Spray and Prey / Flash in Weddings

[Austin Greene]

Hey folks,

No, I don't have my first wedding shoot yet. I'm still enjoying my time on the sidelines, watching, trying to get in as a second shooter with nearby pro's. That said, I did attend a family wedding about a month ago and I noticed something that really made me wonder.

I'm a big fan of getting my lighting right in the field. I'll edit, but I'd prefer not filling my days with dodging and burning portions of images when I could just bring a flash along and get exactly the look I want with the camera still on my neck. Well as I watched my brother's wedding photographer I noticed something, she hardly ever used flash. Actually, NEVER. Not her, not her assistant, nada. Not even a reflector. She might have used some when she pulled them off after the ceremony, but I certainly didn't see so much as a lone speedlight for the entirety of the event beforehand, including the first look. Indoors, outdoors, directional lighting or not, she never broke one out (I don't know if she even brought one), and it confused the hell out of me because she's considered one of the best in her state. I've seen her photos, and they look beautiful, but something doesn't add up. Her strategy seemed to be:

1. Meter
2. Somewhat compose (1 second behind the viewfinder)
3. Spray frames like it's no ones business via her 5DmkIII on full burst. She wasn't looking through the viewfinder half the time. For what I'd expect to take one or two frames, she'd pop off 20-40.

I'm not knocking her technique, it seems to work for her. I am looking for a bit of clarification on two things though, as someone who is looking to go into wedding photography at some point.

1. Is spray and pray normal in wedding photography? I suppose I expected more finesse, but perhaps it's really more about having the volume of frames as an insurance policy for missed moments?
2. Is it normal to go an entire ceremony without once using a flash of any sort, even during the private first look and bride/groom portraits? Watching her I'd absolutely think the lighting demanded use of a flash, but my guess is she planned on just doing quite a bit of exposure adjustment after the fact to give them more "pop." I get not using flash during the ceremony (though we were outdoors), but even during the first look? Really?

Her images are beautiful, I'm just a little confused as to how she gets them to that point. It's either a lot of post work, or magic.

P.S: Something I found interesting was her use of a light panel (small one, 6x4 inches or so) during the evening as a light source while folks were dancing. I'd never seen that done before in place of a flash given the faster shutter speeds she'd need to be using.

 

[Mach0]

Maybe she bracketed ?

 

[Austin Greene]

Maybe she bracketed ?

Not that I could see. The shots weren't going off in sets (2/3/5/7/9) like the 5DmkIII utilizes for auto bracketing, nor was she adjusting settings between exposures. Also, this was for every photo she took that she'd just spray away.

Now that I think of it, I kind of watched her like a hawk...

 

[Designer]

I attended a wedding last fall in which the photographer took (IMO) some rather questionable shots. Nearly every shot she did of the wedding party was against the sun, and no flash.

Later, after the sun went down, she used her flash for the dance, etc.

Only one time did she "spray", and that was during the toasting, when everyone was up and clapping. She just pointed her camera toward the crowd and while panning; shot - shot - shot - shot. It was not burst mode, but she was jabbing the shutter fairly rapidly.

 

[IzzieK]

Those shot...shot...shot...takes getting used to. I only do that kind of thing during airshows...when I am following aerobatics.

 

[Austin Greene]

Guys I think we could hash this one out a bit more. I'm genuinely curious why this is a thing, or if it is a thing, and it could play a role when I eventually sign up for my first wedding as a second shooter.

Bump?

 

[tirediron]

This is a technique which has been developed by those who grew up in the digital age and never had to make it through an entire wedding with only 'X' rolls of 36 exposure Tri-X Pan. Personally, I don't 'get it' either. Like you, I prefer to take 1-2 shots and get them right, however with the high ISO capabilities of modern DSLRs and the high frame-rates, if you're a good "Photoshopper" you can easily get away with being a mediocre (at best) photographer and working your magic in the pixel room.

 

[photoguy99]

Every competent wedding photographer will "spray and pray" to some degree. It might only be taking 2-3 exposures of the critical shots, to make pretty sure there's at least one without some unfortunate closed eyes or whatever. Shooting 50 frames instead of 3 is just a matter of degree, and not a terrible idea. If you make 50 exposures of more or less the same thing, is it not true that one of that 50 will be the best one?

