| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/06/2005 11:34:04 PM · #1 |
I've been doing wedding videography for quite a while now but since I've been practicing photography for a while now, I'm thinking about adding wedding photography to part of my services. What is the minimum or recommended equipment that you wedding photographers are using?
Thanks! |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 02:52:28 AM · #2 |
This is what I had in my bag when I shot weddings (I shot a lot of other stuff too, and this was back in the dark ages before digital)
2 Nikon F3HP bodies w/ Motordrives
28-85 zoom
80-200 zoom think it was a 4-5.6, but I remeber it being pretty slow.
SB-16 flash, flash bracket and a Quantum battery pack
50mm 1.8 Nikkor
105 1.8 Nikkor
30-40 rolls of VPS 160 film
We also used studio strobe w umbrellas for the formal shots, but some people don't like doing those as much anymore.
I looked at your profile and saw what gear you have, I think you certainly have most of what you would need. Couple of things to keep in mind:
You need a backup body. You may NEVER actually need your backup body, I never did, but I was glad to have it.
The only other thing might be a 70-200 f2.8 I never had one, but I think I would have used it a lot. If you don't want to get the Canon, Sigma makes a decent one, Tamron prolly does too.
I just noticed that you live in Santa Clarita. I grew up in Newhall, right off of Lyons Ave and went to High School at Hart HS. Haven't been back for a couple of years, but last time I was out there, WOW has it gotten developed. I remember when the mall was onion fields.
Anyway, good luck with the wedding photog stuff.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 03:05:29 AM · #3 |
| I can only echo spazmo's comments. A second body is essential, as are heaps of batteries, an eraser pencil useful for cleaning terminals.also I carry a needle and invisible cotton. had a couple of patch ups at weddings and a small torch(flashlight) |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 10:41:52 AM · #4 |
| Thanks for your comments. From reading spazmo99's comments, it looks like I should get a battery pack for my 550ex flash. Also, a backup body (damn that's the expensive part.) I guess I might just wait to buy the 20D body in the near future and use my 10D as the backup body. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 11:01:40 AM · #5 |
Battery packs are awesome, I have two that fortunately share the same connection cable.
A second body doesn't have to be expensive, you can opt for a cheaper (but still good) film body that will still accept all your equipment. We were discussing that a while back.
Good luck :-)
I'm not sure if there are more lawyers or wedding photographers in the world right now. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 12:16:46 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I'm not sure if there are more lawyers or wedding photographers in the world right now. |
I'm on my way to being one (part time anyway) as well, not that I really want to. I've done a couple for friends and family (n/c), and now the word is spreading that I can do it. A friend's sister has just asked me to shoot her wedding this summer. For money! Wow! I'm not really well equiped for it, at least not in fast lenses and quick flashes anyway. I've got the bodies, but just really need faster glass.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 12:22:59 PM · #7 |
hey Mario, no worries about the fast glass, you can work around. A slow flash might really suck though. My 550 has caused me problems lately with not recycling fast enough and that's a fast flash.
Good luck :-) |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 12:46:43 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
hey Mario, no worries about the fast glass, you can work around. A slow flash might really suck though. My 550 has caused me problems lately with not recycling fast enough and that's a fast flash.
Good luck :-) |
I have only a 420EX, which really doesn't recycle fast enough, and doesn't let the flash go unless it's fully charged. Lost a very important shot at the last wedding because of it.
At the last wedding I shot, I used mostly my 17-40 f/4 L, just because I wanted mostly wide shots to include as much as possible and because it was a small room. I shot many with no flash, but had to push the ISo to 3200 on most of those shots, and I was shooting down at 1/15 sec. I had to post process (Neatimage) all of those. Faster glass would get me down to ISO 800 or so, which should be much more workable.
I'm probably just going to look at getting a fast prime lens at around 20 or 24mm. The Sigma 20mm 1.8 is supposed to be very good and quite sharp wide open. Anybody use this lens?
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 01:01:53 PM · #9 |
| I have the 550ex flash and it recycles pretty fast for me. For formals i'd probably bring one of my Hensel Integra 500ws monolights. BUT, why would you be shooting with a wide angle lens at a wedding? I would think you would want tighter shots instead of wide ones. I'd probably use my Tamron 28-75 2.8 depending where I was able to stand during the wedding. I've seen wedding photographers with 2 camera's with 2 different size lenses which makes sense to me. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 01:16:07 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by mariomel:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
hey Mario, no worries about the fast glass, you can work around. A slow flash might really suck though. My 550 has caused me problems lately with not recycling fast enough and that's a fast flash.
Good luck :-) |
I have only a 420EX, which really doesn't recycle fast enough, and doesn't let the flash go unless it's fully charged. Lost a very important shot at the last wedding because of it.
At the last wedding I shot, I used mostly my 17-40 f/4 L, just because I wanted mostly wide shots to include as much as possible and because it was a small room. I shot many with no flash, but had to push the ISo to 3200 on most of those shots, and I was shooting down at 1/15 sec. I had to post process (Neatimage) all of those. Faster glass would get me down to ISO 800 or so, which should be much more workable.
