I am considering a assistant/2nd shooter

Qarik · July 28, 2010

Who shoots with a canon t1 500d. To those that are familiar...what max iso would you feel comfortable shooting at on this body?

I am guessing about 800?

Te Amo · July 28, 2010

i wouldnt feel comforable using that body at any ISO setting for a gig like a wedding.

Matthew Saville · July 29, 2010

Qarik wrote: »

Who shoots with a canon t1 500d. To those that are familiar...what max iso would you feel comfortable shooting at on this body?

I am guessing about 800?

Let 'er rip! 1600 at least, 3200 if your style includes a lot of grainy B&W images.

On the other hand, maybe I should just keep quiet and let people go on shooting their plastic, noise-less images, so I can have all the beautiful artistic goodness to myself. :-P

(Made at ISO 3200 on an old, "noisy" D300. ;-)

BTW, with respect to the camera itself, and reliability etc. as a 2nd shooter:

Honestly, I don't care much at all what my 2nd shooters use. In fact when *I* 2nd shoot, I love to enjoy the freedom of a lighter camera and lens. As a 2nd shooter I'd take a 500D and an 85mm f/1.8 instead of a 1Ds mk3 and an 85 1.2. No, seriously! In addition to NOT breaking my back, I'd be less intimidating towards any guests who might be camera-shy etc.

But here's the bottom line: I can say "it's the photographer not the camera!" all day long, but would I hire someone to shoot MY wedding if they ONLY had a D-Rebel? No way!

I'm sure there are plenty of AMAZING photographers out there who could pick up a $300 used DSLR and make it sing. But any self-respecting professional buys professional gear.

But we know this. It's just un-professional to think you can rely on beginner equipment in a professional capacity. HOWEVER, we're talking about 2nd shooters right now in which case I revert back to my original statement: I don't care what they're using, as long as they know what they're doing!

=Matt=

Sam · July 29, 2010

I would be a little concerned, but open to evaluation. What lenses do they have? Will they be shooting low light without flash? What does their portfolio look like? How does their style match up with yours.

If they lack lenses or other gear do you have enough for both?

Is this a person you have a personal interest in having 2nd shoot for you, or just an unknown applicant?
Sam

Dmanning · July 29, 2010

I wouldn't sweat it. The t1i does an awesome job at high-iso. Not to mention noise reduction just seems to be getting better. I too would be more concerned with the glass and the way they work with people over the camera body.

WillCAD · July 29, 2010

Sam brings up the most salient point: Will they be shooting with or without a flash (and by flash, I don't mean the pop-up that built into the camera body)? While there are certainly shots that can be made without an accessory flash during a wedding, they are, by far, the minority. Most wedding shots, both formals and PJ style, need a good flash to both illuminate and fill. And when you use such a flash, ISO is not as much of an issue, because you bring your own light to the party.

Nobody should shoot a wedding with any kind of SLR body, unless they have a good hot-shoe or bracket-mounted flash. And when you shoot with an accessory flash, you don't have to worry about the max ISO; leave it at 400, and your pics should all come out quite nice. Certainly, you can use the power of your flash to light up a larger area if you pump up the ISO, but 400 seems to be a great mid-point where the flash has enough power to reach out, and the ISO is low enough to eliminate unpleasant noise.

So, basically, if your 2nd is using an accessory flash, set the camera to ISO 400. If he's not using an accessory flash, don't use him.

lizzard_nyc · July 29, 2010

Matthew Saville wrote: »

(Made at ISO 3200 on an old, "noisy" D300. ;-)

=Matt=

I freaking love this!

I was just reading this because I want to be a second shooter some day. NOt any time soon, but I had to comment on Matt's shot.

Qarik · July 29, 2010

she is getting the 580exII. I reccomended she get the 50mm 1.4 as well. I knew she was just getting into photgraphy and I liked her work so I am giving her a spin for assistant/2nd shooter for a wedding at the end of the month. She seem very enthused and has a decent eye..just her HW could use an update. So we will see.