Why NOT shoot 50 of everything, then? Well, editing time, obviously. So, one could argue that it's basically laziness or inefficiency that causes people to only shoot 2 or 3. Yes yes, I "get it right in the camera". What if you "got it right in the camera" 50 times instead of 2? Wouldn't you get a better picture? You'd surely get, overall, slightly better work out -- at least. With 50 you can throw out the 10 lousy ones, and still have 40 left to select the absolutely perfect expression, the ideal smile, the best eyes crinkled with joy, or whatever.

As for flash versus not, well, that's just a choice people make. Dan O has gone on and on about about natural light, and has shown us exactly how to get a strobe-like appearance out of natural light in post, with some relatively simple adjustments. If you can manage it, natural light DOES eliminate some weird looking effects (namely the "where the hell is that light coming from? Is there a bonfire on the altar?" effect, and similar). Natural light isn't easier than flash, it's harder. But it can be made to work just fine if you have the chops.

There's a lot more seeing involved, generally.

As a side note: It's pretty lame to try to separate "the photographer" from "the post production person" and suggest that doing more before the shutter press is somehow better. Who cares what happens before and what happens after? That line is always shifting anyways.

 

[tirediron]

Every competent wedding photographer will "spray and pray" to some degree. It might only be taking 2-3 exposures of the critical shots, to make pretty sure there's at least one without some unfortunate closed eyes or whatever.

I don't really think that's "spray & pray" in the current context/

... If you make 50 exposures of more or less the same thing, is it not true that one of that 50 will be the best one?

Yes, but it doesn't mean that any of them will be good.

What if you "got it right in the camera" 50 times instead of 2? Wouldn't you get a better picture? You'd surely get, overall, slightly better work out -- at least. With 50 you can throw out the 10 lousy ones, and still have 40 left to select the absolutely perfect expression, the ideal smile, the best eyes crinkled with joy, or whatever.

Seems like a lot of extra work to me...

As a side note: It's pretty lame to try to separate "the photographer" from "the post production person" and suggest that doing more before the shutter press is somehow better. Who cares what happens before and what happens after? That line is always shifting anyways.

Why? Quite often they're totally different people. As to what happens before and what happens after, the 'before' is critical to the 'after' - if the 'before' is done correctly, there's virtually no need for 'after'.

This puts me in mind of a presentation given by Dr. Ted Grant which I was fortunate enough to attend some years ago. He told us how he captured his famous Ben Johnson image, explaining that for the last few yards of the race all of the other photographers in the press box had their motor drives on "Max" burning through the film on their bulk backs; he tracked Ben through the viewfinder, waited, saw the critical moment, and captured the frame that was plastered on every sports and news magazine around the world. Spray and pray or pay attention and get it right... I know which camp I fall in to!

 

[astroNikon]

Oddly I've been thinking this through too. I'm 2nd shooting a small wedding in June.

But I've seen the opposite. More precise and consciencious shooting. Knowing how the wedding flow with the ceremony et all.
I think one would tend to get better shots being more precise. Of course, spray and prey could be good but I'm going to assume alot of post processing, and alot more work going through the photos.

just doing sports and understanding and seeing the flow I've reduced my shooting 75% and I'm capturing better images.
I would think the same would hold true for weddings.

But the low light is where your fast glass f/2.8 comes into play - inside churches, poor outside lighting due to time or cloud cover, etc.
Light Panel - Would a light panels help to keep ISO down and shutter speed up .. just like a flash. Maybe not as much but certainly not as irritating as a flash.

I did a kids field trip inside our state capital the other day. I took my kit lens. What a mistake. I either needed a flash (not allowed) or fast glass. live and learn. Luckily all in RAW and LR took care of everything. So I'm going to guess the photog does alot of editing too.

But for the wedding I'm bringing my fast glass as the dinner is inside a barn ( a very nice barn, but still). The ceremony is outside. But just doing sports outside could push ISO up with heavy clouds.

