People No Flash + High ISO + Wedding Photojournalism = Awesome

No Flash + High ISO + Wedding Photojournalism = Awesome · 06:41 PM

I had the privilege to shoot a wedding this weekend. Here's a sneak peek image taken under ambient light.

I'm personally a great big fan of wedding photojournalism. I refuse to use flash unless absolutely necessary (and I really stretch the definition of what is).

Barnster · 07-03-2012, 06:45 PM

It gives a different look at things.I don't mind it at all.Well done!!

**luftfluss** · 07-03-2012, 07:10 PM

It's OK, I wouldn't call it "awesome", though.

Many (most?) wedding photographers won't use flash during the ceremony, and some won't use flash during the reception, either.

Tricktech · 07-03-2012, 08:08 PM

I hate to make my presence "felt" during any part of the ceremony or reception. I guess I want to capture, not engineer. The wedding photojournalism approach seems to be the preferred style these days and that pretty much mandates you get creative about lighting.

I really like your shot. Shows to me that you are keeping your eyes open and grabbing the shots that offer themselves up. In the days of film, that's the kind of shot you might have passed on because you didn't have the sensitivity for it, or didn't want to wa$te the film.

**MSL** · 07-03-2012, 08:22 PM

I shot an engagement party a few months ago that was also being captured by another friend of the family. She was using flash, and for the most part I didn't. I so enjoyed being able to take a sequence of photos without having the guests know who I was shooting or how many shots were taken. And I think they appreciated not being blinded all the time. The only time I used the flash was for a few group shots where I felt I needed it in order to capture everyone, but those weren't my best shots..

**Canada_Rockies** · 07-03-2012, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Tricktech

I hate to make my presence "felt" during any part of the ceremony or reception. I guess I want to capture, not engineer. The wedding photojournalism approach seems to be the preferred style these days and that pretty much mandates you get creative about lighting.

I really like your shot. Shows to me that you are keeping your eyes open and grabbing the shots that offer themselves up. In the days of film, that's the kind of shot you might have passed on because you didn't have the sensitivity for it, or didn't want to wa$te the film.

My most difficult shoot was in a church that did not allow cameras in the church proper. I was in the "cry room" in the balcony with my A 70-210/4 on my KX (note - no hyphen) with Ilford SP2 film in the camera which was mounted on my trusty three legged friend Manfrotto.

For those who aren't familiar with the Ilford SP1 and 2, it's a black and white chromogenic film (c41 process) that can be used from ISO 50 to 1200 on the same roll. Pretty well grainless up to about ISO 200, and a lot less grainy than pushing Tri-X to 1200 would have been. The client was happy to have the pictures, so I was happy, too.

mischivo · 07-04-2012, 07:47 AM

Canada Rockies, that's an interesting story. Have any other battle tales to share?

On the subject of wedding photojournalism: these days, it's a popular style amongst photographers in terms of a marketing buzzword. However, visit any of their online portfolios and you'll find that the majority feature and promote their posed work: the photography that more often than not looks to be emulating a small fashion or editorial shoot (but with uglier models).

On the subject of flash, on a few occasions I've had the opportunity to work with the main photographer from one of the top ten studios in Toronto. He does the posed work. He also does the candid work. I recall in one very bright church, he did not use flash. I also know that whenever lighting is subdued, he really pulls a 360 and sets up a huge studio strobe somewhere in the corner of the hall to either side of bride and groom, and just blasts that thing into anything white or neutral as a bounce. Repeatedly. Granted, the effect looks good for what it is, but I can't imagine it not being distracting. During receptions, he'll either continue to use the giant strobe, or slide a CTO filter onto his on-camera speed-light and bounce that off the ceiling for candids. His work is good, trendy, and sellable; I understand why he's one of the busiest studios in the city.

