Lighting the first dance at a wedding

[donkeymusic]

I am photographing a wedding on Saturday, and been asked to shoot the first dance, nothing special but just need it capturing.

First, first dance i will have done and want to make sure its lit correctly. I was thinking of taking along one of my studio flash heads and setting that up, to give some light across the dance floor, however i dont have any smaller softboxes so was thinking of using a modelling dish to fire diffuse the light across the dance floor.

any suggestions or comments would be much appreciated.

Thanks

 

[JonathanRyan]

Grids, innit?

 

[Organnyx]

"Kiss" - (keep it simple!) On-camera flash, wind up the iso if you need to - job done!

 

[Phil V]

WIll your studio flash have been tested? the venue could be funny about you plugging it in - you could be asked to supply certificates, would you be better off remotely firing a flashgun?

Whichever, have more than one lighting setup in mind - even if it's the same light and you moving.

 

[david357]

"Kiss" - (keep it simple!) On-camera flash, wind up the iso if you need to - job done!

Simple it may be, but I can't think of a worse way to light anything or anyone, the only thing you can be sure of is that there will be light on the subject!

Why don't you try using a friend to hold a (remotely-triggered) speedlight held high and at an angle to you, pointed in the rough direction of the couple - at least there will be some highlights and shadows to give some modelling.

 

[Organnyx]

"only thing you can be sure of is that there will be light on the subject" - what are you photographing? - the couple! I've used on-camera flash for these shots for years to great effect - get the exposure and iso right, and it works well (even back in the days of film when you'd be stuck with 100 asa) - over-complication can end up giving you far worse shots than sticking to the simple, tried and tested....... The look on their faces is far more important than trying to emulate studio lighting.........

 

[david357]

I understand now.

Thanks.

 

[Organnyx]

Wedding photography frightens the bejaysus out of many photographers (and quite rightly) - in my view it has more in common with war photography than anything else - the first thing is that you just have to get results, and you are often working in strange and problematical areas, so I've always found that keeping things simple tends to work best - assistants get in the way, extra flashes get obstructed, fall over, and often give far worse results that the on-camera flash.
With the "first dance", you are there to record the event, not "take the event over" as yours, so you have to accept that the background will probably be "messy", especially as you wheel round with the dancers, the on-camera flash "lifts" the couple away from the clutter, and makes them the main focal point of the picture (as can a wide aperture) - crude but effective!

 

[Phil V]

Wedding photography frightens the bejaysus out of many photographers (and quite rightly) - in my view it has more in common with war photography than anything else - the first thing is that you just have to get results, and you are often working in strange and problematical areas, so I've always found that keeping things simple tends to work best - assistants get in the way, extra flashes get obstructed, fall over, and often give far worse results that the on-camera flash.
With the "first dance", you are there to record the event, not "take the event over" as yours, so you have to accept that the background will probably be "messy", especially as you wheel round with the dancers, the on-camera flash "lifts" the couple away from the clutter, and makes them the main focal point of the picture (as can a wide aperture) - crude but effective!

3 years ago I'd have agreed with every word of that, but the market has moved on, in the same way that brides came to expect the capturing of genuine emotion during their wedding ceremony, they now expect to see some creative use of light for the first dance. Whether that's making use of the DJ's lights or adding a touch of our own drama, we've moved beyond 'just adding light so they can be seen'.
It's far from dangerous or fiddly if done properly. The DJ manages to put up speakers and lights without risking catastrophe. The easiest thing to do is make use of the stands there already and clamp our flashes to them, next best is hiding our stands behind their gear.

The biggest problem whether using on or off camera flash is dealing with smaller dance floors, where the distance from the flash to the B&G means we're also lighting too much background. That's where a voice controlled lightstand comes in really handy. In 2013 with remote flash setups available for pennies and people being used to Photoshopped cleanliness, a bride won't settle for accepting the background may be a bit 'messy'. And careful lighting means less time cleaning up images.

 

[JayD]

I'll be honest, I've seen better results from a (good) point n shoot with on board flash than from many a 'professional'.

 

[paul_g]

"Kiss" - (keep it simple!) On-camera flash, wind up the iso if you need to - job done!

