thoughts on no flash (weddings)

Hi guys, i'm curious to find out what you guys think of not using flash at weddings because of these newer Nikon cameras that allow you to
1) Shoot at insanely high ISO's with low noise
2) Recover uo to 5 stops of details in shadows

Out of curiosity, has anyone here ever shot a wedding without the use of flash?

I've shot entire weddings without flash, and I've shot weddings with flash in 90% of the photos.

What are you going to do when your head table is under pot-lights and only the tops of their heads are exposed? ISO 4million can't help you there.

Exactly what he ^^ said.

Also remember that light and the use and placement of it, is simply another tool for the photographer to use to create an artistic photo. I'll often use lights even when I have plenty of "natural light" to achieve a certain look.

I hate the use of flash during the ceremony, and generally reserve flash for the formal shots after the ceremony is over. But night weddings in dimly lit churches make for the exceptions to the rule.

Wilt wrote in post #18133182
I hate the use of flash during the ceremony, and generally reserve flash for the formal shots after the ceremony is over. But night weddings in dimly lit churches make for the exceptions to the rule.

I've used flash more and more during the ceremony. I never have it on camera, and I try to bounce it if I can. Most people don't even clue in that my camera is triggering them. I'll clear it with the couple if I think it might be an issue, but otherwise I'm a shoot first, ask questions later kind of guy.

This is just a couple flagged speed lights in the pews, bounced into the walls and ceiling. Even in daylight the lighting was wretched.

light quantity
light quality

they often don't mean the same thing

Valid points I see. Thanks for the speedy responses. The reason i'm even considering it is for these couple reasons:

1. Almost all new cameras (even entry level cameras) have somewhat accurate colour reproduction/ white balance etc.

2. Everyone nowadays knows how to use Lightroom and PS

3. Most average joe's today know how to expose 'properly' and if not, the cameras sure does a good job.

Now i've been looking into taking a different (and by no means new) approach to shooting. I don't want the pictures I produce to look similar to a guests picture simply because he/she has a nice camera and knows a thing or two about editing.

I've been following this one guy in particular, as a means of both inspiration and learning, Gabe McClintock. His work, surprisingly, is very simple (in terms of gear) and in most cases is just a matter of shooting under and pulling highlights back from the shadows. I've seen a few other people do stuff similar but i'm thinking of something along those lines. My D800 was damaged some time ago and i'm considering getting a new one for this very reason, but I don't want to make a hastly purchase without getting some reviews. Otherwise, I might get a used D3s or even 2 D700's.

valdano wrote in post #18133246
Valid points I see. Thanks for the speedy responses. The reason i'm even considering it is for these couple reasons:

1. Almost all new cameras (even entry level cameras) have somewhat accurate colour reproduction/ white balance etc.

2. Everyone nowadays knows how to use Lightroom and PS

3. Most average joe's today know how to expose 'properly' and if not, the cameras sure does a good job.

Now i've been looking into taking a different (and by no means new) approach to shooting. I don't want the pictures I produce to look similar to a guests picture simply because he/she has a nice camera and knows a thing or two about editing.

If you are aiming for a strictly "photojournalistic" approach to your work and don't want to bother learning how to use light then by all means shoot at very high ISO and call it good.

On the other hand, if you want to produce works of art that the average joe and/or guest with a camera cannot possible create then buy some lights and learn how to use them.

The worlds greatest camera can't produce work like this all by itself.

IMAGE LINK: http://s182.photobucke​t.com …-900_zpsehcssvnr.jpg.ht​ml

IMAGE LINK: http://s182.photobucke​t.com …4732_zpsynmf5nw​0.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s182.photobucke​t.com …Edit_zpszn4oasg​9.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s182.photobucke​t.com …2814_zps2a49298​3.jpg.html

Knowing when to use natural, when to use a flash and when to get artistic with a flash is what separates the skill sets. Great Equipment, OCF.....everything comes into play.

