free for these pros, why does it all seem so damn complicated for us amateurs trying to take our first steps?
It's fuss free because they have experience.

[Mike]

I like the way you describe your gear as: reasonably decent kit for the job - 30D, 40D, 10-22, 17-55, 70-200 f/2.8 IS...I also have a couple of 580EXs

That's more than reasonably decent!

[tdodd]

There's always room for improvement. A 30D and 40D are not as good as a 1D3 for focus or high ISO noise control and the 10-22 isn't a match for the 16-35 f/2.8 when it comes to speed in low light. Then there is my complete lack of fast primes, discounting the rather weak 50 f/1.8.

If I'm to simplify things and shoot without flash, like the "Masters" then I'd say my kit might just about be up to the job, but no more than that. Then there's the DOF/bokeh that I'll be struggling to achieve, compared to a full frame (or 1.3X crop) shooter. So all in all I think it is fair to I'd call my kit reasonable, but no more. That is a lot better than "inadequate", of course :)

[tdodd]

It's fuss free because they have experience.
Yes, of course, but it was still refreshing, and a little surprising to see these guys just getting on with shooting and not forever adjusting their gear.

Sometimes I feel very bogged down from reading through forums, like suffering from paralysis through analysis, especially when about to embark on something new, and more so when it involves people and their satisfaction with my results. At POTN it appears to be a crime to be more than 1/3 stop off with your exposure. If there's any room at the right of the histogram then you've shot it wrong (for raw). If you've clipped even one pixel (apart from specular highlights) then you've shot it wrong. I feel almost paranoid about ensuring my exposures are completely perfect, with subject and background lighting balanced perfectly as well. That puts stress on me to be constantly worrying about metering mode, where the meter is pointing at any given moment, how I interpret the meter, how to keep pace with even slightly changing lighting conditions etc. etc.. Manual keeps things wonderfully simple if the light is constant, but what if it brightens up a smidge and I don't notice? - and so it goes on.

Having watched the DVDs I wonder why I am worrying about whether to use a flash bracket or not, and which diffuser/bouncer, if any, to use. Wouldn't it be so much simpler to follow the lead from these guys and shoot without flash during the day? If I blow out a cloud in the sky will the B&G care? Probably not. It seems that POTN and the pixel peeping police in general are the only ones to be really troubled by a clipped pixel.

I'll have to watch through again, to see how much the light was varying, because I really was amazed at the lack of adjustment I could see going on. Even in the candid sessions, with the camera pointing left, right, centre and behind, not once did I notice fiddling. Unless it's a really flat, overcast day, there must be some change in the light hitting the subject, but I just couldn't spot any adjustments to compensate. How wonderful to simply be able to frame, focus and fire without constantly tweaking. How do they do it, I wonder. Maybe the tweaks were lost in the DVD edits. I don't know.

If any more experienced shooters can offer some advice/opinion I'd be grateful.

[cdifoto]

It seems that POTN and the pixel peeping police in general are the only ones to be really troubled by a clipped pixel.

I agree. :)

I'll have to watch through again, to see how much the light was varying, because I really was amazed at the lack of adjustment I could see going on. Even in the candid sessions, with the camera pointing left, right, centre and behind, not once did I notice fiddling. Unless it's a really flat, overcast day, there must be some change in the light hitting the subject, but I just couldn't spot any adjustments to compensate. How wonderful to simply be able to frame, focus and fire without constantly tweaking. How do they do it, I wonder. Maybe the tweaks were lost in the DVD edits. I don't know.

If any more experienced shooters can offer some advice/opinion I'd be grateful.
Lighting actually doesn't change much even on non-overcast days. It's the days where the clouds are in and out constantly and/or when the sun is setting that the "fiddling" becomes prevalent. Even then, if you know your camera well, changing the aperture, ISO, and/or shutter speed doesn't look like "fiddling" on video. On an XXD body (I don't know about Nikon), it's just a matter of thumbing the wheel or indexing the dial. You press a button near the LCD then spin the dial to change ISO so it's not much "fiddling" at all. Same goes for FEC.

In other words, it's only "fiddling" when you don't know your camera well enough to make those changes quickly and without taking your eye away from the viewfinder.

[tdodd]

OK, heres an example of my "paranoia" and my "confusion" about how simple these guys make things look. Let's say we're outdoors and it's a sunny day, maybe a little haze, maybe not. It doesn't really matter. But the light levels are not changing. The formals are over and it's time do move around shooting some candids. So to make things easy I might be in manual exposure using a variant on sunny 16 - let's say 100 ISO, f/4, 1/1600. Well there will be no problem shooting the people who are front lit - they'll turn out fine. But what about those who are back lit, or perhaps side lit? What choices do I have.....

