Wedding Photag. Gear

[sobolik]

I've learned a few things through reading these wedding photography threads.

1. Beginners like to believe that it's not about the equipment, but the photogapher's skill.

While this is true, there's some things skill can't do. Can a kit lens give you the same bokeh (not DoF, Sobolik, no need for that DoF calculator) as a High power, fast zoom or a fast prime? If you can't use a strobe, can your crop sensor body give as clean photos as a full frame body at ISO12800? If you CAN use a strobe, is a $350 strobe gonna be strong to bounce off high chapel cielings, or will you need that $500 strobe? I'm sure amateur wedding photographers get decent results with cheap equipment, but you cannot get the results that a pro shooting a D3s and a 70-200/2.8 VR2 can. There's a reason why people buy equipment like that, and it's not to show off.

2. The professionally paid, fully licensed pros on the forum give sound advice, but the amateur/beginners like to argue point number 1.

I was asked to shoot a wedding over the summer. I wanted to deny the job, I knew my equipment would not do. All I had was an 85/1.8, 35/2, and a D200. No flash allowed. I took the job, but did it for free... and requested that I had a better equiped friend to shoot with me. The chapel ceilings were way high, light was dim and red... the D200 could not handle the low light. Yes I boosted up the ISO, yes I shot wide open. The Composition was great, the bokeh, the DoF, everything was great except for the noise and colours. Skill is one thing, but people will still complain about how your photo LOOKS if it's too grainy and has weird colours...

3. Beginners think Pros claim that you need top equipment to be good.

That's not true. The pros are saying that you need good equipment to get the shot you want WITHOUT flaws. If you're shooting a wedding with a kit lens, your Bokeh is NOT going to be as good as if you shot with a 70-200. Your DoF might be the same, but your bokeh is not. The noise you get on your crop body is going to be worse than on your full frame body. Crop sensors are mighty good at handling noise nowadays, but they will NOT match up with full frame bodies. I could go on, but I know people will gonna bash, say how they can get the same shot with a kit lens and a flash.

I know everyone can get a well composed shot with their kit lenses, but to have it nearly technically flawless... that's a different story. But you all have your own opinion of "flawless". Argue away :]

("but to have it nearly technically flawless")

Hi genious, Bokeh is the result of a flaw in the lens. So all your ranting is that you prefer certain lenses flaws over other another lens's flaws. Nikon Lens Bokeh Comparison

("not DoF, Sobolik, no need for that DoF calculator")
I think it is PatrickCheung;2117177 that needs to unconfuse himself not me.
("The pros are saying that you need good equipment to get the shot you want WITHOUT flaws. If you're shooting a wedding with a kit lens, your Bokeh is NOT going to be as good as if you shot with a 70-200. ")
Again, Bokeh is the result of a flaw in the lens.

"[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Mathematicians would say the intensity distribution of the blur circles are rectangular in perfect lenses, and good bokeh would prefer a Gaussian distribution. This is one area in which physics doesn't mirror what we want artistically. [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Differing amounts of spherical aberration alter how lenses render out-of-focus points of light, and thus their bokeh. [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The word "bokeh" comes from the Japanese word "boke" (pronounced bo-keh) which literally means fuzziness or dizziness.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A technically perfect lens has no spherical aberration."[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]​

Bokeh


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of course people genuinely concerned about bokeh shoot f/2.8 or faster lenses. Newspaper photographers and weekend pros all own some kind of 80-200 f/2.8 lens, and pro fashion photographers love 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 lenses. Thus I also set my 80-200 AFS to f/2.8 in the same comparison, as well as at f/5.6.
Nikon Lens Bokeh Comparison
[/FONT]

(" Can a kit lens give you the same bokeh (not DoF, Sobolik, no need for that DoF calculator) as a High power, fast zoom or a fast prime?")

Maybe it has the same "feel" if the following effects turn you on then I guess your bokeh is just fine with a kit lens.

In photography, the term bokeh represents the quality of the magical out-of-focus blur that makes it look like the subject is isolated from the background. It is visually appealing for us to see a photograph with a soft, creamy and beautiful background. It helps concentrate our eyes on a single area and creates a sense of depth and dimension on an otherwise flat-looking image.
Let me share a few tips on how you could obtain maximum bokeh from your camera setup.
1) Use a large aperture

Bokeh is not created by the camera – it is your lens and its optics that are responsible for rendering the out-of-focus areas. Therefore, the first thing you should do is set your lens aperture to its lowest value, also known as “maximum aperture”. You can do this by changing your camera mode to “Aperture Priority” and setting the “f” number to the lowest value your camera will permit. On Nikon DSLR cameras, this is typically done by rotating the front dial towards the left (counter-clockwise).
What is the effect of lowering the lens aperture? It basically decreases the depth of field (which is the area that appears sharp relative to the background) to a very small or “shallow” area.
2) Minimize the distance between yourself and the subject

