Which system?

[voidshatter]

Not sure a group shot is going to be ideal with razor thin DoF.

a) A group of people stands in one row without the use of flash. Everyone's face is within razor thin DoF. Background is blurred but the ambient light is kept natural for the atmosphere.

b) A group of people stands in multiple rows with the use of flash. Everyone's face is within thick DoF with a slower lens. Background is underexposed and thus the ambient light is lost for the atmosphere (and with a CCD it's even impossible to push back the shadow of the background without excessive amount of noise).

My client explicitly preferred option a) when he compared photos taken by another photographer who shot with option b) at the same time.

 

[D&A]

All they are are your claims and point of view. None of what you wrote is anymore than your projection of what you think clients want. I imagine they simply want good pictures that reflect their experience of the wedding. Something to remember it by. Noise and depth of field will have nothing to do with it. Besides, the amount of depth of field is neither here nor there. It really depends on the image. Not sure a group shot is going to be ideal with razor thin DoF.

Exactly. What is captured in terms of style and images that evoke memories of the occasion for the bride and groom in most of the cases that I've experienced, this supersedes the technical aspects of exactly how much bokeh or noise an image contains. Throw a bunch of instant polaroid's taken at the reception that capture once in a lifetime moments of joy and happiness for the happy couple, it won't matter that the sharpness and resolution of those polaroid's pales in comparison to any modern day point and shoot. That's not to say its not important to capture images, especially the formal portraits in the most pleasing technically savoy way...it's just that we as photographers most often see things differently than the average couple.

No one said medium format is the preferred tool for shooting an entire wedding. 35mm certainly has many advantages as pointed out, but if one desires to shoot MF for part of the occasion, such as the formals or large group shots, it often can be advantageous. There really is no right or wrong.

If there was, then those like myself who prefer CDD output from many cameras, would be relegated to the hasbin file for using a sensor that by most empirical measurements is sorely outdated. Same with those that enjoy music reproduction from a tube amp or preamp rather than the superior measurements and quietness (read: less noise) provided by a solid state audio system. Numbers alone (nor does an image that by technical standards is superior to another), always provide the answer. Don't get me started on the superiority of Leica modern aspherical lenses vs. their no aspherical (pre asph) counterparts. The comparisons of which of these two are superior are endless.

Dave (D&A)

 

[voidshatter]

Exactly. What is captured in terms of style and images that evoke memories of the occasion for the bride and groom, in most of the cases that I've experienced, supersedes the technical aspects of exactly how much bokeh or noise an image contains. Throw a bunch of instant polaroid's taken at the reception that capture once in a lifetime moments of joy and happiness for the happy couple, it won't matter that the sharpness and resolution of those polaroid's pales in comparison to any modern day point and shoot.

No one said medium format is the preferred tool for shooting an entire wedding. 35mm certainly has many advantages as pointed out, but if one desires to shoot MF for part of the occasion, such as the formals or large group shots, it often can be advantageous. There really is no right or wrong. If there was, then those like myself who prefer CDD output from many cameras, ...

As you mentioned above, the most important thing is to capture the lifetime moments. With a 35mm format Nikon you have the best auto-focus under low-light conditions. No medium format can beat that. The clients may ignore noise and ignore bokeh, but it's up to you to miss as few moments as you can. Certainly with skills it's possible to compensate the poor auto-focus performance of medium format under low-light, but the purpose of gear is to make the job easier.

I agree that people can prefer the look of CCD given that the light is good. It's just personal tastes.

 

[Chapel]

Thanks for the help and the file comparisons. It's helpful to see the differences.

Greg

 

[kdphotography]

You might just be surprised that there is still a large contingent of real wedding photographers that actually know their equipment, know how to use it in difficult lighting situations, and know how to capture the moment all at the same time. Some even shoot film still. :facesmack: Hasn't anybody gotten through to these blokes that all that matters are charts, graphs, and um, bokehlicious images of plastic water bottles?

Don't forget to recycle, guys. Let's keep this planet green. :shocked:

:loco:

 

[stephengilbert]

Donald Trump would agree.

