Wedding - Sep 22, 2007

Scott_Quier

These are from a wedding (D'uh) I photographed two days before I departed for the Glacier Shootout. Just thought I would share.

As always, C&C is welcome/encouraged/solicited, etc - Thanks for looking.

1. The obligatory "gown in the window" photo


2. I kinda like this one - the bride, after she has finished getting ready, with Mom in the background, looking on.


3. We're still waiting for the start of the ceremony and, already, this little guy was just about all in.


4. Just a tender moment. I don't know who's child this is, but it's not the brides.


5. The bride and her father. Emotion was going strong, but the bride wouldn't let me get much of it.


6. A couple of groom's men looking on the last dance.


7. This one just touched me.

rustic

Very nice set Scott, as usual.

For #5, did you have multiple strobes set up? There seems to be lots of light coming from the left, but the shadows are all from the right. Just curious, having never shot a wedding:)

Scott_Quier

rustic wrote:

Very nice set Scott, as usual.

For #5, did you have multiple strobes set up? There seems to be lots of light coming from the left, but the shadows are all from the right. Just curious, having never shot a wedding:)

Actually, I have two lights set up in all the reception photos. Per suggestion from Shay Stephens, I have one in opposing corners of the room. This provides the opportunity for key light and a fill light in just about all places in the room. The only exception is 1/2 way between and on the line between the lights. There, you have 50/50 cross lighting.

Pixel Popper

As always, nice work, Scott. I have a question about the two lights you have set up in the corners. How are they set? Are they shining directly into the room? Are they bounced off the corners they are in? Are they bounced from umbrellas, and if so, what kind? Or are the lights shot through translucent umbrellas or other material?

Regarding distance from light to subject, what is the effective range of the gear you used?

Also, do you have the lights set to full power, above or below, or a mix? Were they activated by radio or light sensor, or hard wired? And finally, did you have any on-camera flash, as well, or solely rely on your lighting in the corners of the room?

Cuties02q

Very nice set...I love the first one and the last one

schmoo

Hi Scott! It's great to see that you got through your wedding obligations already. I really dig the first three, and the lighting and expression on the boy is priceless.

The shadows are little hard on the following three, particularly across the bottom right groomsman's face. I've never shot a full wedding myself before so I shouldn't talk, but I can imagine with so many people moving around it's impossible to prevent someone/'s appendage getting between your strobes and a subject.

The last one is just excellent. I love that you can just see the smile in her cheek, and her eye.

Scott_Quier

Pixel Popper wrote:

As always, nice work, Scott. I have a question about the two lights you have set up in the corners. How are they set? Are they shining directly into the room? Are they bounced off the corners they are in? Are they bounced from umbrellas, and if so, what kind? Or are the lights shot through translucent umbrellas or other material?

Regarding distance from light to subject, what is the effective range of the gear you used?

Also, do you have the lights set to full power, above or below, or a mix? Were they activated by radio or light sensor, or hard wired? And finally, did you have any on-camera flash, as well, or solely rely on your lighting in the corners of the room?

The lights are Sunpak 622 with the zoom head (here) powered by battery pack (here).

Per Shay Stephens, the lights are unmodiified, pointed directly at each other. Height is as high as they can go while still being lower than any low-hanging lights etc (shadows, doncha know). At the working distance from the lights, any modifier would be reduced to a near point source so there was no benefit to be gained from using such. Couldn't bounce off anything either...

Effective range? Well, that kinda depends on a number of things - wall/ceiling color, distance to walls/ceilings, ISO, aperture. Sunpak propganda claims a guide number of 200 for the flash units.

I was shooting in the range of f/2.8 to f/3.5, ISO 800. The flashes were set at the same power, either 1/16 or 1/32.

Lights were triggered with Pocket Wizards.

All lighting was supplied by a mix of ambient and the Sunpak strobes. See this thread (here) for some examples of mixing the light.

Scott_Quier

Cuties02q wrote:

Very nice set...I love the first one and the last one

Those are a couple of my favorites as well. Thanks for looking.

