If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Amateur wedding photos - how to meter?
I'm one of the guests at a small wedding party in a couple of weeks - 22
people in all. There will be no official photographer or videographer so the guests have been asked to shoot away and grab what they can. I believe I will be the only person with a DSLR and suspect that there is an expectation, or at least a hope, that my shots might rise above the average P&S efforts of the rest of the guests. I've got a 30D with 17-85 IS lens and a 580EX flash but that's it, and as a regular guest I won't be messing around with tripods or reflectors or in any other way trying to get cocky. I only got the 30D in June and the 580EX two days ago so I'm really not going to be very experienced with the flash side of things. I'm not familiar with the venue and I'm not going to have to try to organise people or anything like that so it really is just about enjoying the wedding and getting some nice shots that maximise the technical equipment advantage that I have over the P&S brigade. Given the above my only real concern is doing the best I can regarding exposure as the bride will be in white and the groom in black. There won't be masses of posed shots as the party is too small so most stuff will be shot on the fly as candids etc.. Can anyone give me some advice on the best approach to metering to allow me to fire off shots quickly without a lot of fiddling about. My main concern is not to blow the highlights in the dress but also not to turn it into dull grey either. I will shoot in raw but I'm really not sure whether to stick with plain old evaluative metering and perhaps bracket or manually compensate exposure if my histogram is blown. Maybe that's too much fiddling to keep checking exposure, adjust and reshoot as the P&S crowd will just snap and go and nobody will want to hang around for me to perfect the shot. Or perhaps I should just to use partial or spot metering, meter off the dress and maybe bump up the exposure a bit to keep the whites white. But that would mean messing around by first aiming for metering purposes, setting exposure lock, reframing for focus and then reframing again for composition before finally taking the shot. It all seems a lot to remember for someone like me who is still learning this stuff. Then, of course, there will be shots without the wedding dress so that may want a different metering technique. I guess evaluative is the easy way to go for guests but I'm not so sure about the bride. What I'm really looking for is a recommendation for the best "point and shoot" metering solution for my DSLR, if there is such a thing. I'd be grateful for any advice. Thanks, Tim. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Amateur wedding photos - how to meter?
Tiny Tim wrote:
Given the above my only real concern is doing the best I can regarding exposure as the bride will be in white and the groom in black. Shoot everything in RAW. You can then adjust exposure on your computer, and fix any mistakes that an incorrect white balance would give you. Possibly choose a higher ISO (I often use 800) to reduce any camera shake. Use the flash as fill-in, not as primary illumination. HTH, Pete. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Amateur wedding photos - how to meter?
"Ian Riches" wrote in message
... In article , says... I'm one of the guests at a small wedding party in a couple of weeks - 22 people in all. There will be no official photographer or videographer so the guests have been asked to shoot away and grab what they can. I believe I will be the only person with a DSLR and suspect that there is an expectation, or at least a hope, that my shots might rise above the average P&S efforts of the rest of the guests. rest snipped I was in a similar position recently at a wedding. I have a Canon EOS 10D and 420EX. What I did was as follows: 1) I shot RAW. Gave me a bit more room for error in recovering highlights. 2) I was lucky (photographically speaking...) in that the day was overcast, and thus I didn't have to worry about flash for outdoor shots. The light was perfect for decent people shots. In each location I took one or two shots, used the histogram to help assess the exposure, then dialed this exposure in on M (manual). As long as the light didn't change, I was then fine without having to worry about the meter being fooled by acres of black tux or white dress. This worked very well, and it was educational to see how the meter moved about either side of my manual exposure setting, while my shots came out exposed as I wanted them. 3) When things moved inside later on and the flash was necessary, I generally used at least ISO 400 or 800. This made the most of what light there was, gave a less "stark" look, and, because the flash output was lower than it would have been at ISO 100, gave less scope for obvious flash metering errors. Even my relatively ancient 10D gives very usable prints at 10x8 with ISO 800. On the subject of flash metering, read, learn and inwardly digest http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/, particularly if you don't already know how your camera behaves with flash when in P, AV, TV, M modes, etc. Behaviour in P, for instance, is *very* different from AV. 4) I took *plenty* of shots. You will not believe how difficult it is to get a group of people all looking vaguely recognisable as humans at the same time. Plenty of shots were destined straight for the bin, as Auntie so-and-so had her eyes shut, or Uncle whatsit had a decidedly odd leer. Have fun. Ian Thanks for the tips. I must admit that it hadn't occured to me to meter once and use manual mode to keep the EV from bouncing all over the place, depending upon which subject was in the metering zone at the time. Should be much simpler that way. I just hope the light stays constant at each location as I have not yet got into the habit of checking exposure data - I concentrate on the composition and just rely on the camera to sort out the EV. That needs to change. I knew the flash side of things was going to be a trial, just from the manual supplied with the 580EX, but that webpage is pretty huge. I'll look forward to reading that lot and hopefully some will sink in. Thanks again :-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Amateur wedding photos - how to meter?
