Question: Wedding,Whitebalance,metering

[kric2schaam626]

Ok, so if a photographer shoots weddings, how often are they changing or at least monitoring where their white balance is (or how it's set)?

And I haven't done much reading on metering , I know. How does it effect white balance and vice versa?

 

[reznap]

Ok, so if a photographer shoots weddings, how often are they changing or at least monitoring where their white balance is (or how it's set)?

And I haven't done much reading on metering , I know. How does it effect white balance and vice versa?

Just use the white balance dropped on the wedding dress in post.

 

[tirediron]

Leave it in 'Auto', shoot in RAW, and correct to the dress/tux in post as req'd.

 

[IgsEMT]

how often are they changing or at least monitoring where their white balance is (or how it's set)?

ALL depends on what you're shooting and where you're shooting.
During formals I preset my WB and since lights are 95% consistent and I usually take 2 of same poses (unless its a large family group then 5shots should be enough) WB isn't an issue.
Once I go on-camera flash, again depends on what I'm doing and when, chances are WB will stay the same - the primary light source is the flash and same color consistency will be for most part of the day/evening.
Metering - again depends on what: for formals to setup a ratio and can either eyeball it (from experience) or meter it.
If the shot is underexposed, then my Caucasian faces will be redish.

Leave it in 'Auto', shoot in RAW, and correct to the dress/tux in post as req'd.

I shoot mostly JPGs unless I feel that I'll be in the environment where WB or exposure might be of an issue and time is essential - will switch to RAW. The more accurately I prep for specific shoot (wedding, in-studio portraits, etc) the less time I'll spend correcting the images. I'll rather process them, then correct them. Difference being (add contrast, filter, etc - processing) vs correcting (grossly under/over exposed image, blue bride's dress that should be white, etc etc).



If you have anything more specific, and want to, feel free to PM me.

 

[IgsEMT]

What if she's like me and wears a champagne colored dress instead of white? :greenpbl: :lmao: :hug::

EXACTLY.
I had that color-name on my tongue but it didn't roll into the fingers

 

[reznap]

Shows how much I know about weddings...

I still stand by: unless you're in a studio or something, auto and fix in post... like you need more crap to worry about when shooting a wedding.

 

[kric2schaam626]

Leave it in 'Auto', shoot in RAW, and correct to the dress/tux in post as req'd.

Ugh . . . RAW. Such a pain.

 

[kric2schaam626]

Leave it in 'Auto', shoot in RAW, and correct to the dress/tux in post as req'd.

I shoot mostly JPGs unless I feel that I'll be in the environment where WB or exposure might be of an issue and time is essential - will switch to RAW. The more accurately I prep for specific shoot (wedding, in-studio portraits, etc) the less time I'll spend correcting the images. I'll rather process them, then correct them. Difference being (add contrast, filter, etc - processing) vs correcting (grossly under/over exposed image, blue bride's dress that should be white, etc etc).



If you have anything more specific, and want to, feel free to PM me.

I just need to learn how prep a lot better I guess. And really top metering and WB.

 

[tirediron]

I shoot mostly JPGs...

Shooting a wedding in .jpg only? Really?

 

[kric2schaam626]

I shoot mostly JPGs...

Shooting a wedding in .jpg only? Really?

Ahh . . . not another JPEG/RAW debate. Isn't the post processing incredibly tedious for shooting in RAW?

 

[Flash Harry]

No, not if you know what your doing, and raw will provide a superior file to work on, I shoot raw + jpeg, the jpegs become proofs after a batch resize makes them useless for prints but OK for on screen view, I then wait till the order before editing the raws. Then again if your charging 50 quid just give them crappy jpegs as most other "pros" seem to do these days. H

 

[kric2schaam626]

No, not if you know what your doing, and raw will provide a superior file to work on, I shoot raw + jpeg, the jpegs become proofs after a batch resize makes them useless for prints but OK for on screen view, I then wait till the order before editing the raws. Then again if your charging 50 quid just give them crappy jpegs as most other "pros" seem to do these days. H

Last time I shot in RAW, it looked so grainy. Probably user defect again? :blushing:

 

[tsblo]

I shoot a lot of my weddings in JPEG too so I am always on top of my white balance. I typically shoot kelvin mode though and warm it and cool it to my liking. I find many of the presets I have to tweak to add more amber or more blue. Kinda defeats the purpose of a preset IMO.
I also have this white balance lens cap thing that I carry around and old faithful a grey card.

 

[Taylor510ce]

If it was grainy, you either had really high ISO or not using any noise reduction. RAW is the way to go. Its not hard to get abetter pic than the in camera jpeg processing. You couod use presets in most cases and come out ahead in terms of quality.

 

[IgsEMT]

Ahh . . . not another JPEG/RAW debate. Isn't the post processing incredibly tedious for shooting in RAW?

Not going to start RAW/JPG. Yes I shoot mostly JPGs and spend less time processing since majority of what I need/want is done on the job rather then in front of the computer later.
I do switch to RAW if feel that a shot or scene will be tricky BUT over 90% is JPGs. Its a style preference.