 

[Shashin]

...but the purpose of gear is to make the job easier.

For some it is, for others there are other reasons to choose gear. And as you rightly pointed out, the skill of the photographer can overcome the technical limitations of the equipment.

 

[D&A]

As you mentioned above, the most important thing is to capture the lifetime moments. With a 35mm format Nikon you have the best auto-focus under low-light conditions. No medium format can beat that. The clients may ignore noise and ignore bokeh, but it's up to you to miss as few moments as you can. Certainly with skills it's possible to compensate the poor auto-focus performance of medium format under low-light, but the purpose of gear is to make the job easier.

I agree that people can prefer the look of CCD given that the light is good. It's just personal tastes.

I shoot a significant number of professional concerts in extremely large venues under some of the most trying circumstances with regards to every changing low light and performers that are racing across the stage in different directions At the same time I'm running around the performance hall/arena to secure shots from different vanatage points.

Sure, a pro 35mm camera is the preferred tool for much of the performance..but and this is a big but....when it comes to capturing those special images that I sense will be chosen to print extremely large for promotional purposes and/or galleries, the image will most certainly benefit from both the resolution of MFD as well as the look that comes from that medium. With this in mind, I do everything possible within my skills to capture that moment with MFD, even through the MFD may be truly at a disadvantage for the situation.

It then becomes about knowing your equipment and acquired skill to overcome and compensate to the best of ones ability. Experience has taught me that the same image with my 35mm DSLR just wouldn't be as dazzling. Its knowing when to use which camera (if one has brought along two systems) by playing to their respective strengths and choosing wisely.

Dave (D&A)

 

[gerald.d]

As you mentioned above, the most important thing is to capture the lifetime moments.

And on that subject, how many weddings have you professionally shot in 2016?

 

[fotografz]

Not sure where some of this information is coming from?

Regarding "Bokeh" ... the issue with MFD isn't lack of it as suggested, it is that MF has a shallower DOF than 35mm and you have to be careful about what is in focus or not. Every MFD system has it's fast optics: Hasselblad HC-100/2.2, Leica S-100/2 and 120/2.5, Contax 80/2, and there's even some f/1.8 lenses ... I'm sure Phase One has their's also. I've shot a HC100/2.2 on a H4D/40 next to the legendary Leica M75/1.4 and the DOF/Bokeh was almost identical.

Regarding shooting a group with and without lights ... the comment about black backgrounds simply illustrates lack of knowledge in the use of lighting. Background exposure is controlled by shutter speed ... using what is called "dragging the shutter", you can open up the background exposure while the strobes illuminate the foreground and flash duration freezes any subject movement. Using high sync speeds in low light is a common amateur wedding photographer's mistake. This principle is the same for any format.

Regarding the High ISO performance Greg asked about: the comparison demo Voitshatter posted only illustrates my previous point ... all the samples are different degrees of ugly. The point of photography is to find the best light, not the worst. Technically, 35mm CMOS does allow more latitude in lower light, but poor light is still ugly ... and 90% of the time it is poor at an indoor wedding reception.

The point is that why should poor light be the driver of a gear decision, when there are good light solutions?

Regarding operational speed: Decisive Moment type wedding images happen to be my modest claim to fame. My tag line is "Romantic Photojournalism". However, I did quickly learn that fashion and portrait was also important to be successful in my market. So, I use a rangefinder and DSLR for the candid work, and a MFD for the fashion/portrait/group images (and available light candid work outdoors) ... which BTW are what sells. I get the job because of my humanistic insights and treasured moments, but make after-shoot money from the more structured work with MFD ... which is what pays for all this stuff They are also the images that tend to be printed larger than the candids: 16X20 in albums and even larger to be framed.

Interestingly, I get as many or more insightful keeper candids with the manual focus rangefinder than the lightening quick AF DSLRs. The secret is ... anticipation over reaction.