WillCAD · July 29, 2010

Qarik wrote: »

she is getting the 580exII. I reccomended she get the 50mm 1.4 as well. I knew she was just getting into photgraphy and I liked her work so I am giving her a spin for assistant/2nd shooter for a wedding at the end of the month. She seem very enthused and has a decent eye..just her HW could use an update. So we will see.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

I assume that she has the standard 18-55 kit lens that comes with most Digital Rebel DSLRs; if so, this might be a better choice for her to use than a 50mm F1.4. I personally have never used a fixed focal length lens and would find it very difficult to shoot a wedding as 2nd shooter without a zoom. Since she's new to this, she may feel the same way.

Te Amo · July 29, 2010

Qarik wrote: »

I knew she was just getting into photgraphy and I liked her work so I am giving her a spin for assistant/2nd shooter for a wedding at the end of the month. She seem very enthused and has a decent eye..just her HW could use an update. So we will see.

thats completely different then. theyre more of a trainee than a second shooter at that point. i assume this means you dont actually "need" a second shooter for this gig, and are prepared for 99% of her shots to be either unusable or need quite a bit of editing.

good on you for giving someone a chance. this is how i got my first gig a few years back, and i have since done the same thing for 3 other "up-and=-comers". way to give back.

i completely agree with telling her to invest in the 50mm 1.8 (even before thinking about a flash). thats always the first lens i recommend for second shooters (and otherwise). at f/1.8 she will be able to capture a lot of candid shots and details of decorations, without needing the assistance of a flash. and @ 50mm on a crop body, she will get around an 85mm reach, perfect for getting reaction shots and candids inside the pews and reception.

Qarik · July 29, 2010

Te Amo wrote: »

thats completely different then. theyre more of a trainee than a second shooter at that point. i assume this means you dont actually "need" a second shooter for this gig, and are prepared for 99% of her shots to be either unusable or need quite a bit of editing.

good on you for giving someone a chance. this is how i got my first gig a few years back, and i have since done the same thing for 3 other "up-and=-comers". way to give back.

i completely agree with telling her to invest in the 50mm 1.8 (even before thinking about a flash). thats always the first lens i recommend for second shooters (and otherwise). at f/1.8 she will be able to capture a lot of candid shots and details of decorations, without needing the assistance of a flash. and @ 50mm on a crop body, she will get around an 85mm reach, perfect for getting reaction shots and candids inside the pews and reception.

What I am looking for initially is someone who can hold reflectors/shades, move around OCL and get some candid shots. The only real responsibility I am giving her is the guys getting ready shots...which I only need a couple of keepers from really.

JayClark79 · August 1, 2010

I use the T1i and out doors its great, its really not so hot at ISO 1600 would probally be max... unless like Matt said you want some seriously grainy BW pictures... that or you wanna spend all day Post processing each image to reduce noise

Matthew Saville · August 2, 2010

WillCAD wrote: »

...Most wedding shots, both formals and PJ style, need a good flash to both illuminate and fill.

And that, my friend, is where we must go our separate ways. Forgive me for being contrarian, but I've just spent most of my career avoiding this notion like the plague. I fully understand and LOVE flash in it's own right, but when I get into photojournalist mode, my style is almost completely ambient...

...Yep, I just quickly perused my own candids portfolio, http://www.matthewsaville.com/photojournalism ...and sure enough, all but two of the images are made with ambient light.

Of course everyone is welcome to pass their own judgment. I don't claim to have the right way, and definitely not the only way. Even though I'm certainly biased towards it and I think you ought to consider it... ;-)

=Matt=

Matthew Saville · August 2, 2010

WillCAD wrote: »

...I personally have never used a fixed focal length lens and would find it very difficult to shoot a wedding as 2nd shooter without a zoom. Since she's new to this, she may feel the same way.

Ah-ha, aother fork in the road for us... I gotta say, you're missing out in life if you've never enjoyed a good f/1.4 or f/1.2 prime at a wedding, or especially in a controlled portraiture environment.

I'll be the first to admit, PLENTY of people these days are just using primes as their crutch, shooting at f/1.2 because they think pretty bokeh will make their images stand out. I hate shallow depth just for the sake of shallow depth. But in the hands of someone with true vision, I'm always inspired.

