 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / August 2008Wedding Pictures
Hello Everyone, I have a question I hope you can help me with. I was looking at a webpage of wedding pictures and the photographer used an ISO setting of 800 and up with and without flash. All the pictures were taken inside the church and were beautiful. My understanding was the higher the ISO the more noise in the picture. What am I missing here, everytime I use an ISO of 800 and up my pictures come out really bad. If you have a passion for photography, why not learn from the BEST? We have the following DVDs at ATTRACTIVE discounted rates. Better prices than what the others are selling at! http://veevideo.blogspot.com/ 1. Gary Fong: How to Get Rich As a Photographer 2. Mike Colon: Reaching the High-End Bride DVD 3. Gino lucadamo (all 5 volumes) www.digitalweddingpro.com 4. Jerry ghionis (all 3 volumes) 5. Dean colins 6. Masters of Wedding Photography 1 & 2 7. Joe Buissink DVD: Defining the Moment 8. Bambi Cantrell : volume 1: The Definitive Guide to Comtemporary Wedding Photography 9. Bambi Cantrell : volume 2: Choices and Challenges 10. Doug Gordon : How to Photograph the Bride Alone Flow Posing 11. Doug Gordon : How to Photograph the Bride and Groom Flow Posing 12. Ryan Schembri Debut 13. Ryan Schembri Freaking Out in Photoshop 14. Guy Gowan Adobe Photoshop Cosmetic Technique 15. Kevin kubota actions volume 1-3 , 16. Yervant : dancing with poppy 17. Doug gordon : Video light 18. Tommy colbert : on location training 19. Mary Du Prie : Photographing Models > Hello Everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What am I missing here, everytime I use an ISO of 800 and up my > pictures come out really bad. The photographer may have either or both of the following 1) a better camera - for example the latest Canons and Nikons do a much better job at high ISOs than the models from a couple of years ago 2) better post-processing techniques, like using a noise reductions software  SignatureMatti Vuori, <http://www.kotiposti.net/~xmvuori/index-e.htm> I believe that some of the "full frame" newest cameras go up to 6400 ISO! Of course, the cost can be as much as the ISO limit..and more... Oh, and then you need lenses, too!! You cannot compare most amateur's cameras to the pros. That's why they buy them. To get excellent shots in situations where we cannot even dream of shooting. regards, Rich >I believe that some of the "full frame" newest cameras go up to 6400 ISO! > Of course, the cost can be as much as the ISO limit..and more... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of shooting. > regards, Rich What do you reckon to be the least specified camera for the job? Gummo I'm no pro so my answer means NOTHING. I recently bought a Sony A350 14 mgp ($800.00); hung a Sony 18-250 ($600.00 ) on it and couldn't be happier. Due to in-camera SSS -image stabilization-- any and all lenses are automatically stabilized. Olympus; Pentax and Sony all have this feature. I shot a daytime Luau the other day and got 250 usable pix out of 600 taken ( good for me). Many more were usable, but were just duplications of other good shots. However, when the sun went down, I had to switch to my Minolta 50mm 1.7 lens ($100.00) and wished I had faster and longer and better glass. The 50mm limited my long distance shots...but the 1.7 came through pretty well considering the darkness. A few shots are on my Flickr site in August. Richg99 http://www.flickr.com/photos/21167841@N00/sets/ > I'm no pro so my answer means NOTHING. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Richg99 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/21167841@N00/sets/ That's one of the reasons why I often suggest to spend $$$ to build a good system instead of trying to save some $$$ on getting around camera then end up not happy with it. And I often suggest to go with Canon DSLR for the price, better low-light handling (most can go up to ISO-3200), and plenty of good lens, and third party lens to chose. And I always suggest to save $$$ to spend on top_of_the_line lens instead of wasting money, energy, enjoyment etc. on the cheapie lens. >I believe that some of the "full frame" newest cameras go up to 6400 ISO! > Of course, the cost can be as much as the ISO limit..and more... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of shooting. > regards, Rich Er, the Nikon D3 goes to ISO 25600. ISOs of 2500 or even higher will look very good with that body. >>I believe that some of the "full frame" newest cameras go up to 6400 ISO! >> Of course, the cost can be as much as the ISO limit..and more... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Er, the Nikon D3 goes to ISO 25600. ISOs of 2500 or even higher will look > very good with that body. So will the D700 SignaturePeter On Aug 11, 9:00 am, Borked Pseudo Mailed <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote: > Hello Everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What am I missing here, everytime I use an ISO of 800 and up my pictures > come out really bad. For my Canon, noise really doesn't show up in any meaningful amounts until ISO 800 and I will often shoot 800-1600 and, occassionally 3,200 for events. If you know how to use a multipass post processing workflow, with a combination of noise reduction, masking and selective sharpening, you can get extremely good images. However, the caveat is, as rich said, the price of the camera. All digital cameras produce more noise at higher ISO's, but in pro cameras the sensors have the lowest inherent noise available. Your images are deteriorated through noise at 800 where mine are just faintly beginning to show noise on the display and you won't see it in a print, unless you are really looking until 11 x 14 inches. With the right post process, you have to get your nose right up to the image and look in the shadows to see the noise. Consumer cameras less than the best prosumer level can't even touch the image quality and you can't fake it is post. Also, images with few dark tones to them show less noise for any given amount of noise. This is because there are less bits available to carry the tone in the darker areas. A one bit noise in medium and up tones doesn't have the same effect since it will be a lower percentage change in brightness (or color). That's why noise is the worst in the dark tones. Other factors also play a part in how much apparent noise, versus real noise, you see. How large the dark areas are is one of them. Large contiguous dark areas make the whole picture look noisier. Vance > I have a question I hope you can help me with. I was looking at a > webpage of wedding pictures and the photographer used an ISO setting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What am I missing here, everytime I use an ISO of 800 and up my pictures > come out really bad. Sounds like the guy was a rank amateur. > In article <60473ffe6501d5d2571bbfcb255ab...