Best advice given!

 

[Phil V]

I'll be honest, I've seen better results from a (good) point n shoot with on board flash than from many a 'professional'.

All I can add to that is:
You've seen some really awful pro shots
and / or
You have no photographic taste whatsoever, because no P&S can capture a 'good' shot of a first dance, let alone a 'great' shot.

All the shots I've seen from P&S's of first dances have been either underexposed due to flash distance, overexposed because the flash can't cope with the contrast difference between the bright dress and dark room, or (at best) well exposed lit by on camera unbounced flash - which at it's best is awful light, with the small hope that there's interesting addition from the DJ's lights - which could only ever be by luck, due to the way a P&S works.

I think I'm in the realms of - show me the money I'm always happy to be proved wrong

I'll await your next post full of fine examples of P&S first dance shots

 

[JayD]

All I can add to that is:
You've seen some really awful pro shots
and / or
You have no photographic taste whatsoever, because no P&S can capture a 'good' shot of a first dance, let alone a 'great' shot.

All the shots I've seen from P&S's of first dances have been either underexposed due to flash distance, overexposed because the flash can't cope with the contrast difference between the bright dress and dark room, or (at best) well exposed lit by on camera unbounced flash - which at it's best is awful light, with the small hope that there's interesting addition from the DJ's lights - which could only ever be by luck, due to the way a P&S works.

I think I'm in the realms of - show me the money I'm always happy to be proved wrong

I'll await your next post full of fine examples of P&S first dance shots

Right ok. Yes, I've seen some dreadful 'pro' shots
My photographic taste borders on the weird, but I do know a good and bad photo.
That's why I stipulated a "good" point and shoot, I admit p & s aren't great, but compared to a bad 'pro' they can be a hell of a lot better.
I can't prove a thing as the only wedding I ever did was with a Canon bridge, purely as an amateur, where (to my mind) the photos were pretty ok (for a freebie) and the images were stored on my old hard drive which crashed last february and died, along with 5000 or so pics.
Basically what I'm saying is a good p & s can be better than a bad pro, and I have no proof other than looking at other peoples wedding photos.

 

[david357]

I understand now.

Thanks.

... and I wasn't being serious here, either!

I would not argue that there are plenty of photographers out there who use on-camera flash to light weddings, but we have a whole forum section here that is dedicated to people wanting to improve their lighting skills, and a number of excellent photographers offering advice on how to make our images stand out from the mundane.

I doubt many of these people would operate at the level they do, and command the prices they do, if they were to "use on-camera flash and whack the iso up"

While I would be the last to suggest that a live wedding is the time or place to learn the skills needed to creatively light the first dance, I really don't agree that either:
a/: on camera flash is the answer you need,
or b/: a good point and shoot will do a better job,
are the answers that the op was looking for.

I hope that he finds the answers he needs (very quickly if the wedding is this Saturday!).

Good luck.

 

[Phil V]

Right ok. Yes, I've seen some dreadful 'pro' shots
My photographic taste borders on the weird, but I do know a good and bad photo.
That's why I stipulated a "good" point and shoot, I admit p & s aren't great, but compared to a bad 'pro' they can be a hell of a lot better.
I can't prove a thing as the only wedding I ever did was with a Canon bridge, purely as an amateur, where (to my mind) the photos were pretty ok (for a freebie) and the images were stored on my old hard drive which crashed last february and died, along with 5000 or so pics.
Basically what I'm saying is a good p & s can be better than a bad pro, and I have no proof other than looking at other peoples wedding photos.

So just unsubstantiated trolling then, adding nothing at all to the discussion

There's half a dozen or so first dance shots on my site and my blog - it's a shame the only ones you ever took 'with a P&S' are lost due to your professional approach to file storage, otherwise you could've proved your point.

Happy New Year to you and yours from wedding photographers everywhere

 

[tiler65]

So just unsubstantiated trolling then, adding nothing at all to the discussion

There's half a dozen or so first dance shots on my site and my blog - it's a shame the only ones you ever took 'with a P&S' are lost due to your professional approach to file storage, otherwise you could've proved your point.

