gear & tips for a 1st time wedding togger

smorter wrote in post #16574518
This doodad may be handy for you - it's a bit simplistic but might help with the actual photo taking side once you get the gear and camera operation sorted

http://galleries.clart​ephoto.com …hotography_anal​ysis_1.pdf

^ all shots taken with ambient lighting - Flashless Wedding

many thanks for this, just opening it up now

wellsie82 wrote in post #16576467
its weighing them both up rather than having the DoF as my primary concern - ordinarily id be shooting portraits in AV to ensure you've got a nice background without distractions, however indoors at a wedding it's bringing this in with the ambient light

speaking of iso, ive found that with most canon's (especially my 6d & 550d) there is a max iso of 400 when in shutter or aperture priority modes. this might mean switching to manual in some shots so ive got additional practice/testing to do with this in mind

I'm confused now!
Did I not say that once flash is the primary source I switch to M? (However, my primary concern is still the aperture, shutter and ISO are balanced to suit)

And I've no idea why your Canons won't go above 400 ISO when in AV mode, because I've been shooting Canon digital for 10 years and have never seen that?

2nd body is a must and if you don't like what you see on the lcd, adjust and take another shot! Don't think "you'll fix in post"

Phil V wrote in post #16576474
I'm confused now!
Did I not say that once flash is the primary source I switch to M? (However, my primary concern is still the aperture, shutter and ISO are balanced to suit)

And I've no idea why your Canons won't go above 400 ISO when in AV mode, because I've been shooting Canon digital for 10 years and have never seen that?

might of been my wording - wish the flash on, the iso is capped at 400 when in AV or TW modes, M of course lets you get around this. it was news to me but it's on several forums & is build rather than defect/fault

wellsie82 wrote in post #16579307
might of been my wording - wish the flash on, the iso is capped at 400 when in AV or TW modes, M of course lets you get around this. it was news to me but it's on several forums & is build rather than defect/fault

Nope!

What you mean is:
the iso is capped at 400 when in AV or TV modes if you use auto ISO.:o

My only question there would be 'why would you use auto ISO'? And M isn't M if you use auto ISO on a Canon, it's 'make your choice of shutter speed and aperture' mode.

As I said previously, and it's still the correct advice, AV when you're shooting without flash, M for when flash is your primary light source. And auto ISO is for people who don't know how important ISO is, that's the reason Canon cap the ISO, because they assume anyone using Auto ISO is stupid. Watch your shutter speeds!

Phil V wrote in post #16579745
Nope!

What you mean is:
the iso is capped at 400 when in AV or TV modes if you use auto ISO.:o

My only question there would be 'why would you use auto ISO'? And M isn't M if you use auto ISO on a Canon, it's 'make your choice of shutter speed and aperture' mode.

As I said previously, and it's still the correct advice, AV when you're shooting without flash, M for when flash is your primary light source. And auto ISO is for people who don't know how important ISO is, that's the reason Canon cap the ISO, because they assume anyone using Auto ISO is stupid. Watch your shutter speeds!

i hold my hands up on this one - since getting the 6d ive barely done any flash photography & the auto iso is something ive been using in AV mode (to retain my DoF control). i simply put two & two together with the auto & flash making iso 400. clearly i should of stated i was auto - sorry about that

just an update on the gear - ive got an ettl flash on it's way so that'll be my flash for the day & i have two indoor parties coming up under artificial light which will help me to get to know it

thanks again for all your advice

Evening all,

Well the wedding is all done & dusted, not only that but the editing is all complete too & the couple are extremely happy with the results.

It was always my intention to undercharge & over deliver so that paid off. The original agreement was for me to share with them every image I took in an unedited format - them to pick their best 50-100 images & I would go away & edit them.

In the end though I took it upon myself to select the best 500 & have uploaded these into a private gallery for them.

So what did I learn? It's bloody hard work & doing it on my own would of been a non-starter.

