Spray and Prey / Flash in Weddings

[Mike_E]

Meter? check.

Compose sorta? Really you should have already composed the shot before you raise the camera. The only thing you need the viewfinder for is to aim it.

Spray and pray? If you're not using flash then multiple shot bursts will increase your keeper rate in regards to camera shake/open eyes. You shouldn't need more than three or four though. Long bursts only wear out the shutter.

And just holding the camera up at the Dance reception speeches? Sounds as though she was tired to me.

No flash? Eh, it's a thing. Some do, some don't and some can't for any number of reasons.

 

[KmH]

I get the impression the way she shoots is more about putting on a show.
And actually, that can be good for business referrals and pumping up the rate she can charge.

The people who hire her likely do so as much for bragging rights and the show she puts on as she shoots as for the photographs she delivers later.

 

[Light Guru]

I noticed something, she hardly ever used flash. Actually, NEVER. Not her, not her assistant, nada. Not even a reflector.

Many wedding venues do not allow photographers to use flash. Even if they did you may not want to use it or a big reflector during the ceremony because you want to do absolutely nothing that will distract from the ceremony.

Spray frames like it's no ones business via her 5DmkIII on full burst.

Some like to do this because they are not confident that they will catch the decisive moment, and its not like you can stop the ceremony and have them start over because you missed the shot.

 

[sk66]

Spray and pray? If you're not using flash then multiple shot bursts will increase your keeper rate in regards to camera shake/open eyes. You shouldn't need more than three or four though. Long bursts only wear out the shutter.

This was my thought... when pushing boundaries w/ SS burst mode can help a lot.

And there's a world of difference between "available light" photography (no flash) w/ my D4 as compared to a D7000... I can get away w/o flash in situations I previously couldn't...

 

[IzzieK]

Is there a possibility that she was only pretending to "shoot" and with her assistants, she shows off their shots instead of hers? Just thinking out loud here...

 

[Austin Greene]

Is there a possibility that she was only pretending to "shoot" and with her assistants, she shows off their shots instead of hers? Just thinking out loud here...

I doubt it. I kept pretty good track of her and her second shooter (no assistants to speak of) and I've hardly seen any frames from the perspective of the second shooter. As for how you can pretend to take photos, I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't consider pray 'n spray a technique as much as the thing people with cameras do in the hopes they'll get some usable shots. Doing some continuous shots can work but I think it takes knowing when and how to use that.

People can probably manage to get by with doing what she does by being able to do some fancy editing, or she shoots so many photos that odds are some turn out. Seems like she's managed to produce photos that people like and for whatever reason, her marketing, her style being popular, etc. she's managed to build up her business and reputation. You know enough to know that her way of going about this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but people who aren't photographers probably wouldn't realize that and might be impressed by her 'show' (and see the wizard not the man behind the curtain so to speak).

You never know, if/when current styles aren't popular anymore some photographers like her may not stay in business years down the road. Lots of things are popular for a time, doesn't mean they're necessarily all that good or going to last all that long.

 

[Derrel]

Well...here's a really interesting experiment; using your cell phone camera with this application. Fast Camera.

Fast Camera - Stop fixing mediocre pictures and start taking superior photos!

Like it says on their web page, "Shoot like the pros do! Take dozens of pictures using the front and/or rear camera, and save the best."

I actually have been using this app on my iPhone for well over a year, and there are situations where turning the iPhone into a 6-frames-per second at full-resolution camera has real benefits. It ALSO can waste tons of time and storage space. But despite the negatives associated with spray and pray, there actually have been situations where I wanted a LOT of image choices in very fast-moving, fluid situations, and where I have been able to cull through as many as 100 frames to pick out one or two or three moments that would simply not have been possible to shoot using the iPhone's normal, very sloooow firing rate.

 

[71M]

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 then that 'exactly the look' is sub-par; you cannot get the whitest whites and the blackest blacks in ~9 stops without doing that. Go to school in photography; it's more than being a camera operator.

 

[photoguy99]

I'm fascinated by this whole discussion. This photographer is running a business and is successful and make nice photographs. The general negativity seems to be, basically, that she is a bad person because where you would take three shots, she takes ten.

