Really bad light at a wedding venue

A

andya700

Messages
5,803
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I am due to shoot a friend's wedding in just under two weeks time, and although it isn't strictly "professional", I want to make as good a job of it as possible.
However, we visited the venue yesterday, and I took along my kit - 6D with 24 - 105 f4, 7d with 70 - 200 f4 and a Sigma flash.
Although I have been to the place before, I have never taken any shots inside, and so it came as a shock to me, that I was having to use between ISO 12800 and ISO 25600 at around 1/80 f4 and even then I had to push an extra stop in PP, and the resulting quality was shocking.
So, why didn't I use my flash I hear you say?
Well, the guy who will be in charge of the ceremony on the day, said that flash photography is a "no no" during the ceremony, which means that I am going to be severely compromised taking shots of the couple, exchanging of rings etc.
My flash photography can start with the signing of the register.
I have however looked at other photographer's portfolios who have worked at this venue, and you can tell that they have used flash (shadows etc) during the ceremony.
Even if I could get my hands on a 50mm 1.8/1.4 would this really make much difference?
Any help and suggestions would be appreciated.
Cheers.
 
Bottom line, for most venues in the UK, F4 lenses are not up to the job.
But - needs must - noisy is better than blurry - don't be afraid to crank the ISO and keep your ss up.

The flash thing - perfectly normal. I use it for entrance - exit and signing the register. that's it.
 
Also make the bride & groom aware of the limitations - Promise low deliver high
 
A couple of things. Nobody except photographers ever really notice noise. Shooting at f/1.4 or f/1.8 produces a deliciously thin DoF however getting both of the couple on the plain of focus is tricky. Personally, I'd bet on them being happier with noise then one of them OOF.

Just remember its a friend though. Explain the limitations you have . They are your mates and you are doing them a massive favour. As such explain there are limits as to what they can expect (nicely of course) but don't spend money doing them a favour. Why not explain the issues and let them hire you kit if they want? They'd probably be mortified if they knew its was causing you worry or going to cost you money.

They've chosen to get married in a lightless pit. Same as I chose to get married at 4pm on a December afternoon. There are limitations with that
 
Last edited:
A 50mm 1.8 would make a huge difference for minimal outlay. It would allow you to double your shutter speed (1/80 is seriously borderline) and still drop the ISO.

I shot 90% of a wedding with just a 50mm on a full frame camera on Saturday, I wouldn't worry about covering every focal length, many wedding photographers happily make do with a 35 and 85.
 
For the ring shots you might able to use an LED panel or a well diffused LED torch with a good colour and no flicker.
 
Yeh, as others have said, make them aware of your concerns. It is then their shout.

Only thing I would add, consider a monopod.

Best of luck :)
 
Thanks for the replies/feedback guys.
I am now putting my old, battered left kidney on fleabay and will use the proceeds to buy a 50mm 1.8/1.4:)
I agree totally that noise is better than blur (cheers Phil), and I would also add that the B & G are also looking forward to some monochrome shots (having seen some of my shots at festivals last year), so I would imagine that black and white will look better with a bit of noise than colour?
 
Tripod, given the impossible conditions.

Also you may be allowed to restage shots in venue with flash, after the service.

You need to talk with couple.
 
MidnightUK said:
Tripod, given the impossible conditions.
.
Click to expand...
Not a chance, a tripod won't stop people moving. It's not an impossible situation, just a tricky one, experienced and managed by thousands of people every week.
MidnightUK said:
Also you may be allowed to restage shots in venue with flash, after the service.
.
Click to expand...
Pointless, the only reason for shooting the ceremony is to capture the emotion, that doesn't happen on a reshoot

MidnightUK said:
You need to talk with couple.
Click to expand...
There might be a point in this, but I'm guessing when they chose the venue they'd seen photos of other weddings held there. Are we suggesting that the OP tells the couple he can't deliver where others could?
 
Phil V said:
Not a chance, a tripod won't stop people moving. It's not an impossible situation, just a tricky one, experienced and managed by thousands of people every week.


Pointless, the only reason for shooting the ceremony is to capture the emotion, that doesn't happen on a reshoot



There might be a point in this, but I'm guessing when they chose the venue they'd seen photos of other weddings held there. Are we suggesting that the OP tells the couple he can't deliver where others could?
Click to expand...

1
There is always a moment when people are still enough. People managed with tripod back in the day and low iso. Agree its not ideal, but the OP is not an experienced pro and is doing their best.
2
Agree its an issue, but worth doing as a backup. This seems a somewhat desperate situation. Could be that 1 usable image is all. Life is not perfect. Just some alternative shots as backup. Better than no usable image
The 50 purchase is good.
3
Frankly, yes, the tog should set expectations. Its a 1 off event. The couple should be forewarned to save a lot of disappointment and aggro for them and the tog. They may chose to get a 2nd more experienced photographer in to work with the first, they may be laid back and not worried. They should have the choice.
 