Here are a few images from one casual type wedding shot with a S2 and MM rangefinder. All the shots attached were MFD, and all but the group image were shot at ISO640 to keep the shutter speed up and the DOF narrow (now ISO800 on my newer CCD camera). Most with just a puff of fill flash. Note the narrow DOF on a few of them illustrating my "Bokeh" point above.

A good DSLR and MFD is a dream team for weddings IMHO and long experience. Use them for their respective strengths and they compliment each other perfectly.

- Marc

 

[D&A]

Marc wrote --->>>"A good DSLR and MFD is a dream team for weddings IMHO and long experience. Use them for their respective strengths and they compliment each other perfectly."<<<

That was exactly my point too (post above)... that these two aystems for example can complement each other, especially when one plays to their strengths and knows when its appropriate to use one system over the other. This is especially so in key moments, whether its a wedding or in the case I illustrated, a concert/performance. Anticipating and knowing from experience when one of those key "decisive" moments will likely occur, gives the chance to instinctively know which system, camera and lens to use, in order to capture that image (or group of images), in the most attractive dynamic way. In my humble opinion, this leads to the images that the client is most apt to be impressed with or emotionally moved by.

Dave (D&A)

 

[voidshatter]

And on that subject, how many weddings have you professionally shot in 2016?

Oh, I didn't know that you need to be a Formula One driver or a taxi driver to be able to pick a car.

Why wouldn't you suggest the OP to copy the gear list of those who shoot weddings for the celebrities without question?

 

[Shashin]

Oh, I didn't know that you need to be a Formula One driver or a taxi driver to be able to pick a car.

Why wouldn't you suggest the OP to copy the gear list of those who shoot weddings for the celebrities without question?

This is not simply about picking a car. It is finding a suitable tool for a job. Since photography is not simply a problem of technical specifications, expert opinions tend to be more relevant than amateur ones as they have had to solve problems and produce results consistently and at a certain quality. Suggesting a "gear list" is some kind of answer is showing the problem is really not understood. I think every one here knows the trade offs between different camera systems. It also seems those that have a great deal of experience and skill don't think the choice is as cut and dry as you present it.

 

[kdphotography]

There is a big difference between being an arm chair quarterback, reading Car and Driver or Road and Track----and actually owning a particular vehicle, having the skills, and driving it regularly.

Similarly, there is a big difference between being an arm chair quarterback, reading charts, graphs, and brick walls as applied to wedding photography----and actually being a professional wedding photographer with years of experience in the field.

Now imagine the professional photographer with knowledge of his equipment, knowledge of lighting, and the skill to capture the moment---all at the same time. That's the difference. We all like "shiny"---yes, we get that. (ok, especially me and Don). But actual skills and years of experience in the wedding/portrait field is what makes the difference.

 

[voidshatter]

Regarding "Bokeh" ... the issue with MFD isn't lack of it as suggested, it is that MF has a shallower DOF than 35mm and you have to be careful about what is in focus or not. Every MFD system has it's fast optics: Hasselblad HC-100/2.2, Leica S-100/2 and 120/2.5, Contax 80/2, and there's even some f/1.8 lenses ... I'm sure Phase One has their's also. I've shot a HC100/2.2 on a H4D/40 next to the legendary Leica M75/1.4 and the DOF/Bokeh was almost identical.

645 + Hasselblad 100mm f/2.2 = FF + 65mm f/1.4 < FF + 85mm f/1.4
Leica S + 100mm f/2 = FF 80mm f/1.6 < FF + 85mm f/1.4
Leica S + 120mm f/2.5 = FF 96mm f/2 < FF 105mm f/1.4
645+ Contax 80mm f/2 = FF 50mm f/1.3 < FF 50mm f/1.2

Not to mention the auto-focus difference.

Regarding shooting a group with and without lights ... the comment about black backgrounds simply illustrates lack of knowledge in the use of lighting. Background exposure is controlled by shutter speed ... using what is called "dragging the shutter", you can open up the background exposure while the strobes illuminate the foreground and flash duration freezes any subject movement. Using high sync speeds in low light is a common amateur wedding photographer's mistake. This principle is the same for any format.