Must say that new new sensors are making its easier to use less and less flash. But as you crank up the ISO light quality ( not always ) usually goes in the toilet. At some point, and everyone must decide where that is at for their styles and supplementing what is there is probably the best way to go to get consistent results. Lets face it, if you need 25000 to get a shot, chances are the light quality is crapola and anything yo can add to make it better is going to help

Wilt wrote in post #18133182
I hate the use of flash during the ceremony, and generally reserve flash for the formal shots after the ceremony is over. But night weddings in dimly lit churches make for the exceptions to the rule.

BTW, this general rule of thumb also is rather consistent with what seems to be true of so many Protestant ministers admonishing the pro beforehand, "NO photos during the ceremony"

...and then the guests with cameras getting to shoot without admonition (and with flash) all through the ceremony.

If the minister has seen me set remote lights on stands beforehand, HE KNOWS that I have not complied with his directive!!!

SMP_Homer wrote in post #18133223
light quantity
light quality

they often don't mean the same thing

^ that

plus its nice for even an on camera flash to add a catchlight to the eyes at times. If you have subjects in shade and the scene is backlit, its also nice to color balance the scene (background is a warmer daylight and the shade is a cooler blue).

Wilt wrote in post #18133655
BTW, this general rule of thumb also is rather consistent with what seems to be true of so many Protestant ministers admonishing the pro beforehand, "NO photos during the ceremony"

...and then the guests with cameras getting to shoot without admonition (and with flash) all through the ceremony.

If the minister has seen me set remote lights on stands beforehand, HE KNOWS that I have not complied with his directive!!!

I think it depends on the denomination

Catholic ceremonies are all lights out for the ceremony as are many other venues. Its best to not disturb the ceremony. It is a religious right of passage. Buy fast glass and use cameras that have great ISO capabilities. I have photographed MANY ceremonies with a 300L F/2.8 and a 135L and a 70-200 F/2.8 at 6400-8000 ISO with my 5D3......Not gonna be a problem anymore with the new sensors

12800 ISO very clean on the 1Dx2 and 5D4 sensors. My suggestion is to always talk to the minister and find out what he wants done and comply. I never want to interrupt a ceremony with a flash going off...despite what the guests who DONT KNOW ANY BETTER.....we are pros and should conduct ourselves accordingly.

Thanks guys. Yes I do know that light quality & quantity don't always go hand in hand. Just to be clear, i'm by no means saying I don't think flash is necessary.

You have some nice shots there Coleman, and i'm sure the average Joe won't be able to do that. I know I might seem a little hard headed so let me give you all a short background.

Where I am, most, if not all the photographers here shoot almost identical, with a few of the very good ones being a little different. it's usually vibrant, contrasty, and a lot of flash. So my reasons for trying to avoid flash photography is really an attempt to set myself apart.

Even though I haven't really started marketing my business I ideally want to target the higher end of the market and I want to be able to let my images justify the price. Trust me, there are some amazing photographers here who are brilliant with their technical detailing when it comes to lighting. I was just wondering if there was a way to go without using it in not so ideal situations.

Really hope I haven't made anyone feel like they 'wasted time commenting because i'm still stuck in my way' because each comment has affected my thought process in this regard. I think i'm still going to re-buy the D800 but instead of buying flashes/strobes I think I might get a few of these lights and utilize them with the ISO capabilities.

https://www.amazon.com …0248dccccc3c&li​nkCode=ktl

I'm confused on how buying a constant light with one tenth the power and double or triple the price of a speedlight is going to set you apart from the crowd?

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18134317
I'm confused on how buying a constant light with one tenth the power and double or triple the price of a speedlight is going to set you apart from the crowd?

What he said ^^^


I've used those lights plenty of times. And while they are good for certain conditions, you're not going to be able to light up a family formal with them. You're also not going to be able to really modify them either like using a softbox or umbrella.

There is a very good reason that "most" wedding photographers like to use flash.

I'm not saying that you can't set yourself apart from the crowd and create high end images using a video light but there will be times when you're going to wish you had a more powerful light.