FWIW I use a 50/1.2 and shoot wide open - I alternate shots with between the focus being on the groom and then on the bride.

You could rent the lens perhaps, but I'd do so ASAP and micro-adjust it + have a few days practise shooting with it.
 
I should explain further - I feel the 50/1.2 is quite usable wide open, the 50/1.4 is not IMO.
 
chris malcolm said:
For the ring shots you might able to use an LED panel or a well diffused LED torch with a good colour and no flicker.
Click to expand...
The exchange of rings shots and the rings shot are completely different, at least in my understanding. If the registrar says "no flash" I'm not sure how "hang on a minute, I've a torch here somewhere" will be seen as more acceptable.

(for my own wedding, I had the rings shot in the bag several days in advance of the ceremony)
 
MidnightUK said:
1
There is always a moment when people are still enough. People managed with tripod back in the day and low iso. Agree its not ideal, but the OP is not an experienced pro and is doing their best...
Click to expand...
I shot weddings 'back in the day' we never shot during the ceremony, because it wasn't really possible, no-one had ever seen their mates ceremony shots, so they never expected any. Frankly that sounds a bit desperate, a well practiced photographer can shoot a standard ish lens at slower than necessary for getting a sharp shot of a human being, they're never still, the selfish bastards have a habit of breathing.

MidnightUK said:
2
Agree its an issue, but worth doing as a backup. This seems a somewhat desperate situation. Could be that 1 usable image is all. Life is not perfect. Just some alternative shots as backup. Better than no usable image
...
Click to expand...
It's obviously up to the OP, but I can't think of many actual wedding photographers who would bother, it's not better than no usable image, there'll be a couple of weddings this year where I'll get no ceremony shots, because I'm not allowed. Once missed, they're gone, I'm not going to obsess over what I've missed, I'm going to spend my time capturing the rest of the day 'as it happens'.
MidnightUK said:
3
Frankly, yes, the tog should set expectations. Its a 1 off event. The couple should be forewarned to save a lot of disappointment and aggro for them and the tog. They may chose to get a 2nd more experienced photographer in to work with the first, they may be laid back and not worried. They should have the choice.
Click to expand...
This depends entirely on the OP and their relationship with the couple, and definitely needs handling carefully.

If I was being harsh, I'd be suggesting the OP should have told his mates he wasn't equipped to shoot their wedding. But presumably they have had an honest discussion already, and expectations have already been set quite low, I'm presuming this, because as far as I can tell, Andy is quite a smart guy :)
 
Phil V said:
I shot weddings 'back in the day' we never shot during the ceremony, because it wasn't really possible, no-one had ever seen their mates ceremony shots, so they never expected any. Frankly that sounds a bit desperate, a well practiced photographer can shoot a standard ish lens at slower than necessary for getting a sharp shot of a human being, they're never still, the selfish bastards have a habit of breathing.


It's obviously up to the OP, but I can't think of many actual wedding photographers who would bother, it's not better than no usable image, there'll be a couple of weddings this year where I'll get no ceremony shots, because I'm not allowed. Once missed, they're gone, I'm not going to obsess over what I've missed, I'm going to spend my time capturing the rest of the day 'as it happens'.

This depends entirely on the OP and their relationship with the couple, and definitely needs handling carefully.

If I was being harsh, I'd be suggesting the OP should have told his mates he wasn't equipped to shoot their wedding. But presumably they have had an honest discussion already, and expectations have already been set quite low, I'm presuming this, because as far as I can tell, Andy is quite a smart guy :)
Click to expand...


They both know that I do not do this for a living (yet), and we did have a discussion at the venue, where I showed them the in camera shots, and explained in layman's terms about the light.
If there are more lights on the day (lit braziers - nothing modern:eek:), then it may well give me another stop or two. I can fit a Pentacon 1.8 manual focus for the day (which I like using) but am working on acquiring something more user friendly. From what I have seen from other professional togs, I may well "accidently" squeeze off a few flash shots if I need to, because believe me this venue (Dode Church in Kent) is quite dark inside.
 
andy700 said:
..., because believe me this venue (Dode Church in Kent) is quite dark inside.
Click to expand...

Hah! Isn't it just! But at least you managed to find it ;) It is Kent, though, so the registrars will be human and you might find on the day that the officiant will let you take a few shots with flash during the ceremony.

But to my way of thinking it's simple: the couple have chosen to get married in a black hole, and they've then further complicated matters from the snappery POV by not engaging an experienced wedding photographer. Therefore any expectation they might have of decent pictures during the ceremony are both unrealistic and unreasonable. Sure, you could ponce about staging snaps after the ceremony, but for what purpose? So the couple have a picture of them pretending to do something, when they could have got a snap of the real thing by forking out for a pro with both the experience and the gear to cope with their choice of venue? Bugger that for a lark.