I need to give people more space in the frame & by that I mean zoom out. A few hands/feet were trimmed in camera which of course I couldn't rescue in post processing.

Controlling of the flash - was always going to be my weak point having used the flash so little. By the end of the night I was controlling the amount of flash light hitting the sensor with my aperture but earlier in the day I was using FEC only - this lead to overexposed images - some of which were beyond repair.

Balance group images with the "couple shots". The bride & groom were never too fussed on shots of the two of them but I had intended to spend 30-40 mins in the grounds of the venue taking portraits - blurred backgrounds, f1.8 - you know the stuff. Unfortunately the 90 min window we had for images wasn't enough (people were spread over two floors so finding everyone was painful to say the least) & when given the option the couple wanted me to finish the group shots instead of getting shots just of the both of them. Something I feel they might live to regret but I had to respect their decision. Had it of been outside or all in the same room, I think it would of been easier to source everyone which would of in turn, quickened up the group pics. As you'll see from the "people" gallery on my site, the bulk of my portrait experience comes from posing people or getting candid shots in controlled lighting - I wasn't able to utilise this & I feel it's now a "gap" in my wedding portfolio.

Don't rely solely on flash lighting. It was a lovely day & although 99% of the shots were taken inside, the sun was lighting the room up quite well up until 3-4pm.

Don't stay too long at the venue - I was there from 11am-11pm. It made for an extremely long day but it did enable me to capture everything from the build-up through to the dancing. Should I ever do another, I would agree an end time.

Culling/rating all the images then editing 500 images was my choice because a) he's a friend & b) I wanted to get them something asap to yay/nay to put my worried mind at rest. I would do that many again.

Anyway, you guys all helped me tremendously in the run-up. Some of you put my mind at ease, some of you guided me with settings & talking about your experiences. My best 50 odd images (and these still need to be trimmed down) are online at http://www.jasonwells.​co.uk/Photography/Wedd​ings - if any of you have five minutes I wouldn't mind hearing some feedback seeing as you all know your stuff.

Thanks once again

I took a quick spin through the photos and one thing I noticed consistently is that most of your photos are under exposed. I'm not a calibrated monitor at the moment, but I believe it's pretty close.

You also can work on posing the people and trying to excite some sort of emotion from them. They look really miserable in most of the photos. Of course, we can't control that sometimes.

One suggestion is to drag (slow down) the shutter a little bit when using flash, especially on the dance floor. This will allow some of the ambient light to come in and make the background not completely dark like you have in some of the photos.

Hope that helps!

I've looked through them and whilst I'm sure the B&G are happy, it's clear you're still not a 'people' photographer. The detail shots are all well considered and composed, the people shots look rushed. The posed ones being a bit awkward and the candids a little 'off'.

Where's the emotion? the stolen glances, the knowing smiles? In essence 'the story''?

I love weddings because they're an opportunity to shoot people doing something that's really important to them, we get to capture more emotion in a day than we see in a month of ordinary life, you've only managed to 'take pictures of people who happen to be at a wedding', rather than capturing the wedding itself.

Phil V wrote in post #16719211
I've looked through them and whilst I'm sure the B&G are happy, it's clear you're still not a 'people' photographer. The detail shots are all well considered and composed, the people shots look rushed. The posed ones being a bit awkward and the candids a little 'off'.

Where's the emotion? the stolen glances, the knowing smiles? In essence 'the story''?

I love weddings because they're an opportunity to shoot people doing something that's really important to them, we get to capture more emotion in a day than we see in a month of ordinary life, you've only managed to 'take pictures of people who happen to be at a wedding', rather than capturing the wedding itself.

^ I think this is harsh but definitely fair

Well done OP for surviving the day - you did much better than expected and it was by no means a train wreck. Whilst the technical and lighting can still be improved, so long as you got the key moments you delivered competent acceptable coverage

I'm a prime guy, I could shoot a whole wedding with a 35, 50, and 85mm!