When you shoot with "dragging shutter" you either get motion blur of the main subject if you keep sufficient light from the background (because at the same time the ambient light also goes to the main subject causing ghost effect), or you underexpose the background. I know people who don't like the motion blur of the main subject because it looks like ghost. Below shows an extreme example where I rotate the camera with slow shutter speed and flash.



Without using slow shutter speeds, it's inevitable that the ambient light for atmosphere is destroyed. Below shows a comparison between "flash + slow lens + lower ISO" vs "no-flash + fast lens + high ISO".

Regarding the High ISO performance Greg asked about: the comparison demo Voitshatter posted only illustrates my previous point ... all the samples are different degrees of ugly. The point of photography is to find the best light, not the worst. Technically, 35mm CMOS does allow more latitude in lower light, but poor light is still ugly ... and 90% of the time it is poor at an indoor wedding reception.

20 years ago it would be a joke to publish a photo at ISO 6400 to a magazine. Today it's nothing strange. With something like the Nikon D5 or Canon 1DX-II it's easy to shoot at ISO 12800. You posted many examples but none of these shot were with very poor light due to venue constraints.

Interestingly, I get as many or more insightful keeper candids with the manual focus rangefinder than the lightening quick AF DSLRs. The secret is ... anticipation over reaction.

That's definitely interesting. Perhaps rangefinders should be more widely used for wedding, journalism and sports.

 

[fotografz]

Based on my own experiences, I don't mind answering some of these comments, it'd be my pleasure to share.

645 + Hasselblad 100mm f/2.2 = FF + 65mm f/1.4 < FF + 85mm f/1.4
Leica S + 100mm f/2 = FF 80mm f/1.6 < FF + 85mm f/1.4
Leica S + 120mm f/2.5 = FF 96mm f/2 < FF 105mm f/1.4
645+ Contax 80mm f/2 = FF 50mm f/1.3 < FF 50mm f/1.2

If you say so. The point of my actual examples (as opposed to math charts) was to demonstrate that the Bokeh from MFD is just as beautiful as any 35mm. Less DOF than this just gets dangerous when shooting people at a wedding. I know this first hand having worked with a Leica M-50/0.95, Canon 85/1.2 and 50/1.2, and the Contax 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses.

When you shoot with "dragging shutter" you either get motion blur of the main subject if you keep sufficient light from the background (because at the same time the ambient light also goes to the main subject causing ghost effect), or you underexpose the background. I know people who don't like the motion blur of the main subject because it looks like ghost. Below shows an extreme example where I rotate the camera with slow shutter speed and flash.

Without using slow shutter speeds, it's inevitable that the ambient light for atmosphere is destroyed.

Also, none of this quite correct. The concept isn't drag the camera ... or rotate it ... it is to hold the camera steady and use a combination of higher ISO (rarely above ISO 800 or 1000 is necessary), and a slower shutter speed depending on the speed and direction of the subject movement ... (I usually use a rule of thumb of setting the shutter speed to the focal length to start with, and adjust from there).

I RARELY set the shutter over 1/80, more likely at 1/30 or 1/50. NEVER at 1/200 or 1/250! I'll post a few slow shutter speed, low light shots with flash below to show what I mean.

20 years ago it would be a joke to publish a photo at ISO 6400 to a magazine. Today it's nothing strange. With something like the Nikon D5 or Canon 1DX-II it's easy to shoot at ISO 12800.

Doesn't matter if one million ISO were available. Ugly ambient light remains ugly light. Plus, I've yet to see anything over ISO 3200 that was flattering to a beautiful bride.

You posted many examples but none of these shot were with very poor light due to venue constraints.

Also incorrect. The first set of images contained two extremely low light situations. The Calder sculpture shot was done at night after the wedding ran late. One strobe set camera right, and an on-camera speed-light for fill.

The airplane shot was in Greenfield Village after the museum shut down and most lights turned off. It was a cave. I had 10 minutes to pull it off, so I placed my strobe behind the subjects and used the plane as a reflector. Also One off-camera strobe with on-camera fill.