PS Rather you than me relying on manual focus in that place! And before anybody chimes up about "back in the day", the simple fact of the matter is that back in the day, folks didn't get wed in the dark.

ETA - I just took a look at the site. Have they got mains electric in there now?
 
Last edited:
Hi Dan, I had to laugh at your post, because you are obviously aware of the "limitations" of the place - "very small black hole" sums it up well. On the flip side it is a truly enchanting place, and the surrounding countryside ensures that you are spolit for choice for backdrops. I did a shoot at a wine tasting last year, using the 6D and 70-200 f4. I didn't use flash there, but kept to f4-f4.5 using auto ISO (varied between 2000 and 12800) and the shots were quite pleasing, certainly up to 6400 the noise was acceptable and thee was a lot of fine detail.
I think they may well have some new fangled electrickery there now, but they also seem to like natural light - flames:)
There is also the exchanging of the rings bit, where a barn owl flys down from the balcony and lands on the best man's hand. He then removes a pouch from the bird's talons and releases the bird to fly back to the handler - what could possibly go wrong and how do you rate my chances of getting a tack sharp shot of the bird in flight:exit:
 
andy700 said:
There is also the exchanging of the rings bit, where a barn owl flys down from the balcony and lands on the best man's hand. He then removes a pouch from the bird's talons and releases the bird to fly back to the handler ...
Click to expand...

You know Andy, it's really sad that they still do that b*****ks with the poor old owl. I always thought they could really go for it and offer a chimney sweep with "soot" on his lips waiting to kiss the bride "for luck" when she pops out the door, plus maybe organic rose petals grown on the premises then harvested and dried by vegan virgins to use by way of confetti.

Whatever, if they've got running electric in the place now, you're in with a chance. Best advice I can think of is manage the bride's expectations as best you can, don't worry unduly about noisy files, and ask the officiating registrar what scope you have. He or she will be well used to snappers fretting about the light.

Where's the reception?
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
You know Andy, it's really sad that they still do that b*****ks with the poor old owl. I always thought they could really go for it and offer a chimney sweep with "soot" on his lips waiting to kiss the bride "for luck" when she pops out the door, plus maybe organic rose petals grown on the premises then harvested and dried by vegan virgins to use by way of confetti.

Whatever, if they've got running electric in the place now, you're in with a chance. Best advice I can think of is manage the bride's expectations as best you can, don't worry unduly about noisy files, and ask the officiating registrar what scope you have. He or she will be well used to snappers fretting about the light.

Where's the reception?
Click to expand...


The reception is on site, and is going to be a really laid back affair, with more hawks flying around (not inside the church though, or it would resemble Hogwarts). I am looking forward to it, because I feel it is a challenge which I have to take on.
 
A freind of mine did a wedding with the owl thing at chichester cathedral - rather than flying to the best man the owl flew up into the vaulted ceiling , perched on a column top and sat there hooting - the handler had to tempt it down witha dead mouse which put a certain crimp in proceeedings
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
:D

Good luck with the weather. It'll be fun if it chucks it down ...
Click to expand...


At least being at Dode, I won't be able to say it was "biblical" if it does happen.
big soft moose said:
A freind of mine did a wedding with the owl thing at chichester cathedral - rather than flying to the best man the owl flew up into the vaulted ceiling , perched on a column top and sat there hooting - the handler had to tempt it down witha dead mouse which put a certain crimp in proceeedings
Click to expand...

Apparently the best man has to have some raw chicken handy (underneath the glove to feed the owl), so I don't know what the H&S/cross contamination issues could be.
 
andy700 said:
Apparently the best man has to have some raw chicken handy (underneath the glove to feed the owl), so I don't know what the H&S/cross contamination issues could be.
Click to expand...

Well, at least if it craps on the bride it shouldn't stick :)
 
I hope he washes his hands before the wedding breakfast ;)
 
Phil V said:
I shot weddings 'back in the day' we never shot during the ceremony, because it wasn't really possible, no-one had ever seen their mates ceremony shots, so they never expected any.
Click to expand...

I might be misremembering, or it could be a regional thing. I recall a photographer with a tripod in a church around 1971 when my cousin married.. It must have been an expensive do as they hired the ballroom of a very expensive hotel (definitely not my branch of the family!) for the reception after. I was very young at the time. I remember alter shots in the photos, but they could have been posed after the event. Its about 10 years since I last saw the photos and I don't have copies of my own to check.. Guest dress lengths ranged from mini to sweeping the floor which is interesting historically but spoilt the line of the photos, even as a kid I thought that. Odd what you remember.