The closer you stand to your subject, the blurrier the background will get. This happens because when an object is very close, the lens will focus closer and the depth of field will be the smallest. It works the same way with our eyes – try to extend your index finger close to an object two feet away from you, then focus your eyes on your finger and start moving it towards your eyes. You will notice that as you get closer to your eyes, the object behind your finger will get blurrier and blurrier every time. Lenses work exactly the same way, which is why subject distance plays a big role in rendering of the bokeh.
3) Increase the distance between your subject and the background

If the subject you are photographing is very close to a busy background, the bokeh will definitely suffer. Remember, depth of field is not just a hard line after which everything is supposed to be completely out of focus – it gradually transforms from sharp to out of focus, as can be clearly seen in the below image. Therefore, in order to get a pleasant-looking bokeh, you should try to put your subject away from close background objects. For example, if you are taking a portrait of a girl that is standing very close to a tree branch with leaves, those leaves might not look completely out of focus. If the girl moved closer to you and thus increased the distance between herself and the tree branch, the leaves would look more “out-of-focus”.

As you can see in the above image, the nearest leaves on the tree look sharp and in focus, while the ones a little behind on the left-hand side look somewhat blurry. In comparison, the leaves from the other trees further away look completely out of focus.
4) Use longer focal lengths

Given that the distance between the camera and the subject remains the same, increasing the focal length of the lens decreases the depth of field. So, if you have a zoom lens, you should zoom in to the maximum focal length your lens allows to separate the subject from the background even more. This also means that if you zoom out and use the lens at its shortest focal length, the depth of field will increase, which is desirable for landscape and architectural photography.
For example, if you have a 70-300mm zoom lens, shooting at 300mm focal length will isolate the subject the most (which is what you want for the best-looking bokeh), while shooting at 70mm will bring more objects in the background to focus.
5) Use a long lens

Since increasing the focal length means decreasing the depth of field, the longer your lens is, the better the bokeh you will get. This is not necessarily always true, because the rendering of out-of-focus areas also heavily depends on the optics of the lens. For example, both Nikon 18-200mm and Nikon 70-200mm have the same long focal lengths (200mm). However, the Nikon 70-200mm has much better optics than the 18-200, which is why it has exceptionally beautiful bokeh when compared to the 18-200 bokeh. So, when I say “use a long lens”, I mean “use a high quality quality long lens”
6) Use a fast lens

And last, but not least, use the fastest lens you have, since aperture impacts the depth of field. The best lenses for beautiful bokeh are portrait lenses such as Nikon 50mm f/1.4, Nikon 85mm f/1.4 and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 that have large maximum apertures and highly optimized optics for portraiture. The cheaper alternatives such as Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and Nikon 85mm f/1.8 also produce great bokeh.

How to Obtain Maximum Bokeh

 

[Phil Holland]

Here is what I have in my camera bag.

 

[flea77]

Hi genious, Bokeh is the result of a flaw in the lens. So all your ranting is that you prefer certain lenses flaws over other another lens's flaws. Nikon Lens Bokeh Comparison

Really? Because you quoted the following link:

Bokeh

and even quote sentences out of that link such as:

Mathematicians would say the intensity distribution of the blur circles are rectangular in perfect lenses, and good bokeh would prefer a Gaussian distribution. This is one area in which physics doesn't mirror what we want artistically.

But you conveniently left out a sentence in the same paragraph right before the one you quoted, it reads:

Perfect lenses render out-of-focus points of light as circles with sharp edges.

Rendering the out-of-focus areas is bokeh, and bokeh is a flaw in the lens according to you, so how can a lens be perfect, yet have a flaw?

I opened up the links you provided and did a search for the word "flaw" and got no results at all. Where did you get the idea that bokeh is a flaw? Time and again those articles say that bokeh is how a lens renders the out of focus areas, but never do they say it is a flaw.

I would like to make two suggestions for you:

1) Before you call someone a "genious" you learn to spell the word genius
2) Before you act all smug and call people "genious" or genius, you actually read the articles you are quoting from, it will help you look less....ummmm.... like a newbie with no clue what they are talking about.

Allan

 

[Light Artisan]

I'm starting to think this person is someone's alter ego.

 

[flea77]

I'm starting to think this person is someone's alter ego.

From what I have seen in this thread, right down to having to explain your awesome sig (which I may steal, just so you know), I am not sure they are smart enough to have an alter ego

Allan

 

[Light Artisan]

 

[flea77]

I want to write the next best-selling novel. What pen should I buy?

