wedding photography 101

Alison · Jul 8, 2006

I think everyone has a personal style/preference they use. My 50mm is always used at every wedding. The 70-200 is almost always used, but there are some circumstances when it's not. The last wedding I had was no flash and I could stand in one designated spot, nowhere else. Sucked, bigtime....I couldn't get a clear shot of the couple with the 70-200 because there were too many guests in the way and no center aisle (!) so I used the 20mm.

The biggest piece of advice I can give is to visit the church & reception location before hand. The lighting is almost always tricky in wedding venues so getting a look at it before the big day is essential.

We use rechargable AAs for the flash, saves s ton of money that way. A second camera body I consider essential. I've had the dreaded Error codes and it's not fun. We have a digital and film backup.

I shot full RAW for the first time at my last wedding. I will never, ever shoot in JPEG again. I shoot many of my shots in auto, but a fair number in AV priority as well, depends on the situation. White balance in churches can be a nightmare, one of the reasons I love RAW so much.

Your experience with fast moving subject will be a plus in weddings

Good luck and make sure you and the couple have clear expectations on what shots & style they are looking for!

danalec99 · Jul 8, 2006

I have nothing to add to the gear list which has already been covered. But pick a lens system that you are comfortable with - be it primes or zooms. Some find primes too limiting. Either way, an aperture of 2.8 or faster will come in handy. I hope you have ample time in advance for practice as there won't be any retakes. Shooting fast cars in bright day light is not the same as covering a wedding in dark churches/reception halls. Backup is vital. Hope you will have a friend to download the files to your laptop.

Congrats and good luck! :thumbsup:

Solarize said:
I dont mean to sound at all rude or question the ability of the photographers you have spoken to but honestly, what 'photographer' doesnt alter settings as basic as aperture and exposure? Apart from having perhaps an artistic eye and possibly a fancy camera, how do they differentiate themselves from the snapshooting guests at the wedding?
Also, although I know little about digital photography, I am quite certain that it is common practice among pro wedding photographers to shoot raw then convert the files into tiffs or jpegs. Once again..... i'm not trying to sound at all argumentative

You are not being rude. But there are high-flying pros who are comfy with jpegs and/or P mode. It all depends on each approach/workflow. What works for me may not work for another. There is no 'right' way.

For the record:
- I shoot RAW, because - a) I don't have to worry about the white balance. b) It gives me a lossless Tiff file.
- With the 1.6 crop factor, I just use the 50mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4. I'd love to add the 85mm f1.2II eventually.
If I were to add a zoom or two to the fold, they'd be 16-35 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8.

Reverend · Jul 8, 2006

Solarize said:
I dont mean to sound at all rude or question the ability of the photographers you have spoken to but honestly, what 'photographer' doesnt alter settings as basic as aperture and exposure? Apart from having perhaps an artistic eye and possibly a fancy camera, how do they differentiate themselves from the snapshooting guests at the wedding?
Also, although I know little about digital photography, I am quite certain that it is common practice among pro wedding photographers to shoot raw then convert the files into tiffs or jpegs. Once again..... i'm not trying to sound at all argumentative

I don't take it as arguementative at all. Its all a healthy dialogue. Maybe we'll both walk away from the conversation with a broader perspective on wedding photography.

What differentiates us from the snapshooting guests is our role. We are hired professionals. We not only know how to use exposure and aperture, but when it is neccessary, and when it is not. I'm not saying that we NEVER go into Manual mode...just not most of the time.

Reverend · Jul 8, 2006

Sharkbait said:
I can't imagine running in full auto. In dark receptions (or even most churches for that matter) you'll have black backgrounds (flash falloff) and / or lots of motion blur. The photos will look really snapshot-ish.

Typically, the wedding couple couldn't give a crap less about the background, as long as you can see them, unless the bg is critical to the shot, like a posed shot with a sunset behind them or something. Worst case scenario: its usually nothing that can't be compensated for in PS if its that bad, IMO.

Sharkbait said:
Sure...if I had to I could shoot an entire wedding with one body and my 50mm f/1.8. Would I consider it a good wedding shoot? Hell no...I would have missed almost all the full-lengths and most of the close-ups. Everything would have been either from across the room (which would play hell with lighting and flash), or 3/4 length from a few feet away.

Well, I don't know what to tell ya ... Sounds like some photographers don't need everything you do to accomplish the same things, I guess. :mrgreen:

Sharkbait · Jul 9, 2006

Reverend said:
Typically, the wedding couple couldn't give a crap less about the background, as long as you can see them, unless the bg is critical to the shot, like a posed shot with a sunset behind them or something. Worst case scenario: its usually nothing that can't be compensated for in PS if its that bad, IMO.

So you're trying to tell me that, at least to the bride and groom, there's going to be no noticeable difference between this...

and this...

