The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Which system?
- Thread starter Chapel
- Start date
Voitshatter, I do not think anyone is challenging your choice of gear or how you may wish to capture a wedding. To each their own.
When I say high ISO images taken in poor ambient can get ugly real fast, it isn't an obsession with noise, it is more about color, contrast and skin tones for color images. Besides, I don't see the noise you are referencing anyway, at least not enough to be objectionable in real world printing. Heck, I've even added noise to some "plastic looking" images because they print better.
Not one of my clients have ever complained about noise (or grain in my film days). However, they do NOT like it when the ambient makes them look like an alien from outer space, or turns their warm environment into a winter scene. Clients are far more interested that I got emotive images where they look relatively attractive, than the minutia of technical pixel-peeping ... that is the domain of photo nerds which clients couldn't care less about.
Thank you for the "second shutter" example cartoon. All of my cameras have always been set to second shutter because I use slow shutter speeds with lighting. It is lighting techniques 101.
The venues depicted were dark to extremely dark ... I made them not look so dark with lighting, slower shutter speeds and ISOs around 800. The venue of the Bride dancing and the Groom dancing with his Mom was the same place, same very low ambient, same camera, same lighting kit. The difference was the lighting techniques used.
For me, ISOs over 1600 @ f/1.4 doesn't work for many low light images, and being forced into using it is not an option I prefer. Ambient requiring ISO 6400 is only 3 stops different which lighting can easily make up while avoiding the color shifts, contrast, and odd skin tones of the often mixed temp ambient at most venues. That is the reality of wedding photography ... poor quality light is often the rule rather than the exception.
Back to the OPs inquiry:
The OP asked for opinions, especially regarding MFD which he loves to use, and already possess.
My response was YES, MFD can be incorporated into wedding photography, but I believe that it should be used for appropriate images as a supplement ... while using a 35mm DSLR for its' strengths. I rarely if ever use MFD in a dark reception room where 35mm is the better choice for all the reasons anyone with even a little experience can define.
Now, the question is whether modern CMOS based MFD would mitigate those weaknesses?
Perhaps somewhat, but I seriously doubt it would be enough to leave the 35mm DSLR at home. I sure wouldn't push my luck by only relying on even the latest-greatest CMOS based MFD camera to shoot a typical wedding.
Not because it can't be done, but because it would hamper my style of wedding photography which I explained was a mix of journalistic candids and fashion/portrait.
The other mitigating factor is business cost.
No professional wedding photographer leaves home without 2 of everything. Two compatible new MFD kits for wedding work is out of the question. Even two Pro level DSLRs is an unnecessary burden on the bottom line. That's why more modest cameras like the Canon 5 series are the overwhelming choice with wedding shooters.
My advice for the OP is to consider strengthening his lighting kit and how to use it with his existing MFD kit. That would be the least expensive, biggest bang for his buck in terms of IQ for many wedding images MFD or 35mm. I think he would be surprised by what his wife's A7R-II would produce using proper light tools and techniques.
Once lighting is incorporated into his tool box, then explorations of other more updated MFD choices could ensue. I once used a Mamiya AFD and Leaf back system and can say it can be challenging. Loved the organic, almost film like files from the Leaf back, but the H4D/40 with True Focus I've used was much more suited for wedding photography, especially with lighting.
- Marc
When I say high ISO images taken in poor ambient can get ugly real fast, it isn't an obsession with noise, it is more about color, contrast and skin tones for color images. Besides, I don't see the noise you are referencing anyway, at least not enough to be objectionable in real world printing. Heck, I've even added noise to some "plastic looking" images because they print better.
Not one of my clients have ever complained about noise (or grain in my film days). However, they do NOT like it when the ambient makes them look like an alien from outer space, or turns their warm environment into a winter scene. Clients are far more interested that I got emotive images where they look relatively attractive, than the minutia of technical pixel-peeping ... that is the domain of photo nerds which clients couldn't care less about.
Thank you for the "second shutter" example cartoon. All of my cameras have always been set to second shutter because I use slow shutter speeds with lighting. It is lighting techniques 101.