If I take five, am I still bad?

If I only take two, does that mean I'm getting to heaven before you, you filthy three-framer?

 

[Austin Greene]

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 then that 'exactly the look' is sub-par; you cannot get the whitest whites and the blackest blacks in ~9 stops without doing that. Go to school in photography; it's more than being a camera operator.

Cool your jets and take off the troll mask. I made no efforts to say that editing doesn't happen, on my part, or that I have anything against minor dodging/burning. I'm speaking strictly in terms of lighting and quality of light, and their relation to what industry standards (if any) might exist. To say that you can't nail a photo in camera, with minimal editing in post, is a joke. Maybe "photography school did you more harm than good if you honestly believe that. You don't need your blacks to be -9 below when photographic black is only 4 below, and what a viewer or printer can discern is far less.

I'm fascinated by this whole discussion. This photographer is running a business and is successful and make nice photographs. The general negativity seems to be, basically, that she is a bad person because where you would take three shots, she takes ten.

If I take five, am I still bad?

If I only take two, does that mean I'm getting to heaven before you, you filthy three-framer?

I think you'd be reading into everyone's comments a bit too much if you think they, or myself, have been speaking poorly of her. We're talking about what she might be doing in regards to, again, and industry standard (if there is one), and how that might impact a business. This isn't about putting down a photographer, it's about fleshing out the why's and why not's involved in shooting tons of frames per composition.

Also, it helps if the first post gets a re-read on occasion. We're not talking about 5 or 10 exposures, we're talking about tens of exposures.​ Beyond what most seem to call prudent.

 

[snerd]

Not that I would have a clue about any of this topic, but at the end of the day, if her customers are happy, and she is making money, and new and repeat customers are still calling, she could bring a couple of monkeys with her and I wouldn't care.

 

[photoguy99]

I get that you were just asking a simple question about standard practices, Austin. I should have said something about that. I was specifically addressing a subset of the follow-ups. And should have said so.

 

[Derrel]

I'm fascinated by this whole discussion. This photographer is running a business and is successful and make nice photographs. The general negativity seems to be, basically, that she is a bad person because where you would take three shots, she takes ten.

If I take five, am I still bad?

If I only take two, does that mean I'm getting to heaven before you, you filthy three-framer?

YES, this is a fascinating topic for discussion!

Let's step back a bit in time...to the film days...since lately, I've been scanning a fair amount of older slides and B&W negatives. I used to buy Tri-X by the bulk roll, and also Ektachrome 64 and Ektachrome 100 Professional by the bulk roll...E-6 slide processing was cheap...developer for B&W used to be cheap...anyway...I've noticed just HOW FEW SHOTS I made of each scene, of each situation, compared against the freedom I have today with a d-slr and an almost unlimited amount of CF storage space worn around my neck on a lanyard with two CF card mini-wallets on it.

Despite the large amount of card storage I carry, a "typical" day spent out shooting photos sees me filling usually, two 8-gig cards, and then maybe another 2 gigabytes' worth of images. On almost ALL typical days, that's right around 708 to 735 images in total. In situations where I need to actually FIND SOMETHING to shoot, where the subject matter must be sought out, encountered, and identified by ME, that's about all I can manage to shoot, even in target-rich places like the Oregon coast, or the Columbia Gorge national scenic area. A wedding is a different type of shooting scenario, where there is a LOT to shoot, with people playing dress-up, and there are huge lists of invitees and large family contingents, and loads of concentrated subject matter (wedding + reception normally = one or two locations, not 150 miles of driving over a 12-hour day and eight stops).

So, what I'm working to is, What is the normal,natural, organic shooting amount for a regular wedding? I can EASILY see 2,500 frames being fired, on MOST weddings.

Where does the line between normal shooting, and spray-and-pray start? I mean, I've seen 1950's weddings, several, that were 24-frame albums, done on B&W Speed Graphic. Two dozen images. Each one posed, each one technically excellent.Each one 'iconic', and yet...not organic, not of-the-moment, not spontaneous, but totally, totally staged. So, how many frames is "normal" in today's d-slr world of weddings? My feeling is 1,400 pictures is what most brides today expect to see. Is that close?