I'm probably just going to look at getting a fast prime lens at around 20 or 24mm. The Sigma 20mm 1.8 is supposed to be very good and quite sharp wide open. Anybody use this lens? |
If you shoot people with a wide lens, you'll get unflattering distortion, especially if you get up close. Aside from architectural shot of the church interior, a group in a place where you can't back up any more or using the distortion as a special effect, I just can't see using anything much wider than 35mm unless the wedding is in the church's broom closet.
Message edited by author 2005-01-07 13:17:18.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 01:27:49 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by photomayhem:
I BUT, why would you be shooting with a wide angle lens at a wedding? I would think you would want tighter shots instead of wide ones. |
I agree, I was forced to take some wider shots last week at a wedding and ended up cropping most of them - much to my dismay.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 02:07:07 PM · #12 |
The room was tiny. Here is an example: 
The other shots can be seen here: //www.mariomelillo.com/NadineandTim
This is about half the size of the full room. There was also another room, about the size you see in this shot.
Out of 180 or so shots, almost 100 were shot under 28mm. I only used my 28-135 IS for about a dozen shots or so, during the ceremony, seeing as I did not want to get in their face.
Perhaps this was not a typical wedding space, so I'm perhaps making assumptions based on an atypical situation.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 02:27:37 PM · #13 |
That's a beautiful shot..and yea, I can see how the wide angle helped out a lot.
So do tell what equipment you used and what settings for that particular shot??!!! Did you use a tripod? It looks realyl really clear for that light. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 02:36:19 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
That's a beautiful shot..and yea, I can see how the wide angle helped out a lot.
So do tell what equipment you used and what settings for that particular shot??!!! Did you use a tripod? It looks realyl really clear for that light. |
Thanks Lori. Here's the data:
20D
17-40 f/4 L @ 17mm
1/30 sec
f/4
ISO 3200
AV mode
-2/3 exposure compensation to get decent shutter speed.
No tripod.
Custom WB
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 02:41:02 PM · #15 |
Can you explain this part "-2/3 exposure compensation to get decent shutter speed. ". I'm not familiar with exposure compensation.
But okay, ISO 3200 explains a lot!!! I thought maybe I was doing something seriously wrong, but yea, 3200 on the 17-40L is pretty clean.
Thanks :-) |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 03:56:42 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Can you explain this part "-2/3 exposure compensation to get decent shutter speed. ". I'm not familiar with exposure compensation.
But okay, ISO 3200 explains a lot!!! I thought maybe I was doing something seriously wrong, but yea, 3200 on the 17-40L is pretty clean.
Thanks :-) |
On the camera there is an option for over or under exposing an image. On the Canon 300D, one can move up or down two full stops of exposure.
I have found, after being advised such, that underexposed shots can end up being far better than nominal or overexposed shots due to all of the visual data that can be captured in RAW data files. It ends up being easier to bring out more detail in an underexposed shot then it is to bring back blown out detail from an overexposed shot.
Underexposing simply speeds up the shutterspeed allowing less light through. With the lighting conditions in that shot, I can imagine that the camera would have wanted to expose the shot closer to 1/5th of a second or even slower yet at the nominal exposure setting. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 04:34:18 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
I have found, after being advised such, that underexposed shots can end up being far better than nominal or overexposed shots due to all of the visual data that can be captured in RAW data files. |
I think you may have been advised wrong; it is always better to "expose to the right" (get the histogram as far to the right as possible without overexposing) than it is to "underexpose". You lose all shadow detail when you underexpose. See this recent thread for some links on "Exposing to the Right".
Message edited by author 2005-01-07 16:35:06. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 04:45:42 PM · #18 |
I want to agree with EddyG on the exposure. I had a discussion with someone whose work I admire, and misunderstood a comment he made, and spent an entire day exposing to the left. When I shopped them properly, a lot of the images came out grainy. I posted two of them in my profile section - the dam and Trail Lake.
Expose to the right, unless there's particularly bright areas in which you want to capture detail. Then adjust accordingly. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 05:02:43 PM · #19 |
Curses! Foiled yet again by my limited experience!
Eh, at least I have been afforded this opportunity to once again raise my glass and drink from the well of knowledge.
Thank you EddyG.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:18:29 PM · #20 |
For the original question:
When I shot weddings I used an RB-67 with a Metz CT45 flash. A superior flash. I used two Photogenic 600 flash heads with umbrellas, which could cover any group, no matter how large. For portrait sessions, one sufficed in a glamour position. Rarely used a backdrop, unless I couldn't talk the client out of it *sigh*. They're a hassle and boring. A good window shot is tons better. I also carried a Nikon 8008 as a backup, and a Nikon EM with B&W film. Tripod, of course, and sections of styrofoam as reflectors. (I used to drive a Suburban, and it was generally a mobile studio *grin*). Pins, tape, ductape, extension cords, hairspray, bobby pins, a selection of filters in their normal box (everything was stored in a carrying case so I could grab and go). |
|
|
|
01/14/2005 07:18:58 PM · #21 |
| One option is to hire/rent a camera body for the day of the wedding. It's a lot more affordable than buying a camera and you get the option of having the EXACT same model back as a back-up. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 01:39:23 PM EDT.