The venues depicted were dark to extremely dark ... I made them not look so dark with lighting, slower shutter speeds and ISOs around 800. The venue of the Bride dancing and the Groom dancing with his Mom was the same place, same very low ambient, same camera, same lighting kit. The difference was the lighting techniques used.
For me, ISOs over 1600 @ f/1.4 doesn't work for many low light images, and being forced into using it is not an option I prefer. Ambient requiring ISO 6400 is only 3 stops different which lighting can easily make up while avoiding the color shifts, contrast, and odd skin tones of the often mixed temp ambient at most venues. That is the reality of wedding photography ... poor quality light is often the rule rather than the exception.
Back to the OPs inquiry:
The OP asked for opinions, especially regarding MFD which he loves to use, and already possess.
My response was YES, MFD can be incorporated into wedding photography, but I believe that it should be used for appropriate images as a supplement ... while using a 35mm DSLR for its' strengths. I rarely if ever use MFD in a dark reception room where 35mm is the better choice for all the reasons anyone with even a little experience can define.
Now, the question is whether modern CMOS based MFD would mitigate those weaknesses?
Perhaps somewhat, but I seriously doubt it would be enough to leave the 35mm DSLR at home. I sure wouldn't push my luck by only relying on even the latest-greatest CMOS based MFD camera to shoot a typical wedding.
Not because it can't be done, but because it would hamper my style of wedding photography which I explained was a mix of journalistic candids and fashion/portrait.
The other mitigating factor is business cost.
No professional wedding photographer leaves home without 2 of everything. Two compatible new MFD kits for wedding work is out of the question. Even two Pro level DSLRs is an unnecessary burden on the bottom line. That's why more modest cameras like the Canon 5 series are the overwhelming choice with wedding shooters.
My advice for the OP is to consider strengthening his lighting kit and how to use it with his existing MFD kit. That would be the least expensive, biggest bang for his buck in terms of IQ for many wedding images MFD or 35mm. I think he would be surprised by what his wife's A7R-II would produce using proper light tools and techniques.
Once lighting is incorporated into his tool box, then explorations of other more updated MFD choices could ensue. I once used a Mamiya AFD and Leaf back system and can say it can be challenging. Loved the organic, almost film like files from the Leaf back, but the H4D/40 with True Focus I've used was much more suited for wedding photography, especially with lighting.
- Marc
My daughter is getting married next July. It is going to be an outdoor destination wedding venue.
She is in the process of picking her photographer (and videographer).
She met with a few, looked at their books, and made a choice based on those books to have a few "pre" wedding engagement location photos taken as sort of trials for the main event.
They met with her first choice photographer from the book reviews in a location with similar environmental conditions as the wedding venue. The results showed the first choice photographer was a winner. The resultant engagement photos are terrific, both showing creativity in poses along with excellent timing and shots "capturing the moment." I was impressed.
I was not present at the shoot so have absolutely no idea what camera system or lenses the photographer used. Nor do I care; the results speak for themselves.
Cheers,
She is in the process of picking her photographer (and videographer).
She met with a few, looked at their books, and made a choice based on those books to have a few "pre" wedding engagement location photos taken as sort of trials for the main event.
They met with her first choice photographer from the book reviews in a location with similar environmental conditions as the wedding venue. The results showed the first choice photographer was a winner. The resultant engagement photos are terrific, both showing creativity in poses along with excellent timing and shots "capturing the moment." I was impressed.
I was not present at the shoot so have absolutely no idea what camera system or lenses the photographer used. Nor do I care; the results speak for themselves.
Cheers,
kdphotography
Well-known member
Um, no.
Of course, that would be the typical armchair quarterback response.
My opinion remains the same, and it is echoed in part by Jack. I don't care about equipment lists. An experienced wedding/portrait photographer produces results and captures the moment.
I think everyone has heard your trumpet very well about the virtues of CMOS over CCD. Fiercely argumentative. :loco: Isn't Fuji coming out with a new camera?
Cmon. Freddy, is that you? (elbow poised, pointing at Matt---drink up and have a Happy Thanksgiving)
I'm not unhappy with my current system. There are a lot of things I will do differently in the future with lighting. I was looking for a little more flexibility and was wondering if Sensor+ was comparable with cmos in difficult lighting. 90% of the pictures I took were with a Nikon D7100 with a F 1.4 50mm and my wife used a 24-70 F 2.8 and a 55 1.8 with her Sony AZR2. Regardless of the system better lighting would have helped with the quality of the final product. BTW, the Bride was happy with our results and we got at least one referral so far.