- Stay at 100 ISO, f/4, 1/1600 and have shadowy subjects and a correctly exposed background?
- Bump up my exposure by a couple of stops and crucify the background?
- Turn on the old 580EX with HSS and fill the shadows?
- Change my whole setup to shoot at 1/250 with fill flash and destroy any interesting DOF/bokeh control?
- Change my position completely to make sure I only have a shadey background as well and then tweak the camera - perhaps I should be in Av mode instead?
- Circumnavigate them until I am on their sunny side?
- Not shoot at f/4 at all and shoot the whole thing at f/10, 100 ISO, 1/250 with my flash set to -2 FEC for a bit of fill when needed?

That's the struggle I have going on in my mind. To shoot quickly, and capture the moment, when things are changing all the time, what really is the best setup that keeps the fuss to a minimum - and still delivers good/great results?

Once we've answered that, how about if the clouds are blowing in and out non stop and the light is all over the place? As I said before, I'm not used to needing to respond quickly to a rapidly changing environment for event/social/wedding photography.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated :)

[cdifoto]

Those are all decisions you have to make as a wedding photographer based on your preferences and style...

And sometimes, yes you do have to "fiddle" to get the images that work. That's why you improve over time.

[tim]

Yes, of course, but it was still refreshing, and a little surprising to see these guys just getting on with shooting and not forever adjusting their gear.

Sometimes I feel very bogged down from reading through forums, like suffering from paralysis through analysis, especially when about to embark on something new, and more so when it involves people and their satisfaction with my results. At POTN it appears to be a crime to be more than 1/3 stop off with your exposure. If there's any room at the right of the histogram then you've shot it wrong (for raw). If you've clipped even one pixel (apart from specular highlights) then you've shot it wrong. I feel almost paranoid about ensuring my exposures are completely perfect, with subject and background lighting balanced perfectly as well. That puts stress on me to be constantly worrying about metering mode, where the meter is pointing at any given moment, how I interpret the meter, how to keep pace with even slightly changing lighting conditions etc. etc.. Manual keeps things wonderfully simple if the light is constant, but what if it brightens up a smidge and I don't notice? - and so it goes on.

I adjust just about every single image the customer sees, as it's rare to get everything right in the camera. Plus I try to achieve things in PP that can't be done in the camera - dynamic range compression mainly. Don't think that all pro's get exposure exactly right every time (though some might do), think they get it close enough to be able to tweak in RAW later.

[cory1848]

What a coincidence, I have my first wedding on the 16th as well, being a 2nd. I just got a bracket and honestly not sure if I need it or if I should take it. The ceremony is in a church but I am not sure how high ceilings are. I will try and check out the venue before the gig. The bracket is rather cumbersome, I like using it in landscape mode but in portrait mode the camera flip style bracket is rather uncomfortable to hold. The main shooter is using a LS. I will be using a homemade stofen type diffuser. I am actually thinking if I can avoid the bracket I will but not sure how harsh side shadows would be with a diffuser on...

[sapearl]

Hi Cory - good opportunity for you to be shooting, best of luck :D.

Brackets are highly personal items. Some like them and some don't - I fall in the latter camp having enjoyed my Newton for a little over two years. It's part of my shooting style, but again it's a personal choice. I just like always having the flash top-dead-center above the lens. These pretty much eliminates all shadows that may fall behind the subject on near walls, furniture, other people, etc.

Keep in mind regarding the stofen type that it's main strength is bouncing off NEAR walls and ceilings. Near means roughly 10 feet or less. Beyond that it's fairly useless, does not increase the apparent size of (your flash head) the light source, and just cuts output by 1-2 stops.

On a side note I see a lot of shooters using the Stoffen outdoors, in the open, with nothing to bounce off. Perhaps I'm missing something with it's usage? I'm not sure what they are gaining by using it in that fashion.

What a coincidence, I have my first wedding on the 16th as well, being a 2nd. I just got a bracket and honestly not sure if I need it or if I should take it. The ceremony is in a church but I am not sure how high ceilings are. I will try and check out the venue before the gig. The bracket is rather cumbersome, I like using it in landscape mode but in portrait mode the camera flip style bracket is rather uncomfortable to hold. The main shooter is using a LS. I will be using a homemade stofen type diffuser. I am actually thinking if I can avoid the bracket I will but not sure how harsh side shadows would be with a diffuser on...

[cory1848]

Hi Cory - good opportunity for you to be shooting, best of luck :D.