@pseudo.borked.net>, Borked > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Sounds like the guy was a rank amateur. Or maybe he was a pro with a camera that is better then a 10D? Scott In article <219a63c9-ac44-4d6f-9d22-ecc6c84e7036@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, > Or maybe he was a pro with a camera that is better then a 10D? There's no magic in the box. > In article > <219a63c9-ac44-4d6f-9d22-ecc6c84e7036@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, > > > Or maybe he was a pro with a camera that is better then a 10D? > > There's no magic in the box. Yes, if there is a box then there would be magic. Cuz Canon is real good with low-light and it should have no problem with ISO-800 Wedding can't be darker than concert, and many people have captures real stunning images using ISO-1600 and ISO-3200. So the magic will depend on the light situation, lens, setting, and distance etc.. But you would be right there may not be magic for Nikon older than Nikon D300. I don't own any Nikon but have seen few sample at ISO-400 (I can see some noise there) and ISO-800, and I read Nikon D300 is the first one with better noise handling (kinda similar to Canon but I haven't seen any sample of Nikon D300 myself). > Yes, if there is a box then there would be magic. Cuz Canon is real good > with low-light and it should have no problem with ISO-800 Anybody who would photograph a wedding at 800 is an idiot. Yeah, the quality of current cameras isn't bad when jacked up that high, but someone who knows what they're doing would use some kind of supplementary lighting and reduce the 'film' speed for better quality. > In article <t59ca4lgfa80nd6u3gfs7q9tru5qpe9...@4ax.com>, Joel > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > someone who knows what they're doing would use some kind of > supplementary lighting and reduce the 'film' speed for better quality. I don't believe a 5D would have any problem at all with iso 800, or many of the new Nikon for that matter, say the D3. If you think the 10D comes close to these cameras at iso 800 you need to take another look. A good pro should very good gear, and very good gear will have no problems at ISO 800. Scott In article <127452c4-013a-4bc4-82ab-9aa3b6830ab5@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, > I don't believe a 5D would have any problem at all with iso 800, or > many of the new Nikon for that matter, say the D3. If you think the > 10D comes close to these cameras at iso 800 you need to take another > look. > A good pro should very good gear, and very good gear will have no > problems at ISO 800. This isn't about my equipment or yours. It's about prudent technique. > In article > <127452c4-013a-4bc4-82ab-9aa3b6830ab5@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > This isn't about my equipment or yours. It's about prudent technique. He is talking about both equipment and technique. If you don't have good equipment capable of shooting ISO-800 then just forget about your technique until you are capable of. Then we can talk and you can qualify to be an idiot. > He is talking about both equipment and technique. If you don't have good > equipment capable of shooting ISO-800 then just forget about your technique > until you are capable of. Then we can talk and you can qualify to be an > idiot. A basic rule of photography is to always use the lowest film speed possible. If the guy was getting paid for the job, he should have had some kind of lighting equipment. If he was just a guest, then amateurism rules. > In article <cn1ea4ha9srfe8ghgjtbqfv0uuqc35o...@4ax.com>, Joel > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > some kind of lighting equipment. If he was just a guest, then > amateurism rules. A more basic rule of professional photography is to get the image under the conditions that you necessarily face. Many venues limit a photographer's options as a matter of policy and that certainly includes weddings re using flash. I almost always have a flash system available, but that doesn't mean I am allowed to use it. I am not a heavy weight enough photographer working in an arena where I can be a prima donna and say I won't shoot unless everything is the way I would like it to be. I have the equipment I have I so I can deliver a high quality product, including shooting at ISO 800 and 1600 if the situation demands it. To play it any other way is the purview of the amateur, who has the enviable freedom to shoot what they want, when they want and under what circumstances they want. Also, it is not a basic rule to always shoot at the lowest ISO or use the slowest film speed. Grain has consciously been used as a creative component of photography for decades and digital noise can fill a similar creative role. Using the lowest speed film or ISO is solid convention, but it is not a basic 'always' rule. That's being dogmatic and narrow. Vance > Also, it is not a basic rule to always shoot at the lowest ISO or use > the slowest film speed. Grain has consciously been used as a creative [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Vance I tend to disagree with that, noise can always be added to an image but it is, as far as I know, virtually impossible to remove. As a working photographer I always strive for the highest quality, this usually involves using a low ISO and natural light. If the shutter speed is dropping I up the ISO, luckily my particular camera is quite low noise in the high ISO range. In the end though, a professional MUST get the picture, no matter what. > > Also, it is not a basic rule to always shoot at the lowest ISO or use > > the slowest film speed. Grain has consciously been used as a creative [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ISO, luckily my particular camera is quite low noise in the high ISO range. > In the end though, a professional MUST get the picture, no matter what. I agree in the main with using the lowest ISO that will get the image and always gong for the highest in camera image you can produce. Where I part company is with the Universal Qualifier 'always.' I hold the position that after a certain level of skill is reached by either a pro or an amateur, the 'musts' and 'always' of photography are guidelines that are pretty much adhered to, but the photographer can ignore at will if that is the creative choice they want to make. I don't advocate sloppy technique, or the slavish following of rules past a certain level of mastery. Your right, we can add noise digitally and I do. However, that's not exactly the same as the noise you get from a high ISO. It's more like film grain, which is inherent and more or less homogenous across the frame. There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the higher tones with digital. In certain images, this can contribute to a look that is qualitatively different from just adding noise without going to the trouble of creating graduated masks for non-contiguous areas to produce similar results. Again, though, this is in the context of a conscious choice made to achieve an artistic goal. You are partially right about removing noise. In an absolute sense, only a certain amount of noise can be reduced and it will tend to degrade the image. However, pragmatically a lot can be done to reduce the amount of noticeable noise without having a practical effect on the final product. It depends very much on the subject and the customers standards. I know a couple of portrait photographers whose dirty little secret for shooting women is to use noise reduction software instead of the more obvious soft lens or the more common post process beautifiers. Vance >There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the >higher tones with digital. The reason for this is because there are more pixels per unit at the higher end. So the lower tones require a higher degree of interpolation. This is one of the reasons I try to shoot so that my histogram is as far to the right as I can get it, without blowing the highlights. SignaturePeter >> There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the >> higher tones with digital. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This is one of the reasons I try to shoot so that my histogram is as far to > the right as I can get it, without blowing the highlights. What method do you use to get a picture of a black box against a black background? Surely the correct placement for this subject would be on the left of the histogram. >>There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the >>higher tones with digital. > > The reason for this is because there are more pixels per unit at the > higher end. So the lower tones require a higher degree of interpolation. What?! -Jim > This is one of the reasons I try to shoot so that my histogram is as far > to the right as I can get it, without blowing the highlights. > >>There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the > >>higher tones with digital. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What?! Because of my shooting style and accepting the lighting issue so I don't have to deal with noise problem. And I usually don't care much about the technical of what makes noise, but I care of what I see on screen, so I don't agree or disagree with the OP. But I don't think "what?!" is the answer I agree either. Or to me, if anyone has something to say then just spell it out instead of a silence disagreement. > -Jim > > > This is one of the reasons I try to shoot so that my histogram is as far > > to the right as I can get it, without blowing the highlights. > >>There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the > >>higher tones with digital. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What?! > -Jim C'mon, Jim, didn't you know? Pixels are photophilic -- they migrate toward the lighter areas of the sensor. They're like bacteria. Or yeast. Or lemmings. SignatureOm Namah Sivaya >> >>There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the >> >>higher tones with digital. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > toward the lighter areas of the sensor. They're like bacteria. Or yeast. > Or lemmings. I will reserve final judgment until Peter offers an explanation for what he intended to say rather than what he typed. :-) -Jim >>> >>There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the >>> >>higher tones with digital. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > he intended to say rather than what he typed. :-) > -Jim Thank you for at least asking for an explanation. I will try to oversimplify. You can go as far as you need to just by Goggling the words Bayer photo sensor interpolation. The sensors in most RGB cameras use a Bayer pattern. 1/2 of the sensors in this pattern are green the other half are red and blue. Interpolation of the images to achieve proper luminosity requires that red green and blue be of apparent equal quantities. The effort to do so has the result I described above. As a starter read this link http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/Pipeline/ SignaturePeter >>>> >>There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the >>>> >>higher tones with digital. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/Pipeline/ That was a nice prep article. OK, let's under-simplify: >>>> >>There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the >>>> >>higher tones with digital. This is because there is less signal information and more noise in the sensor read voltage when the luminosity values are smaller. The output voltage is smaller so the voltage noise is more "visible." >>>> > The reason for this is because there are more pixels per unit at the >>>> > higher end. What did you mean when you said this? Please define "unit." Because in reading it sounds like you mean to imply that there are fewer pixels used in reading the darker (luminosity) values from the sensor. >>>> >So the lower tones require a higher degree of interpolation. Color interpolation from the Bayer filters at a low luminosity? Not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand what you meant. -Jim > OK, let's under-simplify: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sensor read voltage when the luminosity values are smaller. The output > voltage is smaller so the voltage noise is more "visible." I am not an engineer, but am simply presenting my understanding of why we sometimes get weird results. >>>>> > The reason for this is because there are more pixels per unit at the >>>>> > higher end. > > What did you mean when you said this? Please define "unit." Because in > reading it sounds like you mean to imply that there are fewer pixels used > in reading the darker (luminosity) values from the sensor. I consider the entire sensor a unit. >>>>> >So the lower tones require a higher degree of interpolation. > > Color interpolation from the Bayer filters at a low luminosity? Try mixing colors with gels and measure the output with your light meter. I think you will find that the mixed colors have a lower luminosity (brightness) The only reason I even mentioned it was to explain why I try to expose digital images as brightly as possible, without losing pixels in the highlights. I also do the initial raw post processing with that goal in mind. (the exception being if I am attempting a pseudo HDR image from only one raw exposure.. > Not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand what you meant. It's OK to be argumentative. It's part of the learning process for at least both of us. Sometimes when I try to explain something I learn when I am wrong and more importantly, why. Now I must get back to my project of selecting about 20-30 images to place on a still to be determined website. SignaturePeter procrastination rules >>>> There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the >>>> higher tones with digital. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > toward the lighter areas of the sensor. They're like bacteria. Or yeast. > Or lemmings. There are more numbers in the bright pixels... well the bright ones have bigger numbers... imagining fat numbers scurrying around on the sensor jockying for the bright spots... :-) metaphorically speaking. er, allegorically? darn, there is a better word... >>>>> There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the >>>>> higher tones with digital. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > jockying for the bright spots... :-) metaphorically speaking. er, > allegorically? darn, there is a better word... Y'all are makin' my head hurt! >>>>> There is more noise in the lower tones than there is in the >>>>> higher tones with digital. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > jockying for the bright spots... :-) metaphorically speaking. er, > allegorically? darn, there is a better word... Since you obviously know so much more than I: Are you saying that with a Bayer pattern the total number of green sensitive pixels are not equal to the total number of red and blue? If you are not saying that, please explain in simple English how 18% gray (equal red, green & blue,) is obtained and why we have artifacts and color fringing. Or, please give some other understandable explanation. If you cannot come up with an alternate explanation, do not mock what you don't understand. I look forward to learning from you and am waiting for your response. SignaturePeter > >> In article <g8e4tq$1p...@registered.motzarella.org>, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Let me give it a shot. The Bayer sensor is laid out with photo sensor sites in rows with red and green alternating in one row and then blue and green alternating in the next row. There are more green sensitive sites than either blue or red because each row has green sites, whether it is a 'blue' or 'red' row. The question you have is 'Why is it that way?' The human eye is more sensitive to green than it is to either red or blue. To more closely model the way the eye responds, green is over represented in the sensor. Artifacts are the byproducts of the digital processing needed to get an image out of the sensor. The pixel values you get for any point in an image is the result of interpolation, or taking the values of the neighboring photo sites and figuring out what the value of a pixel should probably be. Not getting the color quite right is one type of artifact. Another type of processing is anti-aliasing, which is a method of fudging the pixel values so that lines aren't jagged. It tends to soften the image and is the reason that all digital images can use some sharpening. Fringing is not a digital artifact and is not limited to digital photography, but it does seem to make it more noticeable. There are arguments that it is a result of sensor bloom in some way, but that doesn't explain why changing lenses can eliminate or reduce it. Chromatic abberation is the problem in the most general case with some cameras making it more apparent, like P&S cameras. My 'throw it in a pocket just in case' P&S shows fringing under some circumstances, but it's not something I see with my Canon DSLR's. I'm sure that Paul can explain it better. Vance On Aug 22, 3:24 am, "Peter" <peter...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > "Paul Furman" <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Let me give it a shot. The Bayer sensor is laid out with photo sensor sites in rows with red and green alternating in one row and then blue and green alternating in the next row. There are more green sensitive sites than either blue or red because each row has green sites, whether it is a 'blue' or 'red' row. The question you have is 'Why is it that way?' The human eye is more sensitive to green than it is to either red or blue. To more closely model the way the eye responds, green is over represented in the sensor. Artifacts are the byproducts of the digital processing needed to get an image out of the sensor. The pixel values you get for any point in an image is the result of interpolation, or taking the values of the neighboring photo sites and figuring out what the value of a pixel should probably be. Not getting the color quite right is one type of artifact. Another type of processing is anti-aliasing, which is a method of fudging the pixel values so that lines aren't jagged. It tends to soften the image and is the reason that all digital images can use some sharpening. Fringing is not a digital artifact and is not limited to digital photography, but it does seem to make it more noticeable. There are arguments that it is a result of sensor bloom in some way, but that doesn't explain why changing lenses can eliminate or reduce it. Chromatic abberation is the problem in the most general case with some cameras making it more apparent, like P&S cameras. My 'throw it in a pocket just in case' P&S shows fringing under some circumstances, but it's not something I see with my Canon DSLR's. I'm sure that Paul can explain it better. Vance That was pretty good and not over-the-top-technical. Might throw in a definition for "sensor bloom," mention pixel size, maybe add a blurb about Sony's and (I think it's) Fuji's choice to use an "emerald" color as a substitution for one half of the standard green array in their sensors. Probably some nasty comment about noise reduction and how it can cause all sorts of frustrating artifacts too. :-) -Jim >> "Paul Furman" <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote in message >>>> In article <g8e4tq$1p...@registered.motzarella.org>, [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > I'm sure that Paul can explain it better. That's a good explanation, I'll try to add to it. Sorry about my smart a.s comment, I was just having fun. Green is weighted more heavily for figuring the gray scale lightness of a given pixel when interpolating from bayer so it's still very useful in capturing non-color detail. People can distinguish an incredible variety of subtle green color variations: I used to do colored pencil drawings for landscape architectural renderings and there's a bunch of green pencils available but still never enough to get just the variation you're looking for. It must be an evolutionary thing surviving in a mostly green world. Sensor bloom is very rarely if ever the reason for color fringing, that's an old misconception. It has to do with chromatic aberration (CA) or the mis-focusing of the different wavelengths of light and getting them all to match. Only very expensive lenses are completely free of CA and while P&S lenses are fantastic for their size, their purpose for existing is low cost so you don't see scientific grade optics in them and some CA is always a factor. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > > He is talking about both equipment and technique. If you don't have good > > equipment capable of shooting ISO-800 then just forget about your technique [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > some kind of lighting equipment. If he was just a guest, then > amateurism rules. That's what film is good for, but we are now living in the digital world and film and digital are not the same. Same with P&S vs DSLR they are both digital but don't work the same so they give different result. I am not the experted to give all small detail, but in general. 1. Film depend on the chemical (on the film itself) and darkroom (developing). 