Happy New Year to you and yours from wedding photographers everywhere

Far from trolling Phil....he was giving an opinion, just like you have.

As for the OP.....it all depends on how you want it to look.....you can have an brightly lit scene, a silhouette, a motion blur, a spotlight etc.

Please give an insight on what you think is a good 1st dance shot.

A good tip I learned from my mentors...if you have a lull in proceedings (usually after the meal & speeches) and guests just want to unwind.....go and set up a your lights (if using them) in the dance room and try a few shots..... 20 minutes and you will have the shots nailed, remember your settings and you can go back to the wedding party and you will be all set for the 1st dance when needed.

 

[boyfalldown]

Depending on the look I'm after. A combination of studio head (use a battery pack to save trailing leads), coupled with 0,1 or 2 SB900s. All triggered by PW. Normally I use the studio head simply to provide directional light and keep it of shot, and the sb900s in shot.

 

[Phil V]

Far from trolling Phil....he was giving an opinion, just like you have.
.

Come off it Tom....

I'll be honest, I've seen better results from a (good) point n shoot with on board flash than from many a 'professional'.

This unsubstantiated tripe is trolling, of the kind far too often aimed at wedding photographers on this forum, I feel a duty to call it out as I see it, otherwise people will continue to believe that it's OK to just 'have a go' at every opportunity.

I'm sure he's a really nice guy with a wicked sense of humour, but that doesn't excuse baiting wedding photographers for kicks.

If he'd have shown a great first dance shot taken with a P&S, offering it as a standard and asking if anyone agreed it was as good as many pro's, that could have led to an intelligent discussion. But his throwaway remark is without any basis in evidence.

I offered advice (not just opinion), there's a link in my signature to my website where the OP can see evidence that my advice is relevant to his question. He can choose to see that as relevant advice or not based on his opinion of that work. I would like to think that has a greater weight than the quote above. Even if the OP reads my advice, sees the pictures and decides I haven't got a clue, it'll at least be evidence based

 

[Organnyx]

To my mind, much modern wedding work is ruined by over-reliance on Photoshop - I come from that far-distant land of film photography, and did a lot of my wedding work with an FM2 with an MD12 motordrive and a hammerhead flashgun, and learnt that you have to frame it right, expose it right, focus it right, and press the button at that magic "decisive moment" so that there is no manipulation needed at all, because you had to get it right first time (manipulation of 400 or more film images in those days was prohibitively expensive) - that includes keeping an eye on "messy backgrounds" and either avoiding them in the first place, blowing them out of focus by use of aperture, or using the advantage of on-camera flash of placing the subjects as the focal point.
The OP wanted advice as a newcomer, I gave what I still believe is good straight advice for someone in his position - I've got a lot of experience, but certainly wouldn't risk faffing about with studio lighting for such a shot without a lot of dry runs and practice first...
If people want to muck about trying to make the average wedding venue into a studio, that's fine, but to my mind it's intrusive, unnecessary, likely to be problematic and to be frank, the results can be rather naff and "staged" looking......... far better you've caught the "gooey looks" being exchanged when they're in each other's arms - all the posing and faffing about with complicated lighting can't put those "looks" there - it's our job to capture them...... genuine emotion, not over-posed studio shots...

 

[jockwav]

Excellent photos on your site Phil,really like them.

 

[JayD]

Come off it Tom....



This unsubstantiated tripe is trolling, of the kind far too often aimed at wedding photographers on this forum, I feel a duty to call it out as I see it, otherwise people will continue to believe that it's OK to just 'have a go' at every opportunity.

I'm sure he's a really nice guy with a wicked sense of humour, but that doesn't excuse baiting wedding photographers for kicks.

If he'd have shown a great first dance shot taken with a P&S, offering it as a standard and asking if anyone agreed it was as good as many pro's, that could have led to an intelligent discussion. But his throwaway remark is without any basis in evidence.