I think the quality of ink will make a difference to the final output.

I would suggest a Mont Blanc 146 or Pelikan 800, either with a fine to extra fine nib.

As for ink, I like Mont Blanc blue-black. It is a true iron gall ink so should stand the test of time quite well.

Next we need to talk paper, but you did not actually ask so you may have some in mind. I like Clairfontaine personally.

Allan

PS. Weren't expecting a serious answer to that now were you? :lmao:

 

[gsgary]

sharp edged boken Canon 200F2.8 @F2.8 try that with your kit lens, the bloke dosn't have a clue

Canon 300F2.8

 

[sobolik]

I say the average beginner asking about lenses on this forum has very little interest in edge sharpness for example nor will they or their audience ever care. Same with the flaw called "good" bokeh

"The rendering of out-of-focus points by a camera lens is called "bokeh" and it is commonly ignored by lens users and lens designers for the simple reason that

"good bokeh" (the images on the right) is created by imperfect lenses, or lenses that exhibit "spherical aberration". {see link for images -dots}

A technically perfect lens (corrected spherical aberration) will render points evenly, thus causing the images on the left. {not good or bad neutral bokeh}

Most lenses will exhibit this "neutral" bokeh...."
Bokeh - the least understood lens property | Andre Gunther Photography

 

[bbprincess2147]

.....bare minimum- to do a wedding......

5 packs - Walmart.com: Kodak Blue Floral 'One Time Use' Disposable Film Camera w/ Flash (10 Pack) for Wedding, Bridal Shower, Engagement Party: Digital Cameras

Hand them out to the guests. Collect them at the end of the reception :thumbup:

Now, that certainly is bare minimum.

 

[bbprincess2147]

Welcome to the forums!

I have seen many wedding photographers only carry around only one camera body, but it certainly does not hurt to have a backup camera/battery/memory card.

I am looking to get into the same sort of thing and you are going to have to drop some decent cash to get professional looking results. This does not apply every single time, but many times.

You are going to need a decent flash, depending on your company either a 430EX II or a sb-600 at the minimum.

You are going to need a faster lens due to low lit rooms. Anything from a f/2.8 and lower should work completely fine, especially with a flash. Many wedding photographers carry around the 70-200mm f/2.8 as a necessity. Many also carry around an 85mm f/1.8. The 50mm f/1.4 - f/1.8 are carried around many times as well.

This is a just the beginning though, so many more pieces of equipment could be bought to perform.

I found this information really helpful!

 

[sobolik]

sharp edged boken Canon 200F2.8 @F2.8 try that with your kit lens, the bloke dosn't have a clue

Canon 300F2.8

The 2.8 has been used to condemn kit lens bokeh and is now used here to condemn a kit lens claiming "sharp edged boken".

The interesting thing is that this shot of a runner is a great example of terrible bokeh. TERRIBLE BOKEH

Right click and copy the photo. Open it in software and enlage the lights in the upper background and compare to this link 1/2 way down the page. Actually the naked eye unenlarged is good enough. Particularly about the runners right shoulder (our left)
Bokeh

 

[nonamexx]

The above doesn't count as bokeh in my view. It's just a weakly out of focus background.

I've managed that with my humble P & S though the background blur is slightly less and actually looks more pleasing.

People here seem to place undue interest and value in bokehs. I actually think that bokehs are over-rated and most of the bokehs are crap. It takes an artist's eye to create a good bokeh. And even the best lens cannot choose the correct composition for you.

 

[PatrickCheung]

sharp edged boken Canon 200F2.8 @F2.8 try that with your kit lens, the bloke dosn't have a clue

Canon 300F2.8

The 2.8 has been used to condemn kit lens bokeh and is now used here to condemn a kit lens claiming "sharp edged boken".

The interesting thing is that this shot of a runner is a great example of terrible bokeh. TERRIBLE BOKEH

Right click and copy the photo. Open it in software and enlage the lights in the upper background and compare to this link 1/2 way down the page. Actually the naked eye unenlarged is good enough. Particularly about the runners right shoulder (our left)
Bokeh

At least he's posting photos. Get the best bokeh with your kit lens and post it up here. If you can do better than the 2.8 then you win!

Not the best Sharp-Edge-Free bokeh, but hey, better than nothing.

From the 35/2:

From the 85/1.8:

From the 80-200/2.8:

If your kit lens can do better, please post. You seem to be all talk. You also seem to pick at certain aspects of arguments instead of arguing the whole topic. I'm starting to think your ego is a bit too big for this forum, or you're just trying to pick fights because you dont have the money to spend on equipment. You dont seem to be helping any beginner here.

Droopy Camel laughs at you.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

You dont seem to be helping any beginner here.

Shirley, you jest.