So, I'm going to shoot a wedding

[david.fazio.90]

Not that you wouldn't but take both raw and jpeg if you can. I know a couple of semi pros that charge for jpeg only.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[KmH]

Of the 3 lenses you have the 18-55 is the least useful.

A rented 24-70 is a good substitute for the 18-55.
You'll want to practice with the 24-70 for 3 to 7 days days before the wedding.

 

[SquarePeg]

Good luck! If you were charging them or they would be paying a pro if you said no, I would agree not a great idea but since it's you or an iPhone album, why not?

I attended a friend's wedding last year where they went all out on everything else but had a pal with a Canon Rebel be their "photographer". I thought the resulting slide show (that I had to sit through) was a really poor quality-on camera flash in the face-awkward pose-extravaganza but you know what? They were beyond thrilled.

So if they don't know a thing about photography, which I'm assuming they don't since they are not hiring a pro for their wedding... I'm sure they will be happy with what you get. The bride looking at high end wedding pro wedding photos is a potential issue though and you may want to give her a clue as to how much that type of work costs so her expectations are set accordingly.

 

[tirediron]

Shoot the 50mm.

Thats probably your most used lens, right?

Use what you know. Anything that you do different that night has much more potential for error.

Fair enough, but is there really that much potential for error by switching from a prime to a zoom that covers that focal range? I think the added versatility, assuming the OP does some practicing will be very useful.

1.8 is faster than 2.8. So why rent a slower lens? You will need to find a spot where there is enough room for groups. And use it! I probably wouldnt bring the 18-55 either.

Because of the added versatility. 50mm is NOT very wide on a crop-sensor, and while long FLs are often necessary at a wedding, so are short ones. While I don't shoot many, when I do, or at events, my 24-70 is my main lens. I would suggest too that the maximum aperture isn't all that important since hopefully the OP won't be doing a lot of wide-open shooting given the risk of missed focus at such shallow DoF.

I've been to 2 weddings ( as guest) with the same photog last year, and her 85 1.2 doesnt come off all day or night, its on a FF though. Pretty much the same focal length as a 50 on crop.

Not really....

Blast them with them lights and bring extra batteries! Make them pop. Sharp photos are crucial IMO.

Having a light on camera will help a lot. Bounce it if you can but just blast them in the face if you have to!

Ehhhh.... sorry, but this is just bad advice. Yes, you need light and the more the better, but of paramount importance is some degree of CONTROL of that light. Blasting people in the face with an on-camera speedlight is not likely to produce results anyone is pleased with. Ideally, I would suggest the OP add a TTL cord to his list so that he can do ALL shots with the flash off-camera, but assuming that won't happen, I would recommend that he spend some time getting familiar with things like rear curtain sync and FEC.

Enjoy the challenge and disregard the naysayers.

Agree 100%

 

[astroNikon]

adding to all the above great advice ..

Go to the venues
take a couple friends.
Have your friends walk through a mock wedding with your camera. Have one wear bright white (if you use a flash you don't want to over expose and blow out the whites) - or even bring a white heavy patterned table cloth and fold in half and use as a shaw.

You can redo and test your techniques and strategy this way.
With the real wedding you have one time to get it right. So practice it before hand.

renting new equipment that you've never used before could have it's drawback .. as in you aren't familiar with how to use it. Though a FF may provide more benefits if you know your exposure triangle really well.

FYI, don't use your on camera flash. If anything use a speedlight in the hotshoe if you need a flash (and can use one). You'd be amazed how much even 1/32 can help. Hopefully the sensor has a lot of Dynamic Range that you can pull out in Post Processing if it's really dark.

 

[tirediron]

Go to the venues
take a couple friends.
Have your friends walk through a mock wedding with your camera. Have one wear bright white (if you use a flash you don't want to over expose and blow out the whites) - or even bring a white heavy patterned table cloth and fold in half and use as a shaw.

You can redo and test your techniques and strategy this way.
With the real wedding you have one time to get it right. So practice it before hand.

This is f***ing brilliant!

 

[waday]

Before it's too late I would consider telling them you've reconsidered, that you appreciated them thinking of you, that you don't have the equipment or expertise to do this, etc. etc. You don't need to convince them, you need to tell them.

Totally agree. Just say no. Period.

Recently, my wife's cousin asked me to take engagement photos/portraits. I reluctantly agreed. Without my knowledge, this somehow turned into engagement party photos (which is essentially a wedding in her culture). So, instead of just saying no to an in-law at the very beginning, I then had to invent a convoluted story to get out of taking photos.

The in-law now thinks that I broke my camera while walking my dog.

 

[vintagesnaps]

There could be good reasons to do this for someone, but just because they apparently don't want to pay a photographer seems like a bad reason to do it I think. I mean, if they can afford a venue at a golf course... at least where I live that type place is more pricey than budget friendly. This seems to be for someone who probably wants this because - it's free. I think people will take just about anything if it's free, if they really really really wanted wedding photos, they'd work out how to budget for and pay a wedding photographer.