I offered advice (not just opinion), there's a link in my signature to my website where the OP can see evidence that my advice is relevant to his question. He can choose to see that as relevant advice or not based on his opinion of that work. I would like to think that has a greater weight than the quote above. Even if the OP reads my advice, sees the pictures and decides I haven't got a clue, it'll at least be evidence based

While I don't doubt that you're an excellent wedding photographer, with vast experience and your lighting always exceeds the B & G's expectations, I am not pro, not even a gifted amateur. My point was that there are an awful lot of people out there touting themselves as professional, when they shouldn't be let loose with a camera phone! You know this is true!!!
The opinion i was giving is that in a case like that a p & s will at least give an acceptable record of the event.
If I may be so bold....I call it as I see it, and there are far too many people being ripped off by so called pro togs. The weddings togs on her are undoubtedly first class, including yourself, but there are many who aren't!
I'm giving this opinion from experience, seeing a friend pay around £500 for weddings photographs and not one of them being in focus, or even the correct wb. Luckily for him, he'd also asked for as many people as possible to just snap away candidly, and there were some good results. Far from trolling, this is just my opinion!
Or am I not allowed an opinion on here? (that's trolling) No smiley face!!!

 

[Phil V]

To my mind, much modern wedding work is ruined by over-reliance on Photoshop - I come from that far-distant land of film photography, and did a lot of my wedding work with an FM2 with an MD12 motordrive and a hammerhead flashgun, and learnt that you have to frame it right, expose it right, focus it right, and press the button at that magic "decisive moment" so that there is no manipulation needed at all, because you had to get it right first time (manipulation of 400 or more film images in those days was prohibitively expensive) - that includes keeping an eye on "messy backgrounds" and either avoiding them in the first place, blowing them out of focus by use of aperture, or using the advantage of on-camera flash of placing the subjects as the focal point.
The OP wanted advice as a newcomer, I gave what I still believe is good straight advice for someone in his position - I've got a lot of experience, but certainly wouldn't risk faffing about with studio lighting for such a shot without a lot of dry runs and practice first...
If people want to muck about trying to make the average wedding venue into a studio, that's fine, but to my mind it's intrusive, unnecessary, likely to be problematic and to be frank, the results can be rather naff and "staged" looking......... far better you've caught the "gooey looks" being exchanged when they're in each other's arms - all the posing and faffing about with complicated lighting can't put those "looks" there - it's our job to capture them...... genuine emotion, not over-posed studio shots...

There are several assumptions you've made here which are way wide of the mark:

I come from film too - I'm not belittling the old days, just saying that things have moved on.

The OP made the suggestion to use studio flash - I assumed (I could be as wrong as you could) that if he was prepared to set up studio flash at a wedding reception, he knew what he was doing with the flash.

I've NEVER posed a first dance shot in my life. I may have added lighting (as have you - I just put a little more effort into it). I'm there to capture the moment - if it can be well lit, surely as a photographer that's a bonus?

We shoot first dance with 2 cameras with on camera flash (one std zoom - one with 85mm) and 1 camera firing OCF (std zoom), this gives a range of different looks without too much swapping about of gear. It's carefully planned and considered - we don't 'set up a studio environment' or turn it into a photoshoot, we just use enough gear and skill to create a range of different 'looks' in a very tight timespan.

 

[Jerm]

it's our job to capture them...... genuine emotion, not over-posed studio shots...

Or.. capturing the gooey look, properly exposed, genuine emotion shots that fit the current trend ?

Gooey looks and genuine emotions are not mutually exclusive with well lit quality photography - your post implies it's either one or the other.

 

[Phil V]

While I don't doubt that you're an excellent wedding photographer, with vast experience and your lighting always exceeds the B & G's expectations, I am not pro, not even a gifted amateur. My point was that there are an awful lot of people out there touting themselves as professional, when they shouldn't be let loose with a camera phone! You know this is true!!!
The opinion i was giving is that in a case like that a p & s will at least give an acceptable record of the event.
If I may be so bold....I call it as I see it, and there are far too many people being ripped off by so called pro togs. The weddings togs on her are undoubtedly first class, including yourself, but there are many who aren't!
I'm giving this opinion from experience, seeing a friend pay around £500 for weddings photographs and not one of them being in focus, or even the correct wb. Luckily for him, he'd also asked for as many people as possible to just snap away candidly, and there were some good results. Far from trolling, this is just my opinion!
Or am I not allowed an opinion on here? (that's trolling) No smiley face!!!