I don't mean to slam people who use zooms most of the time. There are plenty of people who do great work using zooms, but it takes hard work to develop your artistic vision, and in my opinion using a zoom can make that process even tougher because it never forces you to make an absolute decision on perspective.

=Matt=

kevinpw · August 3, 2010

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Ah-ha, aother fork in the road for us... I gotta say, you're missing out in life if you've never enjoyed a good f/1.4 or f/1.2 prime at a wedding, or especially in a controlled portraiture environment.

I'll be the first to admit, PLENTY of people these days are just using primes as their crutch, shooting at f/1.2 because they think pretty bokeh will make their images stand out. I hate shallow depth just for the sake of shallow depth. But in the hands of someone with true vision, I'm always inspired.

I don't mean to slam people who use zooms most of the time. There are plenty of people who do great work using zooms, but it takes hard work to develop your artistic vision, and in my opinion using a zoom can make that process even tougher because it never forces you to make an absolute decision on perspective.

=Matt=

besides for the pretty bokeh and low-light awesomeness, how would you use a prime lens at a wedding? or at any photo session really.

thanks

Matthew Saville · August 4, 2010

kevinpw wrote: »

besides for the pretty bokeh and low-light awesomeness, how would you use a prime lens at a wedding? or at any photo session really.

thanks

Quite simply, to force myself to pre-visualize the shot more than I would if I had a zoom lens on the camera.

I'm certainly NOT opposed to having zooms in your bag for the wider and more telephoto angles. I would NOT go into a wedding without the equivalent of a 70-200 lens, that's for sure. Because the ultra-wide and telephoto angles are where you can NOT always "zoom with your feet"... If you buy a 200mm prime, and you want to take a full body portrait instead of a headshot, that's pretty much a 50-yard dash.

However when it comes to portraits and photojournalism between the focal lengths of 35mm and 85mm, a prime will help you to truly develop your eye and think about your composition before clicking the shot... :-)

I understand that this is a very subjective matter, and we're really talking about intuition, vision, and creative inspiration here. So what works for me may not work for everyone else. All I know is that most of the BEST wedding and portrait photographers whose work I truly admire, they shoot with primes 90% of the time. If you want you can go around to all the photographers YOU admire, and ask them which lenses they use most. If THEIR personal style leads them to use zooms a lot, and you're really inspired by their work, then hey go buy a 24-70! To each their own.

=Matt=

kevinpw · August 4, 2010

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Quite simply, to force myself to pre-visualize the shot more than I would if I had a zoom lens on the camera.

I'm certainly NOT opposed to having zooms in your bag for the wider and more telephoto angles. I would NOT go into a wedding without the equivalent of a 70-200 lens, that's for sure. Because the ultra-wide and telephoto angles are where you can NOT always "zoom with your feet"... If you buy a 200mm prime, and you want to take a full body portrait instead of a headshot, that's pretty much a 50-yard dash.

However when it comes to portraits and photojournalism between the focal lengths of 35mm and 85mm, a prime will help you to truly develop your eye and think about your composition before clicking the shot... :-)

I understand that this is a very subjective matter, and we're really talking about intuition, vision, and creative inspiration here. So what works for me may not work for everyone else. All I know is that most of the BEST wedding and portrait photographers whose work I truly admire, they shoot with primes 90% of the time. If you want you can go around to all the photographers YOU admire, and ask them which lenses they use most. If THEIR personal style leads them to use zooms a lot, and you're really inspired by their work, then hey go buy a 24-70! To each their own.

=Matt=

Sounds like you consider the 70-200 a must have. I used my friend's once and I simply could not imagine lugging that thing around. Of course I was only using it for 5-10 minutes so perhaps I'm not giving it very fair judgement, but it's just damn frickin heavy!

regarding primes, I love my 35mm f/1.8

it was cheap too!

smurfy · August 4, 2010

besides for the pretty bokeh and low-light awesomeness, how would you use a prime lens at a wedding? or at any photo session really.

thanks

All with the ever lightweight and versatile 50 mm f1.8:

WillCAD · August 4, 2010

smurfy wrote: »

All with the ever lightweight and versatile 50 mm f1.8:

All very smurfy shots. I take it then that you are a Human Zoom when you shoot weddings?

