Wedding photography trial

[Yisehaq]

Dear All,
I had the chance to shoot in a wedding last weekend. It was an interesting experience and was a bit challenging for me. I didnt get the photos I expected eventhough I tried different setups. :wall-an: Once again, I need your help. :headslap:

#1 What is a starting setup one can use in shooting with a flash indoors. I had to fiddle so much to get one(exif below). I know it depended on the situation but where do you start usually.

#2 I saw that the picture gets better, when using higher iso(in this case 200). I was so sure to use more than that for fear of noise.
#3 I know that the shutter speed deals with ambient light but the lower it gets obviously will lead to blur, any solutions. So, how can I expose the ambient environment more properly.

Below are my sample photos
all shot at 1/80, 5.6.
except the first one (100) all were shot at iso 200

Top to bottom FEC +2/3, +2/3, +2, +3, +1/3

All pics where shot straight except for the third and the forth photos which where bounced from the ceiling.

No PP what so ever.


I hope that is not to much.

[Marko]

Sorry for your troubles Yisehaq.
Every shot here looks underexposed (by varying degrees) to me. My starting point for something like (indoor wedding) this is about F4 1/60 using iso 800-1600.

What you should have done here is meter the background without the people in it, before they even get there. That gives you a base exposure without flash. I was not at the event, but your settings, based on some experience, underexposed the scene on every shot. Then when you added flash, it helped some of the scene, but not all of the scene.

That would be my diagnosis here.
Had this been my shoot, my camera would have LIKELY been on manual set at 1/60 at F4 and my flash set to TTL with little or no flash exposure compensation.

The absolute key here (for newer wedding photogs), is to NEVER try this while the bride and groom are there. Measure the AMBIENT light BEFORE. Take a shot, see what you get. THEN add the flash if the subjects need a bit more light. Don't do both at the same time....and remember, you on camera flash is not for the whole room, your AMBIENT exposure is for the rest of the room (if possible). The flash is only supposed to light the foreground, not background.

Hope that helps - feel free to probe more if this is not clear.

Don't worry, you'll get there :)

Best!
Marko

[Yisehaq]

Thanks Marko, for your usual support.


Unforturnately, I arrived late.:wall-an: I tried to shy away before being pushed by my friends who new I always keep my camera in my car.


But lucky for me, I was not the main photographer. I hope he did better:fingerscr so that no one will ask to see mine.


I somewhat new that the iso improved the total picture but I was not confident enough to increase it to the extent you mentioned.

One more question is when I turned the camera 90 degree to take a whole body shot, it always gave me harsh shadow behind. As the flash was also turned 90 degree, I didn't know where to bounce it on. Any solution in that case.:headslap:

Thanks again

[Marko]

One more question is when I turned the camera 90 degree to take a whole body shot, it always gave me harsh shadow behind. As the flash was also turned 90 degree, I didn't know where to bounce it on. Any solution in that case.:headslap:But of course :)

You could try to bounce it off the ceiling - but sometimes that is not possible and you will need to rely on direct flash.
If you have a little white card that pops up from yr flash you can try that as well.

Harsh shadows that show up behind people because of direct flash on the vertical can sometimes be lessened or eliminated simply by turning the vertical camera 180 degrees in the OTHER direction. The key here is to have the on camera flash hit them directly so that the shadows fall DIRECTLY (or as much as possible) behind the subject. Usually one vertical side is better than the other...
Make sense? again, ALWAYS tell me if you are unclear, please. I enjoy teaching/sharing.

best!

marko

[Yisehaq]

But of course :)

tell me if you are unclear, please. I enjoy teaching/sharing.

marko

If you insist of course!

Let us talk about this photo. When shooting vertically and given the lady is sitting with the angle she is in. What have you suggested?

Of course, the ceiling is out of reach as the camera is in vertical option?

Could the tilting have worked on this case? I only tried tilting vertical and side ways. My flash gun is 550EX.

[Marko]

Sure!
You shot her at an angle.
When your camera was in vertical position the flash was on the LEFT. Had you turned the camera from that position 180 degrees, the flash would have been on the right (it might be slightly awkward to hold the camera that way but it's totally doable)....and the shadows it would have created would be less distracting because they would fall (more) behind her where they would be less visible and distracting. make sense?

[Yisehaq]

Thanks again Marko
This really didn't come to me at all. I will experiment with the flash tonight.
Still a long way to go.

I wil try to save some of the photos with PP. :wall-an:

And may be hunt for another wedding. ;)

[Iguanasan]

I'd never considered that. I'll have to try it. I totally get what you are saying and created a quick drawing which I think describes it. If the flash is at F1 then you get a lot of shadow to the right of the subject. If the flash were instead at F2 then you get most of the shadow behind the subject and it doesn't show up in the image as much and is therefore less of a distraction.
9141

[Marko]

This is EXCELLENT iggy and totally describes what i was going for :highfive: :clap:

And yup, you should try it, it totally works...been doing it for years!

[Matt K.]

maybe one more thought: try investing in an off camera cable connection and a small soft box. I find moving the flash off camera helpful in these situations, and the soft box will definetly help with your shadows ... softboxes for your flash should run you under $20, and would be a wise investment.

[Iguanasan]

This is EXCELLENT iggy and totally describes what i was going for :highfive: :clap:

And yup, you should try it, it totally works...been doing it for years!

Glad to be of service! :)

[Yisehaq]

In situations like wedding, wouldn't a softbox be cumbersome to work with? What about on camera diffuser? Will it work in these situations?

[Marko]

In situations like wedding, wouldn't a softbox be cumbersome to work with? What about on camera diffuser? Will it work in these situations?

Unless you are doing the formals...the softbox is indeed too cumbersome imo.

I highly recommend, NOT getting into these accessories, and NOT taking the flash off camera until you have fully mastered what direct on-camera flash is capable of (the basics). Adding additional variables when the basics are not mastered will only introduce additional confusion imo.

Offering your services as an assistant wedding photographer, for FREE, for few weddings is also HIGHLY recommended.
I have shot many weddings in my time, and i was an assistant for at least 1 year before attempting my own weddings.

[Matt K.]

Unless you are doing the formals...the softbox is indeed too cumbersome imo.

I highly recommend, NOT getting into these accessories, and NOT taking the flash off camera until you have fully mastered what direct on-camera flash is capable of (the basics). Adding additional variables when the basics are not mastered will only introduce additional confusion imo.

Offering your services as an assistant wedding photographer, for FREE, for few weddings is also HIGHLY recommended.
I have shot many weddings in my time, and i was an assistant for at least 1 year before attempting my own weddings.

Good advice, Marko ... my suggestion for the softbox was along the lines of this http://www.vistek.ca/prodimg/171695.jpg, something you can use on the flash; no umbrella or big box to set up.

[Yisehaq]

Thanks Marko and Matt K.
I think working as a wedding photographer is too much work. I have to try first shooting in less hectic scenarios like meetings first.