Thanks for all your input.
Greg
Thanks for all your input.
Greg
Just add him to your "Ignore List" like many of my friends have done.These threads always seem to start off nice, then voidshatter turns up and starts telling everyone that they can't take photographs unless their setup can do 15 stops of DR at ISO 9999999999 and anything less should be thrown into a bin, because nothing else at all matters - there's nothing to photography at all, light, composition, competence, planning, knowledge, experience, training - nothing matters at all apart from the sensor - everything else falls by the wayside - best possible sensor, or go home.
All those amazing photographs posted below - all junk because they weren't shot on the latest sensor, at ISO 12800000
I think he needs banning, every thread gets wrecked, every thread the same.
stephengilbert
Active member
Gerald, that shark was jumped months (or even years) ago.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Ken,
For you, :chug: .
As for shark jumping, all marine life has been jumped and we're well into the marsupials by now.
On a serious note, I have Light, Science and Magic (a great book), but only so much can be learned from books. I have the horrible feeling that classes and a lot of experimentation are required to learn it.
--Matt
For you, :chug: .
As for shark jumping, all marine life has been jumped and we're well into the marsupials by now.
On a serious note, I have Light, Science and Magic (a great book), but only so much can be learned from books. I have the horrible feeling that classes and a lot of experimentation are required to learn it.
--Matt
Bryan Stephens
Workshop Member
Exactly. The picture makes you feel as though you are there witnessing it firsthand instead of viewing a photograph of the event.
My, my, snarky comments about a Leica ... I'm so shocked and saddened!
:ROTFL:Of course I'd grab a Nikon D5 over a Leica M to shoot in those conditions.
However, those conditions make up a small % of a wedding day, and an even smaller % of revenue generating images.The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same:
When I started shooting weddings I already owned M cameras. My cliental back then was made up of artists, designers, art directors, writers, and even other photographers. They liked the non-wedding gallery stuff I shot with a rangefinder, and wanted similar B&W candid work at their wedding.
Not that they gave a crap what I had used, or even knew what a rangefinder was ... they just felt my work to be insightful and humanistic. I was the only one that knew what I had used to accomplish it.
As my business expanded, and I gained more mainstream clients with different expectations, I had to adapt. The SLR/DSLR took on more importance, and I started using a Hasselblad V camera which I also already owned for fashion/portrait/group images ... which in-turn led to adding lighting.
But, I still carried a M to many weddings. A M9 for many years, and now a MM ... which DOES perform at very high ISOs, and being a pure B&W camera obviously doesn't suffer from ugly mixed light effects:thumbs:
As I age and wind-down weddings to just a select few, I'm going back to my roots ... my wedding kit will be the Leica MM and a Sony A7R-II with the Techart AF adapter using the same M lenses. My wedding bag is now the size of a shoe box compared to a steamer trunk.:clap: I've reduced the lighting also.
If I decide I want to use MFD due to the wedding itinerary, client expectations (i.e., lots of portraits, fashion and group shots, or an outdoor daytime wedding/beach), and creative lighting, I hire an assistant.
Here are a few M wedding shots where using a rangefinder is not only appropriate, for me it was beneficial on many levels.
Some shot on film, some M9 color and B&W conversions, some MM. A sample album page to show actual use.
Marc -
Beautiful shots. really shows the role of the photog, not just the gear.
There seem to be three things involved here:
- technical capability/form factor/performance of the gear
- suitability of the gear to the shooting situation
- the way in which the gear and the photog interface, so that the photog gets/takes shots with inspiration
Too often we focus on the first of these, but the other two are just as important.
There was a guy using a 4x5 to cover a presidential campaign - clearly, not the best solution technically, but it made the photog think harder about how to get the shots he wanted. His results were lovely.
Just having the best tech'l solution, even if its the most appropriate tool for the shoot, does not necessarily lead to good photos. There is a human component in all this: if the photog is not engaged and is not challenged/satisfied/provoked (pick your emotion) by the tools, the overall suffers. The tool has to work for the individual.