"Tiny Tim" writes:
I have not yet got into the habit of checking exposure data - I concentrate on the composition and just rely on the camera to sort out the EV. That needs to change. Indeed in the EOS digital world. I just shot another wedding with my 300D and 540EX. Exposure lock helps a little bit, if you pick a neutral density spot to point it at, but goddamn that metering system throws crap all over the map. You've got way more to think about than composition I'm afraid. Get your camera into the review mode that includes the histogram, and you have to review every goddamn shot to make sure you haven't heinously under or overexposed things. You'll be able to ferret out hte underexposed or overexposed stuff quickly with the histogram review enabled. If you aren't comfortable with the histogram yet, get comfortable with it as it really is the key to dialing in proper exposure and knowing when you need to adjust exposure compensation and take another frame. The exposure latitude of Film and having a good printer be able to normalize exposure when there were metering variations was a _lot_ easier in this respect. Hopefully your camera with ETTL-II doesn't suck as badly as the 300D at ETTL-I. I don't shoot RAW because wth the number of shots I take in a photojournalistic style, I'd need to triple my CF card collection to fit everything, and I target the value end of the wedding photography scene, and I don't want to take all the extra time to go and dial things in for every single shot. Best Regards, -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Amateur wedding photos - how to meter?
In article , Todd H. wrote:
I don't shoot RAW because wth the number of shots I take in a photojournalistic style, I'd need to triple my CF card collection to fit everything, and I target the value end of the wedding photography scene, and I don't want to take all the extra time to go and dial things in for every single shot. Dump the photojournalist crap and learn about lighting and posing. Your photography will be better off in the long run. And dump that Peavy and get a real bass. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Amateur wedding photos - how to meter?
Randall Ainsworth writes:
In article , Todd H. wrote: I don't shoot RAW because wth the number of shots I take in a photojournalistic style, I'd need to triple my CF card collection to fit everything, and I target the value end of the wedding photography scene, and I don't want to take all the extra time to go and dial things in for every single shot. Dump the photojournalist crap and learn about lighting and posing. Your photography will be better off in the long run. Yer probably right. But somehow I keep getting hired without doing any advertising, so I guess I'm stuck with skills that have gotten me this far. If only I could shake these apparently happy customers. Let's keep it our little secret though Randy. :-) And dump that Peavy and get a real bass. ****, if only the 300D were as predictably reliable a performer as my Peavey axes, I wouldn't be grinding the E-TTL axe whenever the subject comes up. Got any flash photography galleries to share in a wedding bent to enlighten us further? Best Regards, -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Amateur wedding photos - how to meter?
In article , Todd H. wrote:
Yer probably right. But somehow I keep getting hired without doing any advertising, so I guess I'm stuck with skills that have gotten me this far. If only I could shake these apparently happy customers. Let's keep it our little secret though Randy. :-) I really think that the photojournalism thing is a fad and will not endure. For many, it's a coverup for lack of talent. ****, if only the 300D were as predictably reliable a performer as my Peavey axes, I wouldn't be grinding the E-TTL axe whenever the subject comes up. I've never been a fan of anything Peavey. I have a Strat, Jazz bass, a cheap Yamaha acoustic, a 6-string banjo, and a 6/12 doubleneck. The Strat goes through a Mesa Boogie, the banjo and acoustic through a Marshall acoustic amp, and the bass through a Fender bass head/bin. Got any flash photography galleries to share in a wedding bent to enlighten us further? I stopped doing weddings in 1995 and hope to never do another. I used 2 lights - Norman portable for a long time and Photogenic AC-powered lights in the later years. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Amateur wedding photos - how to meter?