 

[pixmedic]

there are are more shooting options with digital than there were with film.
memory cards give you many more shots, ISO settings let you shoot different conditions without worrying about changing films, higher FPS lets you shoot more, faster....
why is it always some weird issue when someone actually takes advantage of one of these things? what difference does it really make to anyone if you take two shots or 12 shots of the same scene? are you going to judge someone by how many FPS they shoot, or by their final product?
im always a little amused by people that take some "purist" approach to photography... did those same people complain when roll film came out and you could take more than one shot at a time? or complain that 220 gives you too many shots and makes you lazy, so only use 120 film?

pretty much every new feature is going to be criticized by someone that thinks that things were better "back in the day", whether its cheating by using Autofocus, or higher ISO, or higher FPS, or Photoshop, or a program mode...

my advice is this...use the equipment you have to the best of your abilities. use whatever features your camera offers that will help you get the best shot possible.
if taking 10 shots gets you the best result....do it. when I second shoot at a wedding, i almost always take 2-3 shots of every scene i shoot. sometimes people blink, look away, move an arm...something. i would rather have a few shoots to choose the best from. Don't be fooled, film people do it too. they just have to change film instead of memory cards.

 

[KmH]

From a business perspective, the cost of the time required to review, evaluate, and sort thousands of spray and pray images from a wedding makes little financial sense.
Factor in the wear and tear on the camera gear.

That a particular photographer is considered "one of the best in her state" does not mean that the photographer has an efficient business that is as profitable as it can be.

I would bet that a ton of man-hours are spent doing post production of her photographs.

 

[Austin Greene]

Thanks for all the thorough replies folks, it's just what I was looking for. All in all I'm not trying to criticize her, like I said I have zero experience in wedding photography. I was more trying to understand what the norm is, and if I should expect to shift how I operate when I eventually do move into weddings. I've got no bones with folks who like to burst a few extra frames, though I do agree that in the case of excessive bursting it doesn't make much financial sense.

 

[Derrel]

She sounds like a shooter that is not really competent, nor confident in her camera-handling tgechnique. Not looking through the viewfinder half the time? Maybe she shoots loose, and crops in post? With a short lens at moderate distances, like 10-30 feet, there's enough depth of field at f/4.5 or f/5.6 that focusing is not ultra-critical, and a modern camera can even be allowed to select the focus point using a multi-point approach, so it's not ESSENTIAL to be looking through the camera, like it would be with say a 300mm telephoto lens at f/2.8, where there's a 4-inch focus plane at 20 feet or whatever. Shoot loose, crop later? Shoot EVERY SINGLE FRAME with the camera held horizontal, crop whatever looks like it oughtta' be a tall into a tall? Sureeeeee...why not!?

But yeah...I've heard of this before actually, from a California wedding shooter who mentioned that there were some younger shooters doing entire weddings in long, extended bursts. I suppose it could be tailored and tweaked and made into a "system". But the idea of shooting indiscriminately because one CAN, using a d-slr and memory cards, as opposed to valuable film and processing, doe not seem to emphasize quality and selectivity over volume and happenstance. I suppose the idea of shooting 10,000 frames and hoping for 500 good pictures makes some sense to a person who has no idea of how to shoot 500 GOOD pictures more or less "on command", as in deliberately, and willfully. SO....sit back, mash down on the trigger, then cull through the dreck and pick out what's decent, and process the chit out of it...and there you go...a wedding album.

 

[Overread]

There are some other thoughts:

1) Some photographers fire the shutter more than they need to and thus put the subjects at ease. When you make the moment itself a single event and a single shot some people tense up; they "put on their smile" for the camera. Sometimes if you gun a series of shots you're more likely going to remove that "moment" feeling and instead get people smiling in a more relaxed manner

2) Group shots many photographers often take a series of shots because someone is always blinking or looking away or otherwise not ideal - having a selection gives you options to clone/copy and fix potential problems.

3) Different photographers develop different approaches toward the same end goal. This can mean that there are many ways to get great shots, not any one of which is "the best"; they are simply other approaches.

4) No flash is more feasible today than it's ever been with high ISO cameras now in the hands of people without having to get into medium formats. So its likely there are many more with a 5DMIII going without flash. Indeed in some churches the use of flash is specificaly banned (mostly to stop the average person using little point and shoots all the time, but some extend it to include the pro as well - so you've always got to be ready for this eventuality).

5) Sometimes spray and prey isn't professional, but is also distracting. If you're taking a few key shots at a quiet moment (eg the ring or the first kiss) chances are a sudden "slapslapslapslapslapslapslapslapsslap" of the camera shutter is an annoyance to those involved; a single click is far superior.


It all depends and I'd say find a method that works for you and your clients; fewer shots is nearly always good and most good photographers aim to get as much right in camera as they can in the least number of shots.