Then there is another photographer I recently saw in action as a guest at a wedding. He charges in the upper end as far as Toronto goes. He also has a very distinct style that I have not seen any other local photographer emulate—and it happens to be awful. The skin tones are almost always too cold. He uses some sort of software soft-focus filter on every image on his website (and the images I saw he took for my friends). And he Photochops everyone's skin to look like porcelain. Now porcelain-like skin works well as a metaphor in literature, but actually seeing it in an image is eerie. My friend complained about looking ghost-like in her engagement photos. Aside from his questionable post-processing aesthetic, this photographer also chooses to shoot almost everything with direct on-camera speed-light flash. Sometimes he adds off-camera flash to his repertoire, but it's always direct. During the end of the night, he managed to clear the dance floor by constantly firing his multiple strobes directly at the bride and groom while we were dancing. I'm assuming everyone fled because they couldn't tolerate the constant strobes and subsequent after-images in their eyes.

Last edited by mischivo; 07-04-2012 at 10:43 AM.

**Canada_Rockies** · 07-04-2012, 08:24 AM

Pavel, that last paragraph is a horror story! I agree one hundred percent with your comment on the "porcelain skin" look. Even in the ads for the correction software, I think it is horribly overdone. Yeah, get rid of the zits if you can, but at least leave the wedding party with photos that look like them. The only time I ever use direct on camera flash is for "shake and grin" newspaper shots - and then I only use it if there is no way to get the shot without doing it.

Your asked about other battle tales. I have one cautionary tale to tell, much to my personal embarrassment. I was using the old KX again, and forgot to set the shutter to "X" for the first half roll of the bride dressing. Nice white ceiling for bounce flash, but I think my face is still red from that one! My wallet was a bit slimmer, too, justifiably. You can't sell a picture that is only half there. I do really appreciate the LCD. I use it for checking the first few shots for exposure. Blinkies on, of course.

I don't do weddings any more. Too stressful for an old man.

I like your style as shown on your site. I've bookmarked it for future look see.

mischivo · 07-04-2012, 10:42 AM

Is it awful that I enjoy reading about wedding photography horror stories? There are a few threads about the same over on photo.net. They're very addictive as stories themselves, especially when the photographer is also a decent writer. But I mainly read them for, as you mentioned, caution.

**Canada_Rockies** · 07-04-2012, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by mischivo

Is it awful that I enjoy reading about wedding photography horror stories? There are a few threads about the same over on photo.net. They're very addictive as stories themselves, especially when the photographer is also a decent writer. But I mainly read them for, as you mentioned, caution.

No, it is not awful. It is human nature to worry about something that is important to someone, such as the wedding day. There is only one chance to get it right, no second takes. That is quite stressful, not to mention tiring. To do a wedding that you can be satisfied with the results is a lot of work, before, during and after.

Every now and then you receive a comment that makes it all worthwhile. I shot a wedding some years back and they requested a 16x20 print of a shot taken on the local golf course. The lab first printed the wrong negative, so I re-ordered the print. I saw the groom a couple of years ago and mentioned that I had just seen the print that was incorrect (pack rat). He told me she had died at 41 from cancer. He also said he looked at that 16x20 print every day to remember the good days. I cried.

**Sailor** · 07-04-2012, 09:21 PM

I love it! It suggests a secret shared between two people, almost a conspiratorial feel. I think you did a very nice job with this unusual and curious photo. And a satisfying departure from the usual turgid wedding shots.

Jer

**MSL** · 07-10-2012, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Sailor

I love it! It suggests a secret shared between two people, almost a conspiratorial feel. I think you did a very nice job with this unusual and curious photo. And a satisfying departure from the usual turgid wedding shots. Jer

+1 to that comment. I never gave my views about the photo - just shooting without flash - but I think this is a special capture that will be appreciate more than many of the staged photos.

mischivo
	View full profile
	Contact via private message
	Find other posts by mischivo
	Find threads started by mischivo
	Find threads in which mischivo has posted