There is no way in hell photoshop is going to turn that first one into the second. Photoshop is a tool, not a savior.... It can take a good photo and make it great, but it will never take a bad photo and make it into a good photo.

Well, I don't know what to tell ya ... Sounds like some photographers don't need everything you do to accomplish the same things, I guess. :mrgreen:

...which is why I'm a lot busier than most photographers... :er: :lol:

Reverend · Jul 9, 2006

Sharkbait said:
There is no way in hell photoshop is going to turn that first one into the second. Photoshop is a tool, not a savior.... It can take a good photo and make it great, but it will never take a bad photo and make it into a good photo.

Dude, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying at all. You're comparing apples and oranges in your examples. In the first photo, its a completely candid shot, where the background just simply isn't neccessary. To get that shot (and get it right) in manual mode would take at least 5 seconds to adjust your settings, which is way too long. The subjects would stiffen up, look at the camera, and smile or make some stupid fake face. In that pic, they still smile for the camera, but its much more spontaneous. They don't have a chance to think about what they're going to do for the photo.

The second photo is a posed & well composed photograph. You have the luxury of taking a moment to meter for a good exposure, and possibly take more than one shot to make that "moment" look perfect.

If you have the time (or you're just fast enough) to go in full Manual all the time, then that's great! I applaud you, but understand that there are many wedding photogs that would rather capture the moment than risk missing it b/c they were fiddling with their settings.

Just my $.02

Sharkbait · Jul 9, 2006

Reverend said:
Dude, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying at all. You're comparing apples and oranges in your examples. In the first photo, its a completely candid shot, where the background just simply isn't neccessary. To get that shot (and get it right) in manual mode would take at least 5 seconds to adjust your settings, which is way too long. The subjects would stiffen up, look at the camera, and smile or make some stupid fake face. In that pic, they still smile for the camera, but its much more spontaneous. They don't have a chance to think about what they're going to do for the photo.

The second photo is a posed & well composed photograph. You have the luxury of taking a moment to meter for a good exposure, and possibly take more than one shot to make that "moment" look perfect.

If you have the time (or you're just fast enough) to go in full Manual all the time, then that's great! I applaud you, but understand that there are many wedding photogs that would rather capture the moment than risk missing it b/c they were fiddling with their settings.

Just my $.02

True, the examples weren't 100% comparable (I was looking for one of mine that would work and didn't have it online yet). But once you get to be a decent judge of lighting conditions, full manual is not a stretch at all, it gives much more consistent results. It takes me less than a second to make a quick adjustment (usually to the shutter speed) in manual to adapt to a different lighting codition. The camera's built-in exposure adjustment compensates a little for any slight inaccuracies, and then tweaking the RAW file in Capture One before processing takes care of the rest. And with all due respect, I disagree that the background is not important in reception shots. Perhaps there's not a ton of important visual information, but it gives ambience and more importantly sets the image apart from the Uncle Bob snapshot that is shot on Program mode.

Here are a couple more examples where the background is properly exposed....I think it sets the photo apart totally from a full-Program mode snapshot...

And this shot just flat-out would not have been possible in Program mode. This was a pretty dark room (notice how the windows blew out). If I had shot in Program, the flash would have fallen off before it ever reached the first person in the group.

Reverend · Jul 9, 2006

Point well taken....

I do concur that one should always set the settings themselves whenever they can, but for those moments when you just want to capture a moment, its nice to not have to think about too much.

markc · Jul 9, 2006

Just to throw another opinion in: I think it's mandatory to have at least a second body before you seriously consider doing weddings. I consider it irresponsible to do otherwise.

hot shot · Jul 9, 2006

wow what a mish mash of diffrent veiw points, and what brilliant reading it makes for a first timer any way.

right so far i have decided on
two bodies (30D - 350D)
two flashes (metz cl45 mk1)
a wide angle lense (10-22mm I think or maby a 15mm)
a zoom lense (depends on what i can get my hands on )
a 500mm (depending on how successful the recipping is by stigma)
going to london in two weeks so going to check out the venue while im there.
for the cerimony i will be shooting in manual (i think)
the reception will be shot in auto for those tipical snap shot moments but then manual for shots such as cutting the cake ect

have i missed anything

you input is greatly apprecated

markc · Jul 9, 2006

I think 500mm is rather extreme. That's like a 800mm on those cameras. Did you mean 50mm?

hot shot · Jul 9, 2006

no i just got my 500mm stigma rechiped. its ether that or a slow 200mm (f4.5 i think) and apparently its a huge big mosque athought i had forgot about the sensor maginifcation

markc · Jul 9, 2006

Well, you should be able to pull some nice detail shots with that. It's going to be hell to hand-hold though. You'll probably need a 1/1000 shutter, unless you're a rock.