Back to today, I believe Mormons do not allow photographers in their churches for weddings and all the photos are taken after the service, outside of the building or elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
I'd guess the alter shots would be posed and shot with flash rather than reportage in style.
 
Phil V said:
I'd guess the alter shots would be posed and shot with flash rather than reportage in style.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are correct. Shame I have no copies to look at to confirm. Definitely not reportage, everyone in every photo looked like they had been stuffed and placed out by museum staff. There are family photos even further back, where they seemed to go to a photographers studio after the event, or possibly before. Very posed pics of one of the couple on a chair and the other stood behind. Most of my ancestors were truly dirt poor, so this would have been one of the very few photos taken in their whole lifetime and they seem to have only 1 version or pose. Now we have hundereds or thousands for one wedding. Amazing really. I wonder if people are any better at labelling who is in them!
 
Last edited:
MidnightUK said:
Very posed pics of one of the couple on a chair and the other stood behind. Most of my ancestors were truly dirt poor, so this would have been one of the very few photos taken in their whole lifetime and they seem to have only version or pose. Now we have hundereds or thousands for one wedding. Amazing really. I wonder if people are any better at labelling who is in them!
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder if, amongst the thousand photos, there's always one as good as the posed studio portrait..

fwiw, I collect Victorian studio portraits and it's less common for them labelled - the studio reference is usually missing unless it's one of the "big name" studios (e.g. Silvy).
 
Alastair said:
fwiw, I collect Victorian studio portraits and it's less common for them labelled - the studio reference is usually missing unless it's one of the "big name" studios (e.g. Silvy).
Click to expand...

I dont suppose you know any of the studio names around Bristol, Bath, Cirencester or Gloucester?
 
MidnightUK said:
I dont suppose you know any of the studio names around Bristol, Bath, Cirencester or Gloucester?
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that's out of my geographical areas of interest - I'm mostly collecting just a few specific studios in the Skipton, Sheffield, Scarborough areas plus one that tended to wander before ending up in Kent. There are some online resources, e.g. http://www.cartedevisite.co.uk/ but tbh a lot of the online information is of variable quality, the original records just aren't there any more. Starting from the available information I've found much of it to be incorrect and guesswork when investigating further - US standards of genealogy at best!

But it depends what you want to do..
  • Put a name to the subject in a photograph? - sorry, forget it, not going to happen other than in truly exceptional circumstances (if the studio is Camille Silvy then as far as I'm aware all the sitting books were preserved, but for any other studio 99.99% of records have been lost)
  • Date a photograph? - very possible, the styles did change over time (the style of card backing is often a more useful indication than the image itself) and studios came and went
  • Understand something about the sitter/occasion from analysing the scene? - possible, there's a degree of symbolism and coded meaning in some portrait styles. There's also some practical interpretations that may not be obvious in the modetn day, such as why it's usually the man that's seated and the woman standing with portraits of couples,or why many small children are wearing a ribbon as a sash around their waist.
 
Alastair said:
... such as why it's usually the man that's seated and the woman standing with portraits of couples,or why many small children are wearing a ribbon as a sash around their waist.
Click to expand...

Sorry Alastair, but I have to ask ...
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
Sorry Alastair, but I have to ask ...
Click to expand...
I guessed someone would ;)
  • The man is usually the one seated because the woman had so much supporting "architecture" under her skirt to give it shape that both made seating awkward and was shown to best effect when standing.
  • The ribbon is used to tie the infant to the chair and reduce movement. Exposure times were significantly longer than we're use to, even photographers advertising "instant" processes measured the exposure in seconds. Exposures were available daylight only with studios resembling a conservatory with lots of overhead windows. Poor weather could close down the business until it improved.
 
Phil V said:
I'd guess the alter shots would be posed and shot with flash rather than reportage in style.
Click to expand...

I have just had a look through our wedding photos taken in 1992, in an RC church, and there was not one taken inside the church - very strict about that I seem to remember, the priest didn't even want me to include "Jerusalem" on the hymn list - it took me years to find out why:oops: :$
 
there is a holy trinity of lens for the wedding photographer.... and for very good reason as you now know.

And the trinity is
50mm f1.2
85mm f1.2
135mm f2.0

not cheap, but designed for low light work. Apart from the 85mm which is too slow focus they are excellent for wedding photography
 
andy700 said:
I have just had a look through our wedding photos taken in 1992, in an RC church, and there was not one taken inside the church - very strict about that I seem to remember,
Click to expand...

I have no idea how many RC weddings we did but it must be getting on for 100 over 10 years, and in that time I only came up against one priest who was anti (and that in Hampstead, of all places). Would that I could say the same about the Prots ...
 
andy700 said:
the priest didn't even want me to include "Jerusalem" on the hymn list - it took me years to find out why
Click to expand...
Not everyone likes jam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top