Randall Ainsworth writes:
In article , Todd H. wrote: Yer probably right. But somehow I keep getting hired without doing any advertising, so I guess I'm stuck with skills that have gotten me this far. If only I could shake these apparently happy customers. Let's keep it our little secret though Randy. :-) I really think that the photojournalism thing is a fad and will not endure. For many, it's a coverup for lack of talent. I guess I was shooting before it became a fad. How would you define this photojournalistic style? I'm still shootin all the posed crap people want certainly, but during the ceremony, I'm grabbing moments left and right, and same at the reception. Having come from sports and event photography for papers and yearbooks in my earliest days it's always how I've approached em. I guess. My clients know straight up if they want someone showing up with location lighting and a backdrop doing a lot of formal portraits, I'm not their guy. But then again, they're not payin me $2000+ for a location fee, and having to pay $5-$10 a frame for any and all prints on the back end. ****, if only the 300D were as predictably reliable a performer as my Peavey axes, I wouldn't be grinding the E-TTL axe whenever the subject comes up. I've never been a fan of anything Peavey. I have a Strat, Jazz bass, a cheap Yamaha acoustic, a 6-string banjo, and a 6/12 doubleneck. The Strat goes through a Mesa Boogie, the banjo and acoustic through a Marshall acoustic amp, and the bass through a Fender bass head/bin. You gotta dump the 70's mindset. You won't find a Peavey bass that hums like those overrated but ubuiquitous Fender Jazz's. Hell my Foundation sounds a lot better than a Jazz, and the Cirrus won't even talk to you if you compare it to a Jazz. But hell I don't wanna talk anyone out of dissin Peavey actually, because then the bargains on resale will be mine all mine on Ebay. :-) But next time you have a chance, actually play a Peavey bass. I'm sure someone will buy your 60Hz hum-mesister Jazz after you replace it. Got any flash photography galleries to share in a wedding bent to enlighten us further? I stopped doing weddings in 1995 and hope to never do another. I used 2 lights - Norman portable for a long time and Photogenic AC-powered lights in the later years. Yeah, that's the crap I never wanted to deal with on location, and if folks are expecting it I bid them well to go elsewhere and spend 4x. :-) Best Regards, -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Amateur wedding photos - how to meter?
Ian Riches wrote:
1) I shot RAW. Gave me a bit more room for error in recovering highlights. Yup 2) ...In each location I took one or two shots, used the histogram to help assess the exposure, then dialed this exposure in on M (manual). As long as the light didn't change, I was then fine without having to worry about the meter being fooled by acres of black tux or white dress. This worked very well, and it was educational to see how the meter moved about either side of my manual exposure setting, while my shots came out exposed as I wanted them. I think this is a great idea. Some experimenting might help and it's a simple move to flip back to A or S mode if you see something out of sorts. 3) flash output was lower than it would have been I suck with flash but dialing down the flash so it's only a soft fill is good advice. Open up the aperture for low light & pay attention to focus, shallow DOF is great when intentional for mood. -- Paul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High resolution photos from a digital camera. | Scott W | Digital Photography | 77 | November 17th 05 04:26 PM |
High resolution photos from a digital camera. | Scott W | 35mm Photo Equipment | 78 | November 17th 05 04:26 PM |
Royal Wedding photos | Piemanlager | Digital Photography | 29 | April 12th 05 11:51 PM |
ARTBEATS, Art Beats for LightWave & Maya, COREL professional PHOTOS, Mixa Pro, Datacraft Sozaijiten, Datacraft Otojiten, ImageDJ, PHOTODISCS, and EYEWIRE CDs | futa | Digital Photography | 0 | March 2nd 05 08:50 PM |
Attn. Wedding Photographers | Jerry Dycus | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | November 7th 03 08:42 PM |