Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 26 Oct 2010 (Tuesday) 06:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What could of been done differently?

 
Gel
Goldmember
Avatar
1,118 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Brighton , East Sussex
     
Oct 26, 2010 06:04 |  #1

With winter fast approaching I'm moving into using flash more and more during weddings.

I had one this weekend which wasn't difficult but made me question my way of doing things in a sense of 'What could I of done better'

My issue is noise, not the lighting as such.

The camera used for this image was a 1D4 with a 24-105L at F4 and a 580EX II with a stofen gold diffuser. The ISO was 6400 and the Shutter speed was 1/40 sec.

I know some answers would be to use the 24-70 2.8 but at that aperture I can either half the ISO or double the shutter speed. 1/40 sec handheld on a non IS lens can be problematic.

The High ISO was chosen to get the ambient light in the shot, the gold diffuser was used to better match the tungsten lighting in post production.

I would of preferred to use a 1/4 CTO gel and bounce the light instead but the new gels hadn't arrived.

What would you of done, with the equipment I had?
I also had the 24L but wanted a bit more detail in the images.

Original Image before colour correction:

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


After WB correction (as planned) :

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


The crop:

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Chris Giles Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jra
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,529 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Oct 26, 2010 06:14 |  #2

Personally, I think you did a fine job with your equipment. The noise in the photo will be all but non-existent in print.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
isophotostudio
Senior Member
Avatar
494 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Akron, OH
     
Oct 26, 2010 06:33 |  #3

Doesn't look to bad, even cropped, slightly cold. I would probably have asked a guest if they minded scooting there chair around a bit so I could get closer, which would avoid needing to crop that far, looks very tight space wise!


This is my camera, there are many like it, but this one is mine.
Canon 5D Mark 2/Gripped, Canon 7D, Canon 40D, Canon 28-135 f/3.5, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 30 f/1.4, Sigma 150 f 2.8, Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Alien Bee 800 & 400, 2 Dynaphos DP-2497

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DStanic
Cream of the Crop
6,148 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Canada
     
Oct 26, 2010 07:03 |  #4

Did you do auto WB in post? It looks a little cold just like when I attempt to do auto WB in LR, then I adjust manually. In crap light conditions you may want to use a grey card and custom WB to get it right in camera.

If your goal was to get the closeup (pic #2) you should have used a longer FL otherwise noise is inevitable with the low lighting and at that high ISO. But I think pic #1 is just fine.


Sony A6000, 16-50PZ, 55-210, 35mm 1.8 OSS
Canon 60D, 30D
Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 17-35, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 85mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gel
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,118 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Brighton , East Sussex
     
Oct 26, 2010 08:45 |  #5

Thanks guys.

Yep, I auto'd WB in Lightroom but the actual finished image I warmed it up a little. Auto WB tends to leave the iamge a little cold. It's hard to balance the natural light with the tungsten.

I knew it was going to ba a problem when I went there earlier this year to check it out.

I need to buy a small set of steps :D


Chris Giles Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,727 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Oct 26, 2010 08:58 |  #6

Not sure what you expect from the 1D4 at ISO6400. That looks about right. Did you have the pull the exposure back up some or was it nailed?

When I am using flash at receptions, I am usually at ISO1600-2000. I find that brings in plenty of ambient light.


NYC Wedding Photographer (external link) | Blog (external link) | facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gel
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,118 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Brighton , East Sussex
     
Oct 26, 2010 09:07 |  #7

It was quite dark and I had to push the exposure 0.41 Nick.


Chris Giles Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peacefield
Goldmember
Avatar
4,022 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: NJ
     
Oct 26, 2010 09:17 |  #8

Even though I use faster lenses, I'm tyically shooting at f4+ at the reception anyway as I want a deeper DOF much of the time. Just to offer a different take on the problem and the solution, one is that I don't try to bring ambient up THAT much. I like my ambient to be 2-3 stops under. This allows my subject to pop out of the image a bit and it buys me much more total exposure.

I assume that your crop was done prior to using software for noise but something like Noiseware should clean that up pretty nicely. That and you can't fret too much over noise as it's rare that a client will look at their images with the same critical eyes and most receptions shots are not what the couple plans to blow up into a 20x30.


Robert Wayne Photography (external link)

5D3, 5D2, 50D, 350D * 16-35 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 100-400 IS, 100 L Macro, 35 1.4, 85 1.2 II, 135 2.0, Tokina 10-17 fish * 580 EX II (3) Stratos triggers * Other Stuff plus a Pelican 1624 to haul it all

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,727 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Oct 26, 2010 09:20 |  #9

Gel wrote in post #11167342 (external link)
It was quite dark and I had to push the exposure 0.41 Nick.

That would explain the noise, although as I mentioned before, noise is to be expected at ISO6400. I don't think it looks that bad at all.


NYC Wedding Photographer (external link) | Blog (external link) | facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimconnerphoto
Goldmember
Avatar
2,165 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Southern California
     
Oct 26, 2010 10:36 |  #10

Underexposue and cropping tighter will make the noise more prominent in the shot. I typically use 2 lights to kick a little light in there to help. I have one off camera tucked in a corner out of the way and one on a bracket.
Depending on the room I will aim the off camera flash at the ceiling or edge light the subject.
Lightroom 3 really does some amazing work at reducing noise.

So, in addition to using the extra flash head off camera I would have slightly overexposed the shot and moved in a little tighter then used lightroom to reduce the noise and recover some highlight detail.


Wedding and Portraits www.jimconnerphoto.com (external link)
Commercial Work www.jamesdconner.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,920 posts
Likes: 333
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Oct 26, 2010 18:26 |  #11

This.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,197 views & 0 likes for this thread
What could of been done differently?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dlpso
851 guests, 355 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.