That's the thing, for me - the idea of having to run forward, run backward, lean, etc. to frame a shot, when all I have to do is twist a ring, seems frustrating. Plus, there are plenty of situations where the photographer simply CAN'T get into proper position to frame a shot with a 50mm, particularly during the ceremony, and particularly if the officiant has a lot of photographic restrictions. Of course, it's easier on me as a 2nd shooter than on the primary, but I couldn't imagine shooting a wedding as a 2nd without at least a 28-70. My last 2nd gig I used my 18-200 IS and was able to get several very good, usable shots from the extreme back of the church, while waiting to catch the bridal party during the recessional. Can't do THAT with a Nifty 50!

smurfy · August 4, 2010

That's the thing, for me - the idea of having to run forward, run backward, lean, etc. to frame a shot, when all I have to do is twist a ring, seems frustrating. Plus, there are plenty of situations where the photographer simply CAN'T get into proper position to frame a shot with a 50mm, particularly during the ceremony, and particularly if the officiant has a lot of photographic restrictions. Of course, it's easier on me as a 2nd shooter than on the primary, but I couldn't imagine shooting a wedding as a 2nd without at least a 28-70. My last 2nd gig I used my 18-200 IS and was able to get several very good, usable shots from the extreme back of the church, while waiting to catch the bridal party during the recessional. Can't do THAT with a Nifty 50!

No, and I have a zoom on another body on the other shoulder, though it's not a constant 2.8, since usually the romantic portraits are taken as soon as the big group shots are done (for me anyway, can't speak for others.) In this case, I backed away and let my second get some close ups, and shot with what would give me the best results for the scene... the lens I could shoot wide open.

Not trying to tell you what to do, shoot with whatever you like. But a different person asked the question, and my post was as a reply to him regarding what a prime could do. This is a very inexpensive prime. The 85 mm is regarded by many as unsurpassed for portraiture, and I personally plan to pick one up soon. If you prefer all zooms, fine.

Art Scott · August 4, 2010

I did not read all the way thru so hopefully I am not just repeating what someone else has said.....I read thru Sams post....so I think it was all covered camera wise.....
When interviewing a 2nd shooter....i would ask to see images with exif so that I could see what camera was used for each shot in the port folio....I used to carry slides and negs with my port to show what film was used to produce a shot.........

Good Luck

Overfocused · August 4, 2010

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Let 'er rip! 1600 at least, 3200 if your style includes a lot of grainy B&W images.

On the other hand, maybe I should just keep quiet and let people go on shooting their plastic, noise-less images, so I can have all the beautiful artistic goodness to myself. :-P

(Made at ISO 3200 on an old, "noisy" D300. ;-)

BTW, with respect to the camera itself, and reliability etc. as a 2nd shooter:

Honestly, I don't care much at all what my 2nd shooters use. In fact when *I* 2nd shoot, I love to enjoy the freedom of a lighter camera and lens. As a 2nd shooter I'd take a 500D and an 85mm f/1.8 instead of a 1Ds mk3 and an 85 1.2. No, seriously! In addition to NOT breaking my back, I'd be less intimidating towards any guests who might be camera-shy etc.

But here's the bottom line: I can say "it's the photographer not the camera!" all day long, but would I hire someone to shoot MY wedding if they ONLY had a D-Rebel? No way!

I'm sure there are plenty of AMAZING photographers out there who could pick up a $300 used DSLR and make it sing. But any self-respecting professional buys professional gear.

But we know this. It's just un-professional to think you can rely on beginner equipment in a professional capacity. HOWEVER, we're talking about 2nd shooters right now in which case I revert back to my original statement: I don't care what they're using, as long as they know what they're doing!

=Matt=

You and others for decades call grain 'artistic' yet no one had the choice in the good ol' days for low light action. Sounds like a way to feel better about the limitation to me

Now that the choice is there, its autistic.

I mean artistic!

kevinpw · August 4, 2010

smurfy wrote: »

All with the ever lightweight and versatile 50 mm f1.8:

nice pictures! what apertures are used for the first 2 pictures? if i had to guess probably somewhere around 3.5-5.6?

smurfy · August 4, 2010

nice pictures! what apertures are used for the first 2 pictures? if i had to guess probably somewhere around 3.5-5.6?

