| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/26/2004 01:39:48 AM · #1 |
I am attending my brother-in-law's wedding on Saturday, and have been asked to take photos before, and during the ceremony, which will be taking place in a museum. The before shots are no problem since they will be at the bride's home, but the ceremony shots will be indoors (museum) and they have told me that the museum prohibits the use of flash, in order to protect the life of the artwork.
I'm freaking out! Here's the gear I own. I'd love reccomendations on what to use to get best results:
20D
DRebel
17-40 f/4 L
28-135 IS USM
70-200 f/4 L
50 1.8
420EX flash w/ Omnibounce (CAN'T USE IT FOR CEREMONY)
I was going to use the 28-135, mainly because I did not want to have to swtich lenses, and wanted versatility in range. But now I'm thinking that might not be best, since it will only give me f/5.6 at the higher focal lengths. I know I can use ISO 1600 or 3200 but would rather not.
What would you do if you were me?
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 01:46:13 AM · #2 |
Longer exposure and paint with lights? A little flashlight wouldn't hurt the artwork correct?
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 01:48:32 AM · #3 |
| I used to work in a museum, and pretty much any light is bad. I'd try to use the 50 1.8 as much as possible, wide open, with positive exposure value. just my opinion, of course. |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 01:56:43 AM · #4 |
Call the museum and tell them what you want to do, what the nature of the photographs are etc. Perhaps that if you argue that you are not pointing the full power of the flash towards the art itself, that they can give you permission for the use of flash.
(don't use this as an argument towards the museum:)In my opinion flashlight does not hurt artwork/paintings etc. Just compare how long an exposure with natural light needs to be when you don't use flash. How can that little bit of light energy that mimicks 1/10 to 2s of natural or artificial light hurt paintings? Especially when you are far away from the artwork the power of the light is very low. In many St. Petersburg museums, including the Hermitage with all its Rembrandts it is ok to use flash (after paying for a flash permit) as long as you don't flash the paintings in the face.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 01:56:53 AM · #5 |
Although I'm not a lens expert, I definetively find useful the 50mm 1.8 for indoor shots with no flash. Raising ISO to 800 should give you fast shutter speeds. Well, of course you get less DOF, and you'll have to keep moving close to the main subject to photograph, but you get for sure blur free sharp images.
I use a D70 with 50mm 1.8 or 70-200 2.8 lens and end up not mounting
the zoom lens. The 50mm is versatile, and if the main subject of some photo is far take advantage of your resolution, and hey you've got 8mp!!
Message edited by author 2004-11-26 03:17:30. |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 01:59:02 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Call the museum and tell them what you want to do, what the nature of the photographs are etc. Perhaps that if you argue that you are not pointing the full power of the flash towards the art itself, that they can give you permission for the use of flash.
(don't use this as an argument towards the museum:)In my opinion flashlight does not hurt artwork/paintings etc. Just compare how long an exposure with natural light needs to be when you don't use flash. How can that little bit of light energy that mimicks 1/10 to 2s of natural or artificial light hurt paintings? Especially when you are far away from the artwork the power of the light is very low. In many St. Petersburg museums, including the Hermitage with all its Rembrandts it is ok to use flash (after paying for a flash permit) as long as you don't flash the paintings in the face. |
The actual remark I recall is that one flash is equal to an entire day's sunlight. Consider, then, how many flashes would be at a wedding. |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 02:49:49 AM · #7 |
I'de use the 50mm throughout the indoor ceremony.. Just a thought here but if the ceremony itself will be pretty static would the museum allow maybe using some low level spots to help light the area (actually i doubt they would).
probebly a silly suggestion but I understand your concern here..
50mm wide open ISO around 800 might work out good for you. Good luck man. |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 04:11:46 AM · #8 |
I won't be giving you advice on equipment, since I have little experience with the level of equipment you will be using. However, as a precaution to disaster, a few words on preparing the couple to be for the occasion. Go to the museum the event will take place in -- if there are any sky-lights and such that allow natural lighting, go at the sime time of day the wedding is planned for (if possible). Take some images, preferably of the couple themselves doing what couples do in museums (walking about, holding hands, gazing at paintings, etc.). The general idea is to give them an idea of what results are possible in less than ideal light, and yourself an idea of what you need to do to make the best of it.