But I'll upload a few more examples to demonstrate the concept

Here are a few more examples all shot with run of the mill DSLRs not noted for high ISO performance, using slow shutter speeds, medium ISOs, and lighting:



1) The B&W image of the Bride & Groom dancing with tambourine in typical low ambient light at a reception: 16-35/2.8 zoom @ 18/2.8; 1/30 shutter; ISO 640; on-camera speed-light

2) The colorful Hindu wedding bridal procession (color corrected warm to go with the exotic wedding theme), low venue lighting: 24-105/4 @ 28/4; 1/80 shutter; ISO 800; On camera speed-light acting as fill

3) Happy Bride dancing in crowd, very, very low dance floor ambient: 24-70/2.8 zoom @ 24/4.5; 1/50 shutter; ISO 400; strobe with oct box @ 320 W/s camera right behind dancers, on-camera speed-light for fill.

4) Last B&W shot of Groom dancing with his Mom: using a bit faster shutter to darken the background with strobe placed camera left for dramatic effect, speed-light minus compensated to lessen fill.

This stuff isn't rocket science, anyone can do it by adopting the techniques ... just like I did from those who taught me.

The talent comes not in how to take the photos, but when.

 

[voidshatter]

Here are a few more examples all shot with run of the mill DSLRs not noted for high ISO performance, using slow shutter speeds, medium ISOs, and lighting:

1) The B&W image of the Bride & Groom dancing with tambourine in typical low ambient light at a reception: 16-35/2.8 zoom @ 18/2.8; 1/30 shutter; ISO 640; on-camera speed-light

2) The colorful Hindu wedding bridal procession (color corrected warm to go with the exotic wedding theme), low venue lighting: 24-105/4 @ 28/4; 1/80 shutter; ISO 800; On camera speed-light acting as fill

3) Happy Bride dancing in crowd, very, very low dance floor ambient: 24-70/2.8 zoom @ 24/4.5; 1/50 shutter; ISO 400; strobe with oct box @ 320 W/s camera right behind dancers, on-camera speed-light for fill.

4) Last B&W shot of Groom dancing with his Mom: using a bit faster shutter to darken the background with strobe placed camera left for dramatic effect, speed-light minus compensated to lessen fill.

This stuff isn't rocket science, anyone can do it by adopting the techniques ... just like I did from those who taught me.

The talent comes not in how to take the photos, but when.

Thanks for posting these. Just some quick comments:

a) I don't think these venues are dark enough. Try somewhere as dark as f/1.4 wide open + 1/80s shutter + ISO 6400 as if correct exposure with no use of flash;

b) I was trying to criticize the CCD / medium format for being generally less capable of dealing with dark venues when compared against 35mm format DSLRs. Since you have mentioned that with good use of light you can achieve satisfactory results - why don't you post a side-by-side comparison between the CCD / medium format (with flash) vs 35mm format DSLR (with flash and with faster lenses e.g. f/1.4) for the same wedding at a very dark venue (as dark as I mentioned above)?

c) Your first image is very noise, and there are signs of heavy noise reduction in the shadows of the 2nd and 3rd image (would you call it at a different degree of ugly using your own words?).

 

[voidshatter]

Just to post another comparison between two solutions shot at about the same time and the same location for the same dark venue:

a) A 35mm format sports camera with a fast lens with no use of flash;

b) Another camera (less capable of dealing with low-light) with a slower lens with flash to reduce the ISO requirement.

With solution a) one could burst some continuous shots without worrying about the flash being recharged. There is no need to lift the background shadow. There will be no flash to ruin the ambient light temperature to destroy the atmosphere of the venue. The picture would look natural that the main subjects are actually there perfectly blended with the background.

With solution b) no matter whatever settings are used, the flash inevitably gives more exposure to the main subject than the background, which would require some post-processing to balance the main subject vs the background, leaving the image quality totally relying on sensor performance for the background beyond the flash's reach. Otherwise these main subjects look like copy-pasta in Photoshop (studio shot main subjects pasted onto dark venue pictures).