2. Digital depends on computer technology, so they use the same film term but they don't work exactly the same. IOW, digital ISO-100 may and may not work similar to film ISO-100, same with DSLR vs P&S on the FLASH system. Or film ISO-100 is the chemical calculated for ISO-100, when digital ISO-100 is the calculation of the PROGRAM (computer) *not* chemical. And that's why even same digital DSLR, Canon handles low-light situation much better than Nikon (it can do ISO-800 much better than Nikon ISO-400), and it took Nikon many years to be able to improve the noise issue as I read the D300 handle low-light much better than Nikon D2000 and older. 3. Same with digital, the P&S with external flash can get much more light than DSLR with external flash. Same with digital, you will get a much brighter and cleaner image when you zoom in closer (at lower light) than wider angle (zoom out). And that's part of how digital works, and that's part of what most of us need to pay closer attention to what we do to learn some dirty trick of digital world. > > Yes, if there is a box then there would be magic. Cuz Canon is real good > > with low-light and it should have no problem with ISO-800 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > someone who knows what they're doing would use some kind of > supplementary lighting and reduce the 'film' speed for better quality. Then you need to be an idiot to know how much you can learn from the idiot. If you are an idiot then you should know that sometime lighting is no option, that is why I would suggest you to learn to be an idiot. > If you are an idiot then you should know that sometime lighting is no > option, that is why I would suggest you to learn to be an idiot. If you're photographing a wedding, lighting should always be an option. Of course, I'm assuming the OP was getting paid for the job. If he was just there as a guest, then what the hell. But a professional would never shoot a wedding relying on available light. > > If you are an idiot then you should know that sometime lighting is no > > option, that is why I would suggest you to learn to be an idiot. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > just there as a guest, then what the hell. But a professional would > never shoot a wedding relying on available light. I am (or was because I am too sick to do any in the past 2 years) a wedding photographer and I do know how difficult wedding photography is. Just forget about the professional stuff but few general rules. - Some church, they won't allow using flash during ceremony. - Quite often we depend on the stained glass windows for extra light source. But sometime God won't be easy to please so we can run into stormy or cloudy day. - And because no FLASH ALLOWED so we have to depend on the available light (which I never worship the available light wishful) and others like lens, camera, technique, and post processing skill etc.. That's one of the reason why I often suggest other to spend money on tip_of_the_line lens, camera can handle low-light situation, and spend few years learning to master Photoshop (or similar) instead of imaging. And again, *if* you are young and quick learner (which I am not), then I would suggest you to drop dead the film idea and start investing your energy on digital. But if you are too old to learn then I guess you may have to accept the loss (we can't win everything). > - Some church, they won't allow using flash during ceremony. I wouldn't think of it. > - Quite often we depend on the stained glass windows for extra light source. > But sometime God won't be easy to please so we can run into stormy or cloudy > day. I often used window light. > - And because no FLASH ALLOWED so we have to depend on the available light > (which I never worship the available light wishful) and others like lens, > camera, technique, and post processing skill etc.. Not for the whole wedding. >> Yes, if there is a box then there would be magic. Cuz Canon is real good >> with low-light and it should have no problem with ISO-800 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > someone who knows what they're doing would use some kind of > supplementary lighting and reduce the 'film' speed for better quality. Spoken like a truly inexperienced photographer. I have photographed in many places where it is not an option to use flash, what would you do in this instance? > Spoken like a truly inexperienced photographer. I have photographed in many > places where it is not an option to use flash, what would you do in this > instance? I've only photographed 600-700 weddings. Thank God I don't do it any more. But I never came across a venue that would not allow strobes for the formals. > > Spoken like a truly inexperienced photographer. I have photographed in many > > places where it is not an option to use flash, what would you do in this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > more. But I never came across a venue that would not allow strobes for > the formals. When talking about Wedding, most people don't always talk about formal but the whole ceremony in general. IOW, flash should be allowed for formal, and some churches allow limited flash during wedding ceremony which you need to ask for permission first. >> Spoken like a truly inexperienced photographer. I have photographed in many >> places where it is not an option to use flash, what would you do in this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > more. But I never came across a venue that would not allow strobes for > the formals. Where I come from (England) we don't have such a relaxed attitude to photography and if you are photographing in a 'high' church (Church of England) they don't allow photography of any kind during the ceremony. Other religions are more relaxed, Catholic, Jewish, Orthodox Christians, Muslim are all very accommodating. Imagine you are a bride and you want to have your wedding in a C of E church, my advice is don't bother. > >> Spoken like a truly inexperienced photographer. I have photographed in many > >> places where it is not an option to use flash, what would you do in this [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are all very accommodating. Imagine you are a bride and you want to have > your wedding in a C of E church, my advice is don't bother. Very possible and especially some like cathedral then they may have some special rule. And in general, most church won't allow using flash during ceremony, *but* some allows because wedding. funeral, baptism etc. can be consider private family ceremony (or some like that). But sometime it can be exceptional like the wedding of the price/princess, or some special ceremony then they may allow few professional(s). Also, the lighting of wedding isn't too bad comparing to funeral which they usually have the pretty dim light, but the emotion can't be beaten. I am more of a closeup photographer so I like photograph funeral more than wedding (but love the bribes as they usually in their best mood and the good make up makes a hude difference etc..). > Where I come from (England) we don't have such a relaxed attitude to > photography and if you are photographing in a 'high' church (Church of > England) they don't allow photography of any kind during the ceremony. Other > religions are more relaxed, Catholic, Jewish, Orthodox Christians, Muslim > are all very accommodating. Imagine you are a bride and you want to have > your wedding in a C of E church, my advice is don't bother. I said "formals", preferably taken before the ceremony. No, you shouldn't be using a flash during the ceremony. It's a sacred religious event. >> Where I come from (England) we don't have such a relaxed attitude to >> photography and if you are photographing in a 'high' church (Church of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > shouldn't be using a flash during the ceremony. It's a sacred religious > event. It doesn't bother the Catholics and they are quite religious. We don't have pre wedding 'formals' here, all the pictures are taken in real time in a social documentary style, more like a news event. > It doesn't bother the Catholics and they are quite religious. We don't have > pre wedding 'formals' here, all the pictures are taken in real time in a > social documentary style, more like a news event. Sounds like amateur hour... > In article <C4D6F7CD.10C09%spama...