Scott_Quier

schmooo wrote:

Hi Scott! It's great to see that you got through your wedding obligations already. I really dig the first three, and the lighting and expression on the boy is priceless.

The shadows are little hard on the following three, particularly across the bottom right groomsman's face. I've never shot a full wedding myself before so I shouldn't talk, but I can imagine with so many people moving around it's impossible to prevent someone/'s appendage getting between your strobes and a subject.

The last one is just excellent. I love that you can just see the smile in her cheek, and her eye.

Hey Schmooo - Thanks for looking.

The lighting on the boy - well that was just sunlight bouncing around, I just tried to stay out of it's way.

rwells

Scott_Quier wrote:

The lights are Sunpak 622 with the zoom head (here) powered by battery pack (here).

Per Shay Stephens, the lights are unmodiified, pointed directly at each other. Height is as high as they can go while still being lower than any low-hanging lights etc (shadows, doncha know). At the working distance from the lights, any modifier would be reduced to a near point source so there was no benefit to be gained from using such. Couldn't bounce off anything either...

Effective range? Well, that kinda depends on a number of things - wall/ceiling color, distance to walls/ceilings, ISO, aperture. Sunpak propganda claims a guide number of 200 for the flash units.

I was shooting in the range of f/2.8 to f/3.5, ISO 800. The flashes were set at the same power, either 1/16 or 1/32.

Lights were triggered with Pocket Wizards.

All lighting was supplied by a mix of ambient and the Sunpak strobes. See this thread (here) for some examples of mixing the light.

Hey Scott,

I was waiting for your reply to Pixel's questions.

• About how far from the lights is the falloff, meaning, how far from them did the output become fairly consistent.

• Did you meter before hand around the room, so that you would have a good idea as to the light output in given areas? And, was there much variance in light output around the room?

• Were you shooting camera manual? I probably would have been, but just now wondering what would be the outcome if one was to shoot in TV, letting the camera meter set the aperture. Hmmm... Might be handy for times when lighting issues outweigh controlled DOF.

The pics look good, and thanks for the info.

Scott_Quier

rwells wrote:

Hey Scott,

I was waiting for your reply to Pixel's questions.

• About how far from the lights is the falloff, meaning, how far from them did the output become fairly consistent.
• Did you meter before hand around the room, so that you would have a good idea as to the light output in given areas? And, was there much variance in light output around the room?
• Were you shooting camera manual? I probably would have been, but just now wondering what would be the outcome if one was to shoot in TV, letting the camera meter set the aperture. Hmmm... Might be handy for times when lighting issues outweigh controlled DOF.

The pics look good, and thanks for the info.

Light fall-off is subject to the inverse-square law. Operationally speaking, the light was best from the dance floor to 1/2 way to the lights. Closer to the lights, it was a little strong.

I metered in the center of the dance floor and then adjusted my aperture as my subjects were closer to whichever was the main light. Not a lot, but a little. When I doubt, I chimped the histogram and, if needed, took another shot at a slightly different aperture. As long as I didn't blow things out, I was happy 'cause I could fine tune the exposure in ACR, dialing it back down if necessary.

When in-doors and with metered light, manual mode all the way. Because the camera and flashes were not communicating (I was using PWs to trigger the flashes, remember) the camera would just be way too confused to give anything even approximating a good exposure using any other mode. With this setup one can't use Tv mode because the camera would attempt to set the aperture to the existing light conditions, not those that would be there when the flashes fire.

rwells

Scott_Quier wrote:

When in-doors and with metered light, manual mode all the way. Because the camera and flashes were not communicating (I was using PWs to trigger the flashes, remember) the camera would just be way too confused to give anything even approximating a good exposure using any other mode. With this setup one can't use Tv mode because the camera would attempt to set the aperture to the existing light conditions, not those that would be there when the flashes fire.

What was I thinking???

Can we just ignore that I stated such an asinine thing.