If it works out, they have some pre-wedding images in the same location to add to their wedding book; but if it doesn't, they will know ahead of time what is required of them to get good images (very little motion, etc.).
The photographic results depend a great deal on how good or bad the lighting is, but preparing the couple will go a long way toward preventing any hard feeling from those just expect it to be great.
Good Luck.
David
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 05:16:04 AM · #9 |
Don´t panic. I want to emphasize that I am no expert but I have done a couple of weddings and all churches have different lighting. Some of them you can get away with using iso 200, shutter of 1/100 and an aperture of 5.6 and others you need iso 800-1600, shutter of 1/25 and an aperture of 2.8 or even bigger. I strongly agree with Britannica, you need to go to the museum and measure what light you have there and go home and look at the results. If you can´t by any means use the 28-135 because of the aperture, stick with the 50mm 1.8 and try to make the best of it. I myself ALWAYS go to the location a couple of days in advance and check out the lighting if I haven´t photographed there before.
Personally though I try as hard as I can to avoid using flashes during ceremonies. Both it distracts people when I am trying to be invisible and also it gives off ugly shadows if you can´t bounce it around and I myself always think that ambient light adds something to the pictures, capture the atmosphere and mood during the ceremony much better. Also using a big aperture help you eliminate distracting backrounds by focusing on the couple. Hope this helps and good luck.
Edit: I only noticed after replying that you also have a DRebel at hand . What I would do if I were you is have both cameras on you and mount the 50mm on the DRebel and put the 28-135 on the 20D since it can handle a little more noise. That way you should be able to quickly switch between the cameras and get the best results.
Originally posted by mariomel:
I am attending my brother-in-law's wedding on Saturday, and have been asked to take photos before, and during the ceremony, which will be taking place in a museum. The before shots are no problem since they will be at the bride's home, but the ceremony shots will be indoors (museum) and they have told me that the museum prohibits the use of flash, in order to protect the life of the artwork.
I'm freaking out! Here's the gear I own. I'd love reccomendations on what to use to get best results:
20D
DRebel
17-40 f/4 L
28-135 IS USM
70-200 f/4 L
50 1.8
420EX flash w/ Omnibounce (CAN'T USE IT FOR CEREMONY)
I was going to use the 28-135, mainly because I did not want to have to swtich lenses, and wanted versatility in range. But now I'm thinking that might not be best, since it will only give me f/5.6 at the higher focal lengths. I know I can use ISO 1600 or 3200 but would rather not.
What would you do if you were me? |
Message edited by author 2004-11-26 05:30:44. |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 07:44:24 AM · #10 |
Most wedding venues don't allow flash during the ceremony. That's one reason why fast f2.8 zooms are so popular with wedding photographers.
I'd shoot with the 50mm and do what you need to do to get the shots.
You might also consider renting a couple of fast zooms, the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8IS are quite popular with wedding photographers.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 08:07:03 AM · #11 |
I have no idea what to tell you -- but instead of just going there hoping you're doing things right, why not explain to the museum what you're doing (a wedding shoot there) and bring your gear with you now. The lighting in the place should be the same now as it will be the day you guys are there -- bring a friend and do some test shots with various setups? Then see what turned out the best now before you possibly ruin the wedding photos?
:-D |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 10:04:28 AM · #12 |
tripod tripod tripod for the ceremony.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 10:20:23 AM · #13 |
Thanks to all for the advice. I should have mentioned that I had already planned a visit to the museum, to get a sense of what I will be dealing with. I'm going in a couple of hours.
The wedding will be taking place, indoors, at night, so natural light won't come into play, unfortunately.
