Informal wedding reception photos.

[Anthoncon]

Using an EOS 40D with options of USM 17 - 85mm lens or 18 - 55mm lens. Or should one use a prime lens and which one of these for informal reception shots. Also is built-in flash adequate or should one use a Speedlite - and which one? Alternative to flash would be to adjust "film" speed.

I stress that the aim here is to produce informal shots of guests OK for viewing on PCs so print quality not a major factor.

Grateful for any recommendations and associated reasons.

[cory1848]

Using an EOS 40D with options of USM 17 - 85mm lens or 18 - 55mm lens. Or should one use a prime lens and which one of these for informal reception shots. Also is built-in flash adequate or should one use a Speedlite - and which one? Alternative to flash would be to adjust "film" speed.

I stress that the aim here is to produce informal shots of guests OK for viewing on PCs so print quality not a major factor.

Grateful for any recommendations and associated reasons.

First, welcome to POTN. Secondly, read read read. Are you being hired for this? not to be cold but if you are, you should turn it down based on the questions you are asking.

I dont see the difference in "ok for viewing on PC" and print quality. Unless you have a 1.3 megapixal camera, the quality wont be an issue. However, your use of lighting will be.

[tdodd]

I shot my first wedding with a 30D and 17-85 lens. I also had a 580EX flash, which was absolutely essential given the slow max aperture of the lens. The gig was a freebie for a friend, as a favour. With only 22 people in total including myself and the B&G there was no pro hired and it was left to the guests, myself included, to record the day.

I learned quite a lot during that trial by fire and really the shots were not that great in terms of white balance, exposure and blur management. However, some PP managed to fix plenty of the problems with the raw files. Thank God I didn't shoot to JPEG.

In short, it can certainly be done, but you must have a bounceable flash and you really need to know your equipment. I recommend you become familiar with using manual exposure to control ambient light and FEC to balance flash light with ambient. You would also do well to consider geling your flash to match the colour balance to the ambient lighting such as tungsten.

You can read more about my experience here - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=286091

[JackLiu]

I have done informal wedding reception pictures as a friend of the bride. Used a Canon EOS Rebel XTi w/18-55mm f3.5 IS lens and 580EX II speedlite, ISO 400. Speedlite at bounce (90 deg) because direct flash was harsh unless mitigated with a Stofen Omni-Bounce attachment. Also bounce flash was ideal due to moderately low ceiling and light-colored walls. ISO 400 because light loss due to bounce flash setup. Recorded images as RAW+JPG. Most jpg images were OK with some exceptions. These exceptions were where RAW files were used to compensate for unusual jpg images.

[Anthoncon]

Thanks for replies to date. I find the reply of cory1848 patronising and useless (a real turn-off to using the services of such a poster) while that of tdodd and JackLiu helpful. I'm not being hired for this but will do it for fun. There will be a very good professional photographer there for the usual formal, posed wedding photos. That said one wants to take decent photos and avoid obvious pitfalls. I'm sure that there are many wedding guests who normally take the informal shots of guests at the later wedding reception.

[Patrick]

I just did a wedding a couple of hours ago and used the 40D with the 17-85 kit lens during the reception. I used a 580exII on a Custom Brackets Pro-M and the CP-E4 external battery pack. It worked fine. I would have preferred a nice L lens for the job but you've got to use what you've got. Uploading the photos right now and they look great.

[cory1848]

Thanks for replies to date. I find the reply of cory1848 patronising and useless (a real turn-off to using the services of such a poster) while that of tdodd and JackLiu helpful. I'm not being hired for this but will do it for fun. There will be a very good professional photographer there for the usual formal, posed wedding photos. That said one wants to take decent photos and avoid obvious pitfalls. I'm sure that there are many wedding guests who normally take the informal shots of guests at the later wedding reception.

Sorry if you feel that way. However a wedding is nothing to "experiment" at and that is exactly what you will be doing according to your post, Free or not. Again though, your questions are a clear indicator that you need help learning how to use your equipment.

If you take advice such as "read, read, read" at patronizing, well then good luck cause how else will you learn? Learn by experimenting...trouble is, at a wedding thats usually at someone elses expense.

Maybe search through the site and read the stickies... wait, maybe not, thats too useless.