Thanks! They were shot with a Fuji s5 pro body and a 50 mm Nikon lens at f1.8.

You and others for decades call grain 'artistic' yet no one had the choice in the good ol' days for low light action. Sounds like a way to feel better about the limitation to me

Now that the choice is there, its autistic I mean artistic!

Wow, beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Matt's shot is gorgeous, IMO.

PhilF · August 5, 2010

My first wedding as a 2nd shooter here and I use a 500D with a 430EX II speedlight

check out the pics I got ... let me know what you think.

http://pephotografia.zenfolio.com/p956301536
Mod edit: hidden script deleted

Matthew Saville · August 5, 2010

kevinpw wrote: »

Sounds like you consider the 70-200 a must have. I used my friend's once and I simply could not imagine lugging that thing around. Of course I was only using it for 5-10 minutes so perhaps I'm not giving it very fair judgement, but it's just damn frickin heavy!

regarding primes, I love my 35mm f/1.8 it was cheap too!

Nope. That's why I said 70-200 "equivalent". :-) That means, for me as a crop sensor user the Sigma 50-150 2.8 is my tele zoom of choice, and on full-frame for most photojournalism I'd be using a 70-200 f/4 if Nikon made one.

I really don't like the size and weight of the 70-200 2.8's either, and I would only ever use one in EXTREMELY dim conditions, such as stage photography, and if I did use the lens I'd be shooting from a monopod for sure...

=Matt=

Matthew Saville · August 5, 2010

Overfocused wrote: »

You and others for decades call grain 'artistic' yet no one had the choice in the good ol' days for low light action. Sounds like a way to feel better about the limitation to me

Now that the choice is there, its autistic.

I mean artistic!

, you're talking to the guy who still DOES shoot film at weddings on occasion, actually. In fact at THAT wedding, I got some great shots on my very last roll of Agfa Ultra.

But okay seriously- You're more than welcome to prefer smooth, grain-less images even in low light. I can imagine the appeal. I just think you're missing out. Grain, to me, makes the image REAL. A silky smooth ISO 50 image from a 5D mk2 looks almost computer generated, if you stare at it for too long...

Matthew Saville · August 5, 2010

WillCAD wrote: »

That's the thing, for me - the idea of having to run forward, run backward, lean, etc. to frame a shot, when all I have to do is twist a ring, seems frustrating. Plus, there are plenty of situations where the photographer simply CAN'T get into proper position to frame a shot with a 50mm, particularly during the ceremony, and particularly if the officiant has a lot of photographic restrictions. Of course, it's easier on me as a 2nd shooter than on the primary, but I couldn't imagine shooting a wedding as a 2nd without at least a 28-70. My last 2nd gig I used my 18-200 IS and was able to get several very good, usable shots from the extreme back of the church, while waiting to catch the bridal party during the recessional. Can't do THAT with a Nifty 50!

I definitely use zooms when it comes to church ceremonies where you're not allowed to get very close. As you said, (and as I said earlier) the telephoto range is just more practical as a zoom, unless you're REALLY in control such as at a high fashion runway shoot, (200 f/2.0) or at an extremely dim sporting event. (300 2.8, 400 2.8, etc...)

And the same goes with ultra-wide focal lengths. Zooms are a lot more practical than shuffling around with a prime.

But I still say you're missing out if you don't give primes a try, especially during controlled portraiture situations. Trust me when I say, that if "all (you) have to do is twist a ring", you will not challenge yourself as much to come up with strong compositions, etc.

It would seem like you could somehow arrive at the same exact shot when using a zoom set to 50, instead of limiting yourself to a 50 prime, but a lot of the time it just doesn't work out that way...

=Matt=

JMichaelK · August 6, 2010

I want my second shooters to have gear comparable to mine. I also will not hire anyone who is not familiar with using a speedlight and using it well. I want the photos from second photographer to blend with my images. I don't want the bride to know who shot what, except for those getting ready shots that my second gets. I believe in paying my second a very good rate so they are excited about shooting with me. I also only use photographers who shoot for a living and not those who want to be photographers. Weddings are too important.

I am considering a assistant/2nd shooter

Comments