I know that the 50mm 1.8 will give me the best shutter speeds at lower ISO, but I find the 50mm will be very limiting. I don't want to be too conspicuous, as I'm not the main photographer, but will be for the ceremony, as the main photographer is in the wedding party.
I think the suggestion of 2 cameras, one with 50mm 1.8 and other with 28-135 IS is my best option. I was hopping to use the 70-200 f/4 to get nice closeups, without being on the stage with the wedding couple, but I guess I'll see after I've seen the lighting setup at the museum.
Thanks to all for the input.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 11:09:05 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by mariomel:
Thanks to all for the advice. I should have mentioned that I had already planned a visit to the museum, to get a sense of what I will be dealing with. I'm going in a couple of hours.
The wedding will be taking place, indoors, at night, so natural light won't come into play, unfortunately.
I know that the 50mm 1.8 will give me the best shutter speeds at lower ISO, but I find the 50mm will be very limiting. I don't want to be too conspicuous, as I'm not the main photographer, but will be for the ceremony, as the main photographer is in the wedding party.
I think the suggestion of 2 cameras, one with 50mm 1.8 and other with 28-135 IS is my best option. I was hopping to use the 70-200 f/4 to get nice closeups, without being on the stage with the wedding couple, but I guess I'll see after I've seen the lighting setup at the museum.
Thanks to all for the input. |
Well in that case try to shoot RAW to be able to adjust the white balance correctly later, unless you are 110% sure you have the right WB set. Good luck, hope you don´t forget to have fun while shooting the wedding, I at least enjoy the experience. |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 11:12:56 AM · #15 |
Shoot in RAW, it'll give you a better exposure latitude in post-processing. The IS is going to be a big help, for sure.
See if you can't rent an 85 1.2L for the ceremony. It'll get you back a bit from the proceedings and give you great wide-open shots as well.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 11:13:44 AM · #16 |
DON'T PANIC.
This is where your professionalism (fake it if you have to ;-) comes in. You have to tell the couple outright that the shots won't be their 'dream' images due to the dark museum not allowing flash photographer. It's not your fault and they have no choice but to accept this is a fact. It happens to me at 75% of my weddings. The couple chose the venue, they have to deal with less-than-ideal photos.
Do your best. Don't spend hours worrying about lenses and all that. Use a bit higher ISO like 400 and use the lowest shutter speed and aperture allowed by the lens you're comfy with without being blurry.
No worries! It happens ALL the time. |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 12:04:22 PM · #17 |
Urm, to me professionalism doesn't involve blaming the client for crappy pictures. Doesn't strike me as quite the right attitude to bring along.
Wedding shots have been taken forever in lighting where flash isn't allowed - churches are just as bad as museums in this respect. Amazingly enough, occasional good pictures get taken, without blaming the bride and groom for the results.
A Tripod will help, really fast film would help (this is where the pushed 3200 ISO shots really shine) Image stablisation will help a little bit, but not a whole lot - it really needs shutter speed to stop the people, IS doesn't help at all there.
Fast lenses, on a stable base will let you get some creative, attractive shots. Certainly going there before hand and shooting, working out options, angles, available lighting and trying out your lenses on/ off tripod will get your mind in the space. To me, that would be bringing the professionalism to the event - pre planning and experience will pay off big time. Don't just assume the results will be mediocre and out of your control - otherwise they will be.
Message edited by author 2004-11-26 12:07:36. |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 12:09:34 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Urm, to me professionalism doesn't involve blaming the client for crappy pictures. Doesn't strike me as quite the right attitude to bring along.
|
Urm, you didn't understand.
Don't say "It's your own damn fault..so like..whatever" but be honest instead of just panicking. Tell them it poses problems for ANY photographer but you'll still do the best you can with the circumstances given. Like..okay?
lol |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 12:20:38 PM · #19 |
A tripod isn't going to stop action any more than IS will...and a tripod has the disadvantage of being less portable. Still, I agree that a tripod is useful in this situation. It's not like the average wedding ceremony has dance choreography. Quite often the subjects are almost perfectly still.