[Anthoncon]

As one who started photography with a Canon AT-1 and then the Canon A1 (both manual) I'm probably sufficiently aware of of Av and Tv modes in additional to other aspects e.g. fill-in flash, hyperfocal distance etc. If you care to look at the other replies you'll see how helpful they are. Ideally in doing candid wedding shots one wants minimum adjustments. In the olden days a fast 28mm lens was most suitable. But today one has the advantage of RAW images and PC processing. As such, technical advances with the change to digital cameras with large capacity CF disks afford much more latitude than in the days of film and expensive processing. So photography has really become much easier. But that doesn't negate constructive input from other users.

So in your words "read, read, read" and learn from other posters.

And given that I'm doing this for free and fun, there's no expense to anyone else.

The tone of your reply should deter others from using your "professional" services.

[ehduque7]

I'm a newbie and "read, read, read" is the best advice I've been given. Which explains the hours I spend on these boards and in books on my new hobby haha.

[dosha]

You will definitely need an external flash such as a speedlight. There are a lot of books on lighting and exposure for digital cameras, I would read at least one before the wedding.

[PhotoMatte]

Thanks for replies to date. I find the reply of cory1848 patronising and useless (a real turn-off to using the services of such a poster) while that of tdodd and JackLiu helpful. I'm not being hired for this but will do it for fun. There will be a very good professional photographer there for the usual formal, posed wedding photos. That said one wants to take decent photos and avoid obvious pitfalls. I'm sure that there are many wedding guests who normally take the informal shots of guests at the later wedding reception.

Lol, I do between 30-40 weddings a year and I hate the formal, posed photos. I much prefer the reception photos and I hope you do a good job for them (provided the person they've hired is already gone; I always stay until the last dance has been danced). Yes, there are quite a few guests who take shots during the reception, and quite a few of them are decent. However, as I tell all my clients, if a friend of theirs was to go out and buy a very nice dental chair and some nice dental drills, would they let that friend work on their teeth? Or if they bought a very nice jet, but had no flying experience, would they let that friend fly them on their next vacation? Of course not. All I'm saying is that it's not the equipment, it's the user. The best informal wedding photos are the ones that look informal. This means not using a pop-up flash...that lets the viewer know there was a flash involved, and that someone was ready and waiting for the shot. Whereas if you use a speedlite, and bounce the light effectively, it looks like ambient light (and looks like you just happened to catch the action). If you're interested in photography, pursue it! Work with another photographer, read Glen Johnson's book, take a seminar...and keep shooting!

[Anthoncon]

Thanks Photomatte. Yes, photographer will be there for the formal wedding photographs in the afternoon and bo doubt during the lunch but not there at the evening reception/dance. Speedlite it is.

[Mike]

Thanks for replies to date. I find the reply of cory1848 patronising and useless (a real turn-off to using the services of such a poster) while that of tdodd and JackLiu helpful. I'm not being hired for this but will do it for fun. There will be a very good professional photographer there for the usual formal, posed wedding photos. That said one wants to take decent photos and avoid obvious pitfalls. I'm sure that there are many wedding guests who normally take the informal shots of guests at the later wedding reception.

Ah, don't worry about the percieved tone of the post, he is trying to be helpful. He probably didn't understand that you are just going to be shooting for fun as a guest. A lot of people here ask that kind of question after having been booked as the pro!

Using an EOS 40D with options of USM 17 - 85mm lens or 18 - 55mm lens. Or should one use a prime lens and which one of these for informal reception shots. Also is built-in flash adequate or should one use a Speedlite - and which one? Alternative to flash would be to adjust "film" speed.

I stress that the aim here is to produce informal shots of guests OK for viewing on PCs so print quality not a major factor.

Grateful for any recommendations and associated reasons.

Your 17-85 lens will be better than the 18-55 (unledd it is the IS version) but primes will be even better generally.

Built-in flash is weak and harsh producing a very un-flattering look. You can push up the ISO for sure to help get your shutter speed up.

Read, read, read (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5999915&postcount=2) ;)

[cory1848]

You asked for specifically for recommendations and associated reasons, of which I gave both. I am sorry that you don't agree with what I was recommending. Again, you only stated that you were a guest and doing this "for fun" AFTER your initial post and AFTER my reply. As Mike states, I was just trying to be helpful. Thanks Mike!

I chalk up you thinking my tone was patronizing as internet message board talk. You read into my post as you wanted to read it, not seeing the meaning behind it. If you go back and read it again and not think its a personal attack on you, you might see that it just might be helpful.