I kind of understand where you're coming from regarding some 'wedding photographers', but as you say there aren't many on this site of that kind of standard. Which means that when people slag off 'wedding photographers' on here it's a bit mis-timed and IMHO the wedding photographers on this site feel like they're constantly under attack.

This is unfortunate as, in your words, those remarks aren't aimed at the photographers here. It doesn't alter how it looks though - if I was annoyed at some Serbian football fans and went onto a forum where there were loads of Liverpool fans and just slagged off 'football fans' for their racist behaviour you can imagine the reaction I'd get.

There are some crap sports and event photographers too (and I'm sure plenty of other genres) but you never see people appear to tar them all with the same brush - just food for thought, and not a personal attack, but it does get a little wearing to have to constantly have the same conversation.

Most wedding togs are crap.

I resent that can you show me some examples

I didn't mean you - but you know there's some charlatans out there.....

Yes; we know there are, but please have some thought before you lump us all in together.

And as an aside - you'd think it was reasonable to expect decent wedding photo's for £500, but it's an expensive business, and by the time you're doing it properly - you can't really afford to do much for that money. So the people shooting weddings for £500 are cutting corners left right and centre - and I'm not surprised they were crap.

 

[Phil V]

Or.. capturing the gooey look, properly exposed, genuine emotion shots that fit the current trend ?

Gooey looks and genuine emotions are not mutually exclusive with well lit quality photography - your post implies it's either one or the other.

Twice in 2 days - someones summed up one of my diatribes in a dozen words.

 

[Phil V]

Excellent photos on your site Phil,really like them.

Me? Thanks

 

[Organnyx]

"your post implies it's either one or the other" - it's about priorities, to me the most important thing is to capture the expression, and not to be too intrusive on their special day - we'll have to agree to disagree that in some way studio lighting is "better" - it is different, but as I've said before, to my mind not "better" - if a tyro is fertling about with extra flash he's going to be distracted, will probably make a pig's ear of it, and is far better to stick with "KISS" and concentrate on getting pictures..........(and then in the fullness of time, if he really must, try out adding studio flash - but concentrate first on getting results)

 

[JayD]

I kind of understand where you're coming from regarding some 'wedding photographers', but as you say there aren't many on this site of that kind of standard. Which means that when people slag off 'wedding photographers' on here it's a bit mis-timed and IMHO the wedding photographers on this site feel like they're constantly under attack.

This is unfortunate as, in your words, those remarks aren't aimed at the photographers here. It doesn't alter how it looks though - if I was annoyed at some Serbian football fans and went onto a forum where there were loads of Liverpool fans and just slagged off 'football fans' for their racist behaviour you can imagine the reaction I'd get.

There are some crap sports and event photographers too (and I'm sure plenty of other genres) but you never see people appear to tar them all with the same brush - just food for thought, and not a personal attack, but it does get a little wearing to have to constantly have the same conversation.

Most wedding togs are crap.

I resent that can you show me some examples

I didn't mean you - but you know there's some charlatans out there.....

Yes; we know there are, but please have some thought before you lump us all in together.

And as an aside - you'd think it was reasonable to expect decent wedding photo's for £500, but it's an expensive business, and by the time you're doing it properly - you can't really afford to do much for that money. So the people shooting weddings for £500 are cutting corners left right and centre - and I'm not surprised they were crap.

I understand where you're coming from. Perhaps mis timed. I thought 500 quid was quite a lot of money, shows what I know!
I'll never be doing it properly, through lack of confidence, mental problems associated with awkward/stubborn/halfwit people, I'll hope one day to be a gifted amateur, but can't ever see me getting further than that.

 

[fraktion]

Hi guys.

I just wanted to jump in on this discussion to give you my thoughts about lighting the first dance, coming from a light painting background. The last wedding I shot, I took the flash off camera 'for fun', using an SB600 on a stand in one corner, remote triggered. I have to say, the results were my favourite first dance shots to date and the couple were amazed.