The Rebel on a tripod with a wireless remote would be a nice thing to have in addition to the 20D off the tripod with the IS lens. Best of both worlds...
Originally posted by Gordon:
A Tripod will help, really fast film would help (this is where the pushed 3200 ISO shots really shine) Image stablisation will help a little bit, but not a whole lot - it really needs shutter speed to stop the people, IS doesn't help at all there. |
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 04:13:33 PM · #20 |
I just came back from visiting the museum. Man is it dark! And really small!
Here is a sample image, taken with the 17-40 @ ISO 3200 and f/4, I neat imaged, and resized: 
I brought most of my gear (for some strange reason, I forgot my 50 1.8!?), so I tried with what I had, mostly my 17-40 L and 28-135 IS. The room is not big enough to need the 70-200.
The 17 end of my lens gave me pretty good coverage of the overall room, but I was only able to get mostly 1/15 - 1/30 s at f/4 and ISO 3200! I managed 1 test shot at ISO 800, f/4 1/13 s , by underexposing the shot by 1 stop. My thinking is I can correct exposure in RAW conversion. Is this a good idea? I kind of want the 17-40 since the room is small, I need the 17 to get it all in.
The 50mm 1.8 is a good option, but the 1.8 is pretty soft. I'd probably run it at 2.8 to get a little more sharpness.
Thanks to all of you for your valuable information.
Message edited by author 2004-11-26 16:17:15.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 04:22:27 PM · #21 |
In an environment like that you're going to need all the aperture you can get. Underexposing and bringing it up in RAW conversion is a prescription for disaster when combined with high ISO. Yes, even with the 20D. bringing it up a little is OK but if you bring it up a lot, the noise in the shadows will be awful. Try it indoors at home and see.
I'd take the 50/1.8, shoot at f/2.0, and for a little reach you may want to think about renting the 135 f/2.0. The 17-40 should cover you for those whole-room shots; since you'll be less worried about slight subject motion you can use a little slower shutter speed.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 04:27:44 PM · #22 |
Mario,
I'm not a wedding photographer so I'm not sure how well all of this will carry over:
By shooting in RAW mode, you'll be working with a 12-bit rather than an 8-bit image. Having more data per pixel means more versatility, and you should be able to run at about 1 stop under and still produce quality images. Watch your histograms carefully and adjust as needed.
I don't think the softness of the 1.8 will be a serious concern for this type of photography. Your "need for speed" will probably trump softness issues, and that extra speed at f/1.8 might prove too valuable to give up.
If you have a monopod available, it might be worthwhile to have with you. It could be useful in tight spaces where setting up the tripod is impossible or impractical but you need that extra bit of stability. The tripod is of course a must for your setup shots, good lighting or no.
Good luck!
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-11-26 16:28:15.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 04:36:51 PM · #23 |
Mariomel, that shot looks amazing..you really captured the ambience.
I never have time to set up shots like that during weddings..it's usually go go go! Did you have to use a tripod? For 3200 is looks really good (I know you Neat Imaged, but still..). Great work! I wish you luck and hope you can replicate it on the big day! We have every confidence you will.....
Message edited by author 2004-11-26 16:37:24. |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 04:38:40 PM · #24 |
The 50mm f/1.8 will be about 85mm on your camera, which seems to be a very popular focal length for weddings. I would stick with f/2-f/2.8 and the lowest ISO that will still allow you a shutter speed of 1/60 or higher. Definitely shoot RAW so you can fix white balance, but still set a custom white balance in the camera so it's easier to generate proof images.
Shooting with a fixed length may not be as bad as you expect. Once you adjust to that field of view you will be able to visualize the image and position yourself quickly.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2004 04:38:55 PM · #25 |
Hi-ho,
If you can, you might want to look into renting a 24-70 F/2.8L at ISO800 on the 20D you'll get pretty good images with that lens wide open, if you stick to the comments about shooting raw from clubjuggle...
Just a thought.. (And if you can't rent one, buy one, use it for the wedding, then post it to me. :-) ).
|
|