07-03-2012, 08:08 PM	#4
Tricktech Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Appleton, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 121	Flashless... I hate to make my presence "felt" during any part of the ceremony or reception. I guess I want to capture, not engineer. The wedding photojournalism approach seems to be the preferred style these days and that pretty much mandates you get creative about lighting. I really like your shot. Shows to me that you are keeping your eyes open and grabbing the shots that offer themselves up. In the days of film, that's the kind of shot you might have passed on because you didn't have the sensitivity for it, or didn't want to wa$te the film.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Auto ISO with ext flash defaults to high?	wutsurstyle	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	14	07-29-2011 11:41 AM
Flash or High ISO	jellyfish26	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	05-17-2011 10:35 PM
Example of AF, DR, high ISO and high shutter speed on K-5	benisona	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	11-30-2010 02:25 PM
K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO	supa007	Pentax DSLR Discussion	72	05-10-2010 04:24 PM
K10D - why the High ISO with flash?	loganross	Pentax DSLR Discussion	42	02-16-2007 05:47 PM

07-03-2012, 06:45 PM	#2
Barnster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Mid North Coast,Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,016	It gives a different look at things.I don't mind it at all.Well done!!

07-03-2012, 07:10 PM	#3
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,627	It's OK, I wouldn't call it "awesome", though. Many (most?) wedding photographers won't use flash during the ceremony, and some won't use flash during the reception, either.

07-03-2012, 08:22 PM	#5
MSL Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Greater Toronto Area Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,756	I shot an engagement party a few months ago that was also being captured by another friend of the family. She was using flash, and for the most part I didn't. I so enjoyed being able to take a sequence of photos without having the guests know who I was shooting or how many shots were taken. And I think they appreciated not being blinded all the time. The only time I used the flash was for a few group shots where I felt I needed it in order to capture everyone, but those weren't my best shots..

07-03-2012, 09:36 PM	#6
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by Tricktech I hate to make my presence "felt" during any part of the ceremony or reception. I guess I want to capture, not engineer. The wedding photojournalism approach seems to be the preferred style these days and that pretty much mandates you get creative about lighting. I really like your shot. Shows to me that you are keeping your eyes open and grabbing the shots that offer themselves up. In the days of film, that's the kind of shot you might have passed on because you didn't have the sensitivity for it, or didn't want to wa$te the film. My most difficult shoot was in a church that did not allow cameras in the church proper. I was in the "cry room" in the balcony with my A 70-210/4 on my KX (note - no hyphen) with Ilford SP2 film in the camera which was mounted on my trusty three legged friend Manfrotto. For those who aren't familiar with the Ilford SP1 and 2, it's a black and white chromogenic film (c41 process) that can be used from ISO 50 to 1200 on the same roll. Pretty well grainless up to about ISO 200, and a lot less grainy than pushing Tri-X to 1200 would have been. The client was happy to have the pictures, so I was happy, too.

07-04-2012, 07:47 AM	#7
mischivo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Toronto Posts: 397 Original Poster	Canada Rockies, that's an interesting story. Have any other battle tales to share? On the subject of wedding photojournalism: these days, it's a popular style amongst photographers in terms of a marketing buzzword. However, visit any of their online portfolios and you'll find that the majority feature and promote their posed work: the photography that more often than not looks to be emulating a small fashion or editorial shoot (but with uglier models). On the subject of flash, on a few occasions I've had the opportunity to work with the main photographer from one of the top ten studios in Toronto. He does the posed work. He also does the candid work. I recall in one very bright church, he did not use flash. I also know that whenever lighting is subdued, he really pulls a 360 and sets up a huge studio strobe somewhere in the corner of the hall to either side of bride and groom, and just blasts that thing into anything white or neutral as a bounce. Repeatedly. Granted, the effect looks good for what it is, but I can't imagine it not being distracting. During receptions, he'll either continue to use the giant strobe, or slide a CTO filter onto his on-camera speed-light and bounce that off the ceiling for candids. His work is good, trendy, and sellable; I understand why he's one of the busiest studios in the city. Then there is another photographer I recently saw in action as a guest at a wedding. He charges in the upper end as far as Toronto goes. He also has a very distinct style that I have not seen any other local photographer emulate—and it happens to be awful. The skin tones are almost always too cold. He uses some sort of software soft-focus filter on every image on his website (and the images I saw he took for my friends). And he Photochops everyone's skin to look like porcelain. Now porcelain-like skin works well as a metaphor in literature, but actually seeing it in an image is eerie. My friend complained about looking ghost-like in her engagement photos. Aside from his questionable post-processing aesthetic, this photographer also chooses to shoot almost everything with direct on-camera speed-light flash. Sometimes he adds off-camera flash to his repertoire, but it's always direct. During the end of the night, he managed to clear the dance floor by constantly firing his multiple strobes directly at the bride and groom while we were dancing. I'm assuming everyone fled because they couldn't tolerate the constant strobes and subsequent after-images in their eyes. Last edited by mischivo; 07-04-2012 at 10:43 AM.