 

[Bryan Stephens]

Just to post another comparison between two solutions shot at about the same time and the same location for the same dark venue:

a) A 35mm format sports camera with a fast lens with no use of flash;

b) Another camera (less capable of dealing with low-light) with a slower lens with flash to reduce the ISO requirement.

With solution a) one could burst some continuous shots without worrying about the flash being recharged. There is no need to lift the background shadow. There will be no flash to ruin the ambient light temperature to destroy the atmosphere of the venue. The picture would look natural that the main subjects are actually there perfectly blended with the background.

With solution b) no matter whatever settings are used, the flash inevitably gives more exposure to the main subject than the background, which would require some post-processing to balance the main subject vs the background, leaving the image quality totally relying on sensor performance for the background beyond the flash's reach. Otherwise these main subjects look like copy-pasta in Photoshop (studio shot main subjects pasted onto dark venue pictures).

While I am anything but a professional wedding photographer, I have shot enough weddings in my day to say that in my humble opinion, it is about the ability and knowledge of the photographer with regards to the setting, how to get the most out of the lighting and most of all the assets and limitations of the equipment they are using. You obviously gravitate towards a CMOS DSLR, and that is fine. I have used MF film, SLR film, MFD and DSLR for my 40 years of shooting, and each had its merits and drawbacks, but knowing this, I knew what I preferred to use for the certain situation and was comfortable in knowing that I would get the best possible images that I could, and not because of the gear, but because I knew how to properly use my cameras.

When I shot weddings, this was pre-MFD era and my two main go to cameras were the Mamiya RZ67 and the Hasselblad 503cw, and I normally shot these with ISO 400 film (or 200 if it was a daytime wedding) and never had an issue with lighting. The one thing that you don't seem to incorporate into your argument is that the professional wedding photographer will not seek out the worst possible lighting in which to shoot their subjects, but infact will seek out the best possible use of available lighting and then if need be, complement it with flash.

You say that it is easier to burst off some continuous shots. Well in my experience I have never shot a wedding like it was a sporting event (which is where I primarily focused my photography life so I do know quite a bit about the sports end of this) Super fast autofocus and high FPS are not a general requirement for a wedding, at least not how I shot a wedding or from observing the photographers at any of the weddings that I have attended.

Now, since sports is my main area of focus, would I bring my MFD to shoot a basketball or hockey game? Probably not because it is not as optimally suited for the task at hand. Having said that, if I had to use an MFD system to shoot such a sporting event, I am confident that I could still capture some fantastic photographs since I know my equipment.

 

[voidshatter]

If you say so. The point of my actual examples (as opposed to math charts) was to demonstrate that the Bokeh from MFD is just as beautiful as any 35mm. Less DOF than this just gets dangerous when shooting people at a wedding. I know this first hand having worked with a Leica M-50/0.95, Canon 85/1.2 and 50/1.2, and the Contax 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses.

I thought that you just dismissed the disadvantage of medium format due to poor auto-focus under low light?

Also, none of this quite correct. The concept isn't drag the camera ... or rotate it ... it is to hold the camera steady and use a combination of higher ISO (rarely above ISO 800 or 1000 is necessary), and a slower shutter speed depending on the speed and direction of the subject movement ... (I usually use a rule of thumb of setting the shutter speed to the focal length to start with, and adjust from there).

I RARELY set the shutter over 1/80, more likely at 1/30 or 1/50. NEVER at 1/200 or 1/250! I'll post a few slow shutter speed, low light shots with flash below to show what I mean.

You completely missed my point. That rotating camera was just to show you the ghost effect of the main subject. I could use other examples (without moving the camera) to show you the effect. Just google search "flash first curtain"!

Doesn't matter if one million ISO were available. Ugly ambient light remains ugly light. Plus, I've yet to see anything over ISO 3200 that was flattering to a beautiful bride.

The sample images you posted are indeed more noisy than a Nikon D5 at ISO 6400.