Brackets are highly personal items. Some like them and some don't - I fall in the latter camp having enjoyed my Newton for a little over two years. It's part of my shooting style, but again it's a personal choice. I just like always having the flash top-dead-center above the lens. These pretty much eliminates all shadows that may fall behind the subject on near walls, furniture, other people, etc.

Keep in mind regarding the stofen type that it's main strength is bouncing off NEAR walls and ceilings. Near means roughly 10 feet or less. Beyond that it's fairly useless, does not increase the apparent size of (your flash head) the light source, and just cuts output by 1-2 stops.

On a side note I see a lot of shooters using the Stoffen outdoors, in the open, with nothing to bounce off. Perhaps I'm missing something with it's usage? I'm not sure what they are gaining by using it in that fashion.

Yea I have been reading tons on the use of modifiers. I just found out the ceremony is inside in a church. Not sure how big or small the church is, once I find that out, that will decide on what I use. I will probably use the old index card for outdoor shots...

If the is plenty of space behind subjects with no walls or anything, are side shadows still a concern? Do you get side shadows on the face?

Using a bracket, doesnt that cause under shadows under the nose and chin?

[airfrogusmc]

I agree. :)


Lighting actually doesn't change much even on non-overcast days. It's the days where the clouds are in and out constantly and/or when the sun is setting that the "fiddling" becomes prevalent. Even then, if you know your camera well, changing the aperture, ISO, and/or shutter speed doesn't look like "fiddling" on video. On an XXD body (I don't know about Nikon), it's just a matter of thumbing the wheel or indexing the dial. You press a button near the LCD then spin the dial to change ISO so it's not much "fiddling" at all. Same goes for FEC.

In other words, it's only "fiddling" when you don't know your camera well enough to make those changes quickly and without taking your eye away from the viewfinder.

The quality of light changes DRASTICALLY from direct sun to overcast. The difference of a direct flash source with no diffusion to a large softbox.

[cdifoto]

The quality of light changes DRASTICALLY from direct sun to overcast. The difference of a direct flash source with no diffusion to a large softbox.
I know.

[tdodd]

I've been continuing my research and having a bit of a practice and I'm quite surprised at how many talented pros shoot without flash, at least for the daytime shots, including in the church. The results can be amazing. There's a guy called Aleksandras Babicius who posts here when he has a new wedding gallery to share. His photographs are beautiful and so natural looking. I understand he does not use flash, but he has f/1.4 glass. Here's his website....

http://meninenuotrauka.lt/en/index.php

Example thread here - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=545152

I think I will really try to avoid flash if I can for the daytime shots, but I am limited to f/2.8 unless I use my nifty, so maybe I will struggle. Time will tell.

I have two flash brackets and really cannot make up my mind whether to use them. If you are bouncing 100% off ceiling/walls then I think there is no need for one. If you are pushing some light straight forward then there is merit to using a bracket indoors. I think outdoors there is little need for a bracket as the ambient is so strong and there will be little in the way of poorly lit walls to pick up the shadow from the flash.

I think I'll try firstly without the bracket and if the results are poor then I'll use one. In my research the only flash I see seen used by the top pros is a bare 580EX bounced, or with a Stofen - No brackets, no bounce cards, no gizmos other than the Stofen.

HTH.

[sapearl]

The little index card is wonderful device, and many folks sell it short. But PJ's have been using it on news assignments since the 60's.

If there is sufficient space between the subject and walls/objects, then no there should not be too many objectionable shadows. Any facial side shadows really don't cause a problem.

As far as the bracket goes, it really does not raise the flash up so high that it acts like a ceiling spot or overhead. Enough of it diffuses fairly evenly onto the face as long as you have the white card extended (580ex) or an index card attached, and the proper FEC+ (or not at all) dialed in.

.............If the is plenty of space behind subjects with no walls or anything, are side shadows still a concern? Do you get side shadows on the face?

Using a bracket, doesnt that cause under shadows under the nose and chin?

[tdodd]

I took some test shots to see how the results altered using flash in different ways and I have uploaded the results to an album here....

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/POTNFlashShadow/photo?authkey=90e0hbk5dfQ#5233311495444406466

There is an index sheet as a quick comparison and then each photo in turn. The first photo shows my base manual exposure, just to capture some ambient. All shots were taken with the same manual exposure settings. The flash was used at 0 FEC for all photos. I have not bothered white balancing the photos. The camera was set to Daylight and my ceiling and walls are cream coloured, so things do look a bit warm. The point of the exercise was to check out light quality and shadow effects. The setup of each shot is described in the filename for each one.