Hello,
I'm an SF-based wedding photographer. I've been dealt with almost every lighting situation possible, but I'm still really curious as to what other photographers do in low-light situations.
I usually tend to shy away from using my speedlite flash as much as possible -- if I do I use a lumiquest softbox diffuser... but I'm looking for other alternatives... Do you use any special technique to achieve a nice photo without ruining it with flash? I shoot with a canon 30D and a f/2.8L 24-70 lens the majority of the time... the lens is really fast which helps...
Looking forward to hearing your answers/suggestions!
2007-10-17 10:08:34 · 9 answers · asked by kirabee 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
Given the circumstances there are two options to archive the result you desire.
Option 1: Already mention by a knowledgeable and helpful poster on using expensive wide open lens.
Option 2: Using high ISO with the lens you already own. Noise will definitely be a concern at ISO 800-1600 but to compromise in not using a flash that leaves you with no other alternative. To work around the noise issue you will have a little extra work on post processing the photos. Make sure you shoot in RAW were the images contains more information and can withstand adjustments much better. Run your first pass through your RAW software then process the photos using a noise reduction software such as Noise Ninja or Nik Dfine. The results are very acceptable. Give it a try, Nik offer a trial version.
http://www.niksoftware.com/dfine/usa/entry.php
2007-10-18 03:20:28 · answer #1 · answered by Peter 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Low Light Wedding Photography Tips
2016-12-16 11:22:00 · answer #2 · answered by jaquelyn 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a pro, but I can tell you that the best way to get those extra couple of stops in shutter speed is to utilize your high ISO capabililty of 1600, and NOT a faster lens. Your lens is already pretty quick in it's aperture. It seems a bit high and yes noise is a concern but it usually doesn't look too bad in print form. If you shy away from using artificial light to be less intrusive it's the best way to go, but if that isn't a concern then a speedlite fired off camera from a strategically placed stand with an umbrella reflector, or bare with a diffuser is a way to get some great diffuse light, and almost unavoidable. Setting a custom white balance for indoors is also a good way to maintain a proper color temperature and if you do end up using a strobe, be sure to gel it properly to cut a bit of the harshness of the light. Just a suggestion, I hope it helps.
2007-10-17 12:22:41 · answer #3 · answered by Joe Schmo Photo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't recommend going to the expense of investing in a f1.2 lens as it is hardly justified for those rare occasions when 2 additional shutter speed stops are needed. You would have to shoot a whole bunch of weddings at no profit before you would pay that bill off.
What I have done since I went digital, is use the same lens you are using and set my ISO all the way to1600. There are few lighting situations that won't work at that setting.
I also go to the church beforehand and make a test using the lighting scheduled for the occasion, and make tests to ensure no hassles during the wedding.
2007-10-17 10:55:10 · answer #4 · answered by Lou 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I specialize in low light photography - ie. concerts, theatre, wedding cerimonies in churches, etc. The best way to do this is set your camera to a higher ISO. Now, you will probably think it's not a good idea because of the noise issue with high iso but I assure you, even though it looks really bad on a computer screen, even at ISO 1600, it's perfectly fine when printed.
Do this experiment:
set your camera on a tripod and focus on a stationary scene. Take a series of images at different ISO's. 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1600. Then get them printed at a photolab. You will notice iso 100 - 800 look almost identical. ISO 1600 will have stuff all difference. So this is safe to shoot at high ISO's.
2007-10-19 04:16:31 · answer #5 · answered by Piano Man 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Try the Canon EF 85mm f1.2 (yes, one point two) II USM AF lens. Now that's a FAST lens.
Back in the day, Canon offered a 50mm f1.0 lens. Now very rare and very very expensive.
2007-10-17 10:39:36 · answer #6 · answered by EDWIN 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Tripod, higher ISO, dragging the shutter, and a 50mm f/1.4 when necessary. I am hoping to get a noct lens soon, should be a way interesting portrait lens :-)
2007-10-17 14:58:18 · answer #7 · answered by Ara57 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Becoming A Better Photographer?
2016-07-14 10:03:55 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1
2017-02-10 02:45:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