I use strobes and pocket wizards all the time, sheez - brain fart!


Also, thanks for the other info.

Pixel Popper

Hey Scott,

One more set of questions, if you don't mind. I know you have a number of lenses in your bag of tricks, but which are the work-horses of your day when shooting weddings? I am going to make a purchase in the next week or two, and I was wondering, if you had to choose only one or two lenses for your entire coverage, which ones would you bring to the event?

Thanks,

-Howard

schmoo

Pixel Popper wrote:

Hey Scott,

One more set of questions, if you don't mind. I know you have a number of lenses in your bag of tricks, but which are the work-horses of your day when shooting weddings? I am going to make a purchase in the next week or two, and I was wondering, if you had to choose only one or two lenses for your entire coverage, which ones would you bring to the event?

Thanks,

-Howard

Hmm. Having to shoot a wedding next month I wil second Howard's questions. I've been doing a ton of research in my spare time to narrow my choices down but I'm not coming up with anything and would love to hear recommendations from someone who does it pro.

Scott_Quier

Pixel Popper wrote:

Hey Scott,

One more set of questions, if you don't mind. I know you have a number of lenses in your bag of tricks, but which are the work-horses of your day when shooting weddings? I am going to make a purchase in the next week or two, and I was wondering, if you had to choose only one or two lenses for your entire coverage, which ones would you bring to the event?

Thanks,

-Howard

I'm enormously flattered that you consider my opinion to be worth something. I do believe, however, that this is a question better posed in the Camera forum - it'll get more and better exposure there.

So, I created a thread there, edited the the questions to make them more anonymous, added my answer, and asked others to chime in with their opinion.

That thread is here.

evoryware

Hello Scott,

I really like #5 and 4.
My question is are the lights on light stands?

Scott_Quier

evoryware wrote:

Hello Scott,

I really like #5 and 4.
My question is are the lights on light stands?

Yes, as high up as possible while still below any low-hanging objects - like chandeliers.

urbanaries

Scott, i am so late to the party the guests of honor have probably left the building...

but for what it's worth...


#1 is the greatest dress shot of yours I've ever seen. The delicate draperies mimic the folds of the dress quite well, and I just love the antique dresser and even the vase add some very journalistic context that works so well. Beautiful! Stunning!

and #5 took my breath away! I'm not sure I know what you mean by she wouldn't let you see the emotion. It's in her body language so clearly, we don't need to see her face. I think it's extra special to get this much emotion in a wide angle context shot. Lovely lighting and conversion top it off!!

photogmomma

I completely concur with Lynne! #1 is stunning and #5 is sooo full of emotion!

Very nice set! I'm sure the bride will be thrilled!!

Scott_Quier

urbanaries wrote:

Scott, i am so late to the party the guests of honor have probably left the building...

but for what it's worth...


#1 is the greatest dress shot of yours I've ever seen. The delicate draperies mimic the folds of the dress quite well, and I just love the antique dresser and even the vase add some very journalistic context that works so well. Beautiful! Stunning!

and #5 took my breath away! I'm not sure I know what you mean by she wouldn't let you see the emotion. It's in her body language so clearly, we don't need to see her face. I think it's extra special to get this much emotion in a wide angle context shot. Lovely lighting and conversion top it off!!

Believe it or not, all of that was planned. I moved some furniture out of the way to make this happen. I am so pleased with the dress shot - I don't quite know how to react!

As for the emotion in #5 - I'm something of a dim bulb sometimes. I keep looking to the face for emotion and completely missed the body language. Thanks for showing that to me - now I will know to look for it in other weddings I do. (Check out image #4 in my newest thread - link)

photogmomma wrote:

I completely concur with Lynne! #1 is stunning and #5 is sooo full of emotion!

Very nice set! I'm sure the bride will be thrilled!!

This is, in part, what the bride e-mailed me the other day:

"THE PICTURES ARE AWESOME. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DOING THIS FOR US. ... AND I WILL TALK TO YOU SOON."