Beautiful shots. really shows the role of the photog, not just the gear.
There seem to be three things involved here:
- technical capability/form factor/performance of the gear
- suitability of the gear to the shooting situation
- the way in which the gear and the photog interface, so that the photog gets/takes shots with inspiration
Too often we focus on the first of these, but the other two are just as important.
There was a guy using a 4x5 to cover a presidential campaign - clearly, not the best solution technically, but it made the photog think harder about how to get the shots he wanted. His results were lovely.
Just having the best tech'l solution, even if its the most appropriate tool for the shoot, does not necessarily lead to good photos. There is a human component in all this: if the photog is not engaged and is not challenged/satisfied/provoked (pick your emotion) by the tools, the overall suffers. The tool has to work for the individual.
I like comparing cameras to cookers - you can have the best most expensive cooker in the world, best temperature control, stainless steel this or that, whatever - but if you can't cook..... everything is going to taste bad!
I can totally agree with the 4x5 sentiment, when I used to shoot 4x5 - the quality of everything I did was much, much higher - simply because it made me think so damn hard about everything I was doing, but technically on paper the system was rubbish because of Velvia 50's exposure latitude.
Agree Matt, great images he's posting. Every cloud has a silver lining.Any thread that gets Marc to post this many wedding shots is a good thread. My only problem is that the Ignore function doesn't extend to quoted text. Well, you win some, you lose some
--Matt
It was seeing riveting images like Marc's that got me interested in photography in the first place. :watch: This one, in particular, is remarkable:
View attachment 122752
Shashin
Well-known member
David Burnett. He also shot the Olympics with the same Speed Graphic.
http://petapixel.com/2013/02/08/david-burnetts-speed-graphic-photos-of-the-london-2012-olympics/
Met/spoke with David Bernett quite a few times. He's remarkable in many ways not only for his photography but stories of his experiences. Its both funny and great how this thread has turned around to celebrate the importance of the image for its esthetic and emotional value above all else. I certainly don't want to see the day when some start framing pictures of sensor pixels and camera equipment.
Dave (D&A)
Dave, there was a pretty accomplished wedding shooter that decided to do the more formal photos with an 8X10 camera after discussing it with the B&G. I don't have the link to that particular Wedding Forum anymore, but the results were astoundingly beautiful ... I think he did about 8 or 10 sheets rather than the copious quantities digital seems to promote. Clients were very happy and viewed the prints as something of high value to be preserved ... which is becoming relatively rare these days.
I wish the OP much luck. While the gear has made it a bit easier technically, shooting weddings has become a more difficult business. One can only wish that there are enough clients who recognize talent, poignant content and sensitivity over quantity and the rush to publish on social media ... another main residual effect of digital.
Changing social norms have seriously eroded the traditions of keepsake photography. So much so, that historians and archivalists are worried that there won't be enough to document current society and "the way we were".
- Marc
Oh, thanks to all for their kind comments! All in a day's work ... but as hard work as it has been (it can be physically punishing), it sure has been fun and emotionally rewarding.
I wish the OP much luck. While the gear has made it a bit easier technically, shooting weddings has become a more difficult business. One can only wish that there are enough clients who recognize talent, poignant content and sensitivity over quantity and the rush to publish on social media ... another main residual effect of digital.
Changing social norms have seriously eroded the traditions of keepsake photography. So much so, that historians and archivalists are worried that there won't be enough to document current society and "the way we were".
- Marc
Oh, thanks to all for their kind comments! All in a day's work ... but as hard work as it has been (it can be physically punishing), it sure has been fun and emotionally rewarding.
Matt, that is a great book! I was way down the road with lighting by the time I became aware of it, so I primarily self-taught by observing accomplished shooters, and experimenting off-job.
The good news is that instant feed-back digital really speeds up the experiential part of learning lighting (compared to the "blind" film days), and lighting choices have come a long way. That's where technological advances have been very helpful.
If you are reasonably good at observing available light (direction, quality, quantity), then artificial lighting shouldn't be terribly hard to master ... the principles are the same.
- Marc