This just takes one more job away from working photographers. Don't complain if they edit the photos you give them and plaster them all over the internet looking like crap and giving you 'credit' for their sh%$#y edits. Maybe you should offer to walk Wade's dog and that'll take care of it! lol

 

[tirediron]

There could be good reasons to do this for someone, but just because they apparently don't want to pay a photographer seems like a bad reason to do it I think. I mean, if they can afford a venue at a golf course... at least where I live that type place is more pricey than budget friendly. This seems to be for someone who probably wants this because - it's free. I think people will take just about anything if it's free, if they really really really wanted wedding photos, they'd work out how to budget for and pay a wedding photographer.

This just takes one more job away from working photographers. Don't complain if they edit the photos you give them and plaster them all over the internet looking like crap and giving you 'credit' for their sh%$#y edits. Maybe you should offer to walk Wade's dog and that'll take care of it! lol

There's that, but something that we as photographers often forget is that for many people photographs aren't a priority. If you're a "foody" then you might be happy to pay $45 a plate for your guest's supper, but photographs? Mehh... who cares? My only concern would be, "Does the couple really mean that they'll be happy with whatever they get"? I've heard more than one tale of a friend shooting a wedding for another friend with the promise of, "Whatever you can do is fine" only to be castigated by the couple and their family because the results were sub-par.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Yeah, that's the thing, if they end up unhappy with the results, might be one of those things you're sorry you ever agreed to do it. Sounds like more trouble than it's worth.

 

[zulu42]

Excellent advice and discussion. I value all of the opinions given. Thanks very much.

I will certainly be shooting raw + jpeg.
I'll see if my local shop has a FF for rent. I will only go that route if renting for a few weeks is affordable. I know the controls and menus pretty darn well on my 5100. Being able to operate my body efficiently would be better than fumbling on a unfamiliar FF.

I'm pretty well set on renting that 24-70. I don't think the 50mm prime will be wide enough for the group shots.

Flash will be all off-camera. I have two speedlights and an IR trigger, and have used them enough to operate them efficiently.

I will be shooting the ceremony rehearsal, it will be valuable practice, and it's a great idea to have the bride wear white at the rehearsal.

A local professional photographer owns a camera shop in my town. I would have loved to get him this gig. I support his shop in every way I can. Bought almost all my gear locally from him, and taken all the classes he offers.

 

[photo1x1.com]

First of all I'd show your couple what you are able to do. Perhaps (since you wanted to practise anyway), shoot 2-3 times with them on various locations that are similar to the wedding location. That way you can easily practice, get an idea what poses to shoot , they know what to expect and can rethink whether they are happy with your images or hire a pro. That would take lot of pressure off your shoulders and believe me, there will be enogh pressure during the wedding anyway .
Regarding the lights: do expose for the available light, maybe if at all very little under. And only use flash as fill. Otherwise the faces will all be unnaturally bright, while the background will be pitch dark. That alone will give you some nice shots.
Well, and then there is black and white. I know many photographers will kill me for what I say, but consider B&W. Black and white images have saved many photographers weddings. Many inexperienced photographers have huge troubles with white balance and different colours of light. B&W takes the risk out of this. Sure you have to consider that several colors look rather light in color images and dark in B&W, and when looking for separation from the background that is an issue. But in the end it looks better not separated, than having totally ugly skintones.

In the end it can be done. My door into professional photography too was a wedding of a friend. You have to start somewhere, and if your couple knows what to expect you have nothing to loose.

 

[zulu42]

Excellent advice. Thanks photo1x1!

Same couple wanted some photos for Christmas cards last year. So, they've seen what my photos of them look like. As you can see, far from pro. I think I've improved since these were shot. As long as I get something like this or better, I will have met their expectations.

 

[zulu42]

BTW, photo1x1, Nice site and videos!

 

[photo1x1.com]

Excellent advice. Thanks photo1x1!

Same couple wanted some photos for Christmas cards last year. So, they've seen what my photos of them look like. As you can see, far from pro. I think I've improved since these were shot. As long as I get something like this or better, I will have met their expectations.

There you go. They hired you because they have been happy with your images. They felt comfortable when you took their image, and for some people that is more important than the most amazing pictures. And besides the lighting that could be improved - since you admitted that - especially the lady looks natural and happy. And that´s a somewhat modern thing. "Real people". Capture them as they really are and not how they are in front of the camera. Maybe she is afraid of not being able to relax and look stressed on the images of other photographers (maybe she even has experience with that ). Well, and the bride usually has more to say than the groom when it comes to choosing the photographer.
Funnily I just recently shot the american staffordshire from our neighbours. They look really frightening at first, but especially our neighbours dog is soooo calm. If anything he would collide with you while running because he is too heavy to stop at times .

BTW, photo1x1, Nice site and videos!

Thanks, much appreciated. The website needs some nice design though, not enough time to do all I want at once.