07-04-2012, 08:24 AM	#8
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Pavel, that last paragraph is a horror story! I agree one hundred percent with your comment on the "porcelain skin" look. Even in the ads for the correction software, I think it is horribly overdone. Yeah, get rid of the zits if you can, but at least leave the wedding party with photos that look like them. The only time I ever use direct on camera flash is for "shake and grin" newspaper shots - and then I only use it if there is no way to get the shot without doing it. Your asked about other battle tales. I have one cautionary tale to tell, much to my personal embarrassment. I was using the old KX again, and forgot to set the shutter to "X" for the first half roll of the bride dressing. Nice white ceiling for bounce flash, but I think my face is still red from that one! My wallet was a bit slimmer, too, justifiably. You can't sell a picture that is only half there. I do really appreciate the LCD. I use it for checking the first few shots for exposure. Blinkies on, of course. I don't do weddings any more. Too stressful for an old man. I like your style as shown on your site. I've bookmarked it for future look see.

07-04-2012, 10:42 AM	#9
mischivo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Toronto Posts: 397 Original Poster	Is it awful that I enjoy reading about wedding photography horror stories? There are a few threads about the same over on photo.net. They're very addictive as stories themselves, especially when the photographer is also a decent writer. But I mainly read them for, as you mentioned, caution.

07-04-2012, 05:26 PM	#10
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by mischivo Is it awful that I enjoy reading about wedding photography horror stories? There are a few threads about the same over on photo.net. They're very addictive as stories themselves, especially when the photographer is also a decent writer. But I mainly read them for, as you mentioned, caution. No, it is not awful. It is human nature to worry about something that is important to someone, such as the wedding day. There is only one chance to get it right, no second takes. That is quite stressful, not to mention tiring. To do a wedding that you can be satisfied with the results is a lot of work, before, during and after. Every now and then you receive a comment that makes it all worthwhile. I shot a wedding some years back and they requested a 16x20 print of a shot taken on the local golf course. The lab first printed the wrong negative, so I re-ordered the print. I saw the groom a couple of years ago and mentioned that I had just seen the print that was incorrect (pack rat). He told me she had died at 41 from cancer. He also said he looked at that 16x20 print every day to remember the good days. I cried.

07-04-2012, 09:21 PM	#11
Sailor Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Coastal Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 26,203	I love it! It suggests a secret shared between two people, almost a conspiratorial feel. I think you did a very nice job with this unusual and curious photo. And a satisfying departure from the usual turgid wedding shots. Jer

07-10-2012, 03:20 PM	#12
MSL Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Greater Toronto Area Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,756	Originally posted by Sailor I love it! It suggests a secret shared between two people, almost a conspiratorial feel. I think you did a very nice job with this unusual and curious photo. And a satisfying departure from the usual turgid wedding shots. Jer +1 to that comment. I never gave my views about the photo - just shooting without flash - but I think this is a special capture that will be appreciate more than many of the staged photos.