For some examples here's the link to my blog (sincerely not self promoting, just here to help): http://marcbb.com/blog/mr-mrs-morton-wedding

 

[JayD]

Hi guys.

I just wanted to jump in on this discussion to give you my thoughts about lighting the first dance, coming from a light painting background. The last wedding I shot, I took the flash off camera 'for fun', using an SB600 on a stand in one corner, remote triggered. I have to say, the results were my favourite first dance shots to date and the couple were amazed.

For some examples here's the link to my blog (sincerely not self promoting, just here to help): http://marcbb.com/blog/mr-mrs-morton-wedding

I like a lot, something a bit different. Very nice indeed.

 

[FlyTVR]

We shoot first dance with 2 cameras with on camera flash (one std zoom - one with 85mm) and 1 camera firing OCF (std zoom), this gives a range of different looks without too much swapping about of gear. It's carefully planned and considered - we don't 'set up a studio environment' or turn it into a photoshoot, we just use enough gear and skill to create a range of different 'looks' in a very tight timespan.

I too use two bodies. One OCF one on. The on camera flash is really there to guarantee some safe shots.

Back on thread, unless the OP is really confident with OCF, I'd stick to on camera / NL.

The other thing that worries me is the mains cable for the studio head. IF you can position the light safely with the band then great - but otherwise.......

OP - good luck either way!


Cheers.

Dav

 

[tiler65]

I too use two bodies. One OCF one on. The on camera flash is really there to guarantee some safe shots.

Back on thread, unless the OP is really confident with OCF, I'd stick to on camera / NL.

The other thing that worries me is the mains cable for the studio head. IF you can position the light safely with the band then great - but otherwise.......

OP - good luck either way!


Cheers.

Dav

Some studio heads can run off a battery Dav...........

 

[FlyTVR]

Some studio heads can run off a battery Dav...........

I'll make sure I remember that!

Even if running off a pack there is still the fact that a studio head is more cumbersome. In addition to this you are now adding the battery pack and cable.

For first dance, the likes of a 580/600 or sb900 are adequate and preferable

Dav

 

[tiler65]

I'll make sure I remember that!

Even if running off a pack there is still the fact that a studio head is more cumbersome. In addition to this you are now adding the battery pack and cable.

For first dance, the likes of a 580/600 or sb900 are adequate and preferable

Dav

It all depends on what 'look' you are after....and space and time constraints.

 

[Phil V]

"your post implies it's either one or the other" - it's about priorities, to me the most important thing is to capture the expression, and not to be too intrusive on their special day - we'll have to agree to disagree that in some way studio lighting is "better" - it is different, but as I've said before, to my mind not "better" - if a tyro is fertling about with extra flash he's going to be distracted, will probably make a pig's ear of it, and is far better to stick with "KISS" and concentrate on getting pictures..........(and then in the fullness of time, if he really must, try out adding studio flash - but concentrate first on getting results)

Whereas Carlo's use of studio flash could be 2nd nature, even better than his on camera flash skills - we have nowhere near enough information to judge that. But you've decided to lay your prejudice on the table and assume that he'll try to turn it into a studio shoot and that he'll miss genuine moments whilst he's fertling about.

His question IMHO appears to show that he knows what he's doing lighting wise. But you'll stick to your guns and assume that because he's never shot a first dance before, he'll make a mess of it if he uses OCF
My guess is that he knows studio lighting at least as well as me, even if he's never shot a 1st dance before

Here's the question again - just for clarity.

I am photographing a wedding on Saturday, and been asked to shoot the first dance, nothing special but just need it capturing.

First, first dance i will have done and want to make sure its lit correctly. I was thinking of taking along one of my studio flash heads and setting that up, to give some light across the dance floor, however i dont have any smaller softboxes so was thinking of using a modelling dish to fire diffuse the light across the dance floor.

any suggestions or comments would be much appreciated.

Thanks

As far as 'better' is concerned. Shadow makes a subject interesting, and whilst bouncing flash off the ceiling goes some way to 'moving the light from the camera', it isn't a substitute for careful positioning of light. We can agree to disagree about whether 'keeping it simple' is a good idea, but if you start trying to claim that on camera flash is