@dontspamme.com>, The Royal Spam > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sounds like amateur hour... Here in the US, a 'style' being called photojournalistic is very popular and becoming more so. There are several wedding photographers that I shoot the photojournalistic component for. I am moving out of photojournalism since it's a bad market. While there is a big difference between shooting in a 'social documentary style/ photojournalistic' visual style and shooting from the perspective of a documentary or photojournalism photographer, I wouldn't use the term 'amateur hour' for either one. I cover a wedding very much as a photo essay because that is my approach. The photographers who I work with are all very capable classic wedding photographers and can produce great pictures in a casual style, but they aren't quite as good as I am at producing a coherent visual story. The customers like the result of having all the classical images that are associated with wedding photography and the 'backstory', if you will, of my coverage. It is what the market here seems to want and, because it isn't 'amateur hour', we deliver. I'm getting the impression that everyone seems to shoot the formals before the ceremony. Maybe it's just a West Coast thing in the US and maybe just California, but we generally shoot all the formals after the ceremony. Interesting. Vance >> In article <C4D6F7CD.10C09%spama...@dontspamme.com>, The Royal Spam >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Sounds like amateur hour... Speaking as the father of the bride, and not as a photographer, we hired a photographer for my daughter's (Catholic) wedding. We instructed the photographer not to shoot at all during the ceremony. Pictures were taken before and after, but not during. We weren't concerned about the "quite religious" aspects, but we were thinking of the distraction aspect. It just didn't seem right to have someone roaming the aisles firing off a camera. It was a wedding, not a media event. There were some guests who took photographs, and some flash shots, during the ceremony. That was fine with us. The guests were friends, and we were not about to restrict what our friends did. The wedding was almost eight years ago, and neither my wife and I nor my daughter and her husband feel deprived because there are no photographs in the album that were taken during the ceremony. I think that any "rules" about photography during the ceremony should be the exclusive and absolute decision of the bride and her family. (The groom doesn't count. No one pays any attention to the groom at any wedding.) The wedding was in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, by the way. The best photographs in the album are the goofy shots of the bridal party on the beach after the ceremony. The photographer got some great candids that show personality. If we had those shots, plus one formal shot of the bride and groom in full wedding regalia, that would be sufficient for an album. The cake cutting, the hands with rings, the first dance, the dance with the father-of-the-bride...all that stuff is just too trite to care about. A comment complete aside from the topic: I am proud to say that neither my daughter nor my son-in-law smashed a slice of the wedding cake into the other's face. That has to be the most stupid "tradition" to ever be adopted at weddings/receptions. >Here in the US, a 'style' being called photojournalistic is very >popular and becoming more so. There are several wedding photographers [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Vance SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > We weren't concerned about the "quite religious" aspects, but we were > thinking of the distraction aspect. It just didn't seem right to have > someone roaming the aisles firing off a camera. It was a wedding, not > a media event. A professional would discretely take flashless photographs from the back/balcony of the church without intruding. Those who walk around inside the church clicking away during the ceremony are known as amateurs. > A comment complete aside from the topic: I am proud to say that > neither my daughter nor my son-in-law smashed a slice of the wedding > cake into the other's face. That has to be the most stupid > "tradition" to ever be adopted at weddings/receptions. I never tried to get couples to do that. >> We weren't concerned about the "quite religious" aspects, but we were >> thinking of the distraction aspect. It just didn't seem right to have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >inside the church clicking away during the ceremony are known as >amateurs. A "professional" is one who is paid for his/her services. Charging for his/her services does not imbue any sense in a photographer. I've been to weddings with professionals who did roam the aisles. The worst offenders are the video tapers. Assuming that the photographer will remain in the choir loft is not a good thing to do. The organizer of the wedding should make it clear to the photographer what the boundaries are. >> A comment complete aside from the topic: I am proud to say that >> neither my daughter nor my son-in-law smashed a slice of the wedding >> cake into the other's face. That has to be the most stupid >> "tradition" to ever be adopted at weddings/receptions. > >I never tried to get couples to do that. Didn't say it was a photographer-suggested action. The couple seem to decide to do this or not to do it. I think it shows latent hostility. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> We weren't concerned about the "quite religious" aspects, but we were >> thinking of the distraction aspect. It just didn't seem right to have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I never tried to get couples to do that. That wouldn't go down well at the Ritz. > There were some guests who took photographs, and some flash shots, > during the ceremony. That was fine with us. The guests were friends, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (The groom doesn't count. No one pays any attention to the groom at > any wedding.) That frequently happens after the wedding, too. <g> > The wedding was in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, by the way. The best > photographs in the album are the goofy shots of the bridal party on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dance, the dance with the father-of-the-bride...all that stuff is just > too trite to care about. Sounds like you and your familoy have a well balanced attitude towards those matters and a sense of what is really imoporant. \ SignaturePeter In article <5502bddb-c2c6-4cb2-9a55-ed20f875717f@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, > Here in the US, a 'style' being called photojournalistic is very > popular and becoming more so. There are several wedding photographers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > documentary or photojournalism photographer, I wouldn't use the term > 'amateur hour' for either one. It's not a style that will endure the test of time. > I'm getting the impression that everyone seems to shoot the formals > before the ceremony. Maybe it's just a West Coast thing in the US and > maybe just California, but we generally shoot all the formals after > the ceremony. Interesting. By doing them ahead, the participants don't look haggard and are able to spend time with their friends and relatives, not with a professional photographer. > It's not a style that will endure the test of time. "Styles" hardly ever endure the test of time. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > In article > <5502bddb-c2c6-4cb2-9a55-ed20f8757...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It's not a style that will endure the test of time. Many styles don't stand the test of time. For one thing, advancements in technology often result in changes of style. The advent of small format cameras, flash technology that didn't threaten to blow everything to hell and gone, roll film, color photography, etc. With the changes in technology have been their application in ways that were cool for awhile because they had that gee whiz factor, but went by the wayside. Others, such as the use of ring flash come and go as new generations discover it and then it is new again. That's the way of things. However, I am not in the business of producing timeless images. I'm in the business of meeting my customers desires with the highest quality I can at a price they will pay. It's crass, I know, but it pays the rent and buys the equipment. > > I'm getting the impression that everyone seems to shoot the formals > > before the ceremony. Maybe it's just a West Coast thing in the US and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to spend time with their friends and relatives, not with a professional > photographer. We shoot the formals after since everyone who needs to be there will be there and they generally don't seem too hagard. In fact, they seem more relaxed becuase the big show is over. It also makes sense to do it after because the lessor guests (non relatives, the ones you don't have to get an image of) can go on to the reception and when the B&G show up, they get to make an entrance after all the guests have settled down and things are going smoothly. I don't make the decision on that. Whoever is shooting the formals does and they seem to like shooting post ceremony. Vance In article <718a4dcd-c755-48fd-8c23-f781ae5317b0@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, > We shoot the formals after since everyone who needs to be there will > be there and they generally don't seem too hagard. In fact, they seem [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on that. Whoever is shooting the formals does and they seem to like > shooting post ceremony. So you prefer trying to create the formal images when people have been through an emotionally draining ceremony, look tired, and everyone is in a hurry to get the reception and party? And you think it's polite to tie up the couple, family, and wedding party while making the guests wait for their arrival. You can't create the necessary formal images with any degree of quality in just a few minutes. Plus, it takes time to set up your lights (unless you're a rank amateur using on-camera flash). > In article > <718a4dcd-c755-48fd-8c23-f781ae5317b0@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > in just a few minutes. Plus, it takes time to set up your lights > (unless you're a rank amateur using on-camera flash). I think that depends a lot on people skills, presumably the photography skills are taken for granted and in my case I use flash as little as possible unless there are no alternative locations or other technical reasons (mixed lighting/colour issues, deep shadows etc). People tend to be quite happy just after they have tied the knot so and it's generally light hearted and easy going, not at all drained or tired looking. > In article > <718a4dcd-c755-48fd-8c23-f781ae531...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > in just a few minutes. Plus, it takes time to set up your lights > (unless you're a rank amateur using on-camera flash). You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, so let's take it step by step: > So you prefer trying to create the formal images when people have been > through an emotionally draining ceremony, look tired, and everyone is > in a hurry to get the reception and party? What I stated was: > > We shoot the formals after since everyone who needs to be there will > > be there and they generally don't seem too hagard. In fact, they seem > > more relaxed becuase the big show is over. I have not seen the emotional draining that seems to be your experience. As far as getting to the party goes: > > It also makes sense to do > > it after because the lessor guests (non relatives, the ones you don't > > have to get an image of) can go on to the reception and when the B&G > > show up, they get to make an entrance after all the guests have > > settled down and things are going smoothly. By you: > And you think it's polite to > tie up the couple, family, and wedding party while making the guests > wait for their arrival. Actually, it's a very tight operation and little time is wasted. Without posting your comment, the lights are already set up for the formals if they will be used. We have 1, or sometimes 2 PA's who set things up and it's to a formula. If you have the personel, you can do things in parallel and no time is used for the setup. While the guests are getting to the reception by whatever various paths they take, the formals are being taken - say 1/2 hour average - if they are having classic formals taken. Then the couple arrives at the reception and makes their entrance with ALL the guests there and shakey starts worked out (caterers not quite on their marks, as it were, things like that), I have already arrived and ready for their arrival - no time wasted getting anything ready or set up. A very salient point in what I posted that you seem to have completely missed is that I don't make these decisions. I am subcontracted and am responsible for doing what I do within the framework someone else has established. I have a schedule of what shots are needed and I am left alone to take care of them. The people I shoot for have an average experience of something like 15 years in the wedding business and have a model that seems to work very well. If I was to make wedding photography some sort of focus of my business I would adopt their way of working. The customers seem to appreciate that things go very smoothly and love the pictures. A very big reason that things go smoothly is that much of the whole day has been orchestrated by the main photographer. They are very much into detail. The bride doesn't arrive or get out of the car without being covered because she isn't scheduled to arrive before a photographer is there and ready. Everything that can be choreagraphed has been. Nothing is left to chance that can be taken care of. There is nothing 'amateurish' about it. Is it different from how you shoot? Obviously. Are you the 'Gold Standard' of wedding photography and how it should be done? That is far less obvious. Vance In article <9cbc4140-1791-4bb2-b34a-4b1e30e35e3c@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, > The people I shoot for have an average experience of something like 15 > years in the wedding business and have a model that seems to work very [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > there and ready. Everything that can be choreagraphed has been. > Nothing is left to chance that can be taken care of. Covering all the bases and maintaining control is the name of the game. > There is nothing 'amateurish' about it. Is it different from how you > shoot? Obviously. Are you the 'Gold Standard' of wedding photography > and how it should be done? That is far less obvious. I got out of the business in 1995 for a variety of reasons, and have no desire to get back in. >> So you prefer trying to create the formal images when people have been >> through an emotionally draining ceremony, look tired, and everyone is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>> show up, they get to make an entrance after all the guests have >>> settled down and things are going smoothly. Exactly. This is the way our studio used to operate (Australia, medium to high-end metropolitan weddings shot on MF - in the seventies admittedly!) and it worked perfectly well. I also was contracted to do the images, so it was also not my decision but I can tell you that I know our main direct competitor did it exactly the same way. It would seem to me that having the formals before the ceremony adds stress - the subjects will be worrying about everything going well. *I* would be worried about the needed parties getting there in time... You are choosing to constrain yourself to the relatively inflexible ceremony start time! Afterwards, they are all relaxed and at ease, you can quickly gather the parties for the group shots, and then take the bridal party to a nearby park or other venue for the rest before going to the reception. I would add that every 'Suggested Shot List' I've ever seen indicates that the formals are usually taken after the ceremony, eg: http://www.storyphoto.com/wedding/photo_ideas2.html http://www.pghpeople.com/*wedding_photography/Pittsburgh_Wedding_shot_list.html http://www.professionalphotography101.com/Wedding_Photography/wedding_shot_list.html I'll grant that the links below acknowledge that the shots "can" be taken before the ceremony, but again they are listed AFTER by default - why would that be unless it is the more common practice...? http://weddings.about.com/od/photographer/a/Photogchecklist.htm http://www.dfmphotography.com/wedding_shotlist.shtml http://www.realsimple.com/realsimple/web/pdf/books/weddings/shoot_sheet.pdf >> And you think it's polite to >> tie up the couple, family, and wedding party while making the guests >> wait for their arrival. Mr Strat thinks it is ok to get them to arrive earlier than they need to for the ceremony? What exactly is the difference? > Actually, it's a very tight operation and little time is wasted. > Without posting your comment, the lights are already set up for the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > take, the formals are being taken - say 1/2 hour average - if they are > having classic formals taken. Again, this is the same way we used to shoot. After they were done I would make a rapid beeline to the reception so as to get there before them, quickly take a cake shot or two and often would help organise the guests to make the arrival 'work' nicely for the bridal party (and for me!). > Then the couple arrives at the > reception and makes their entrance with ALL the guests there and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > big reason that things go smoothly is that much of the whole day has > been orchestrated by the main photographer. I was initially quite surprised at how often the photographer ended up as choreographer of the event - the bridal party and guests alike were delighted to have someone to help coordinate proceedings. It was also a wonderful way to develop rapport with everyone, eg I would often set up a shot loosely and let the other photog's have a quick go before I finalised the setup and took mine - this meant happy and highly cooperative guests, happy bridal party - which then meant better images! > There is nothing 'amateurish' about it. Is it different from how you > shoot? Obviously. Are you the 'Gold Standard' of wedding photography > and how it should be done? That is far less obvious. Sadly, the 'amateur' remarks are just the way Mr Strat (Randall Ainsworth) talks - "My way is the only way", "I'm a professional", etc, etc, yet some of the techniques he talks of.. well, make your own mind up about his approach. I've also noticed he rigidly states that only amateurs use flash in ceremonies. While there is some truth in that, there were quite a few ceremonies I shot where not only did the bridal party REQUEST flash photography during the ceremony (at appropriate moments), but it was also approved and even encouraged by the minister or celebrant. Mr Strat would have refused to shoot those, I guess. We, however, knew whose wedding it actually *was* and provided the shots they wanted if possible. Of course we didn't wander around firing the flash at critical moments - and no matter what the bridal party wanted, we would discuss the best way to unobtrusively capture the ceremony in detail with the celebrant beforehand. Anyway, there is room for many approaches - I'm sure Mr Strat's clients were deliriously happy... >>> It doesn't bother the Catholics and they are quite religious. We don't have >>> pre wedding 'formals' here, all the pictures are taken in real time in a >>> social documentary style, more like a news event. >> >> Sounds like amateur hour.. On the contrary, it's bloody difficult. >> In article <60473ffe6501d5d2571bbfcb255ab...@pseudo.borked.net>, Borked >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Scott 5d and 1ds are low noise. I have been in low light situations and got very usable results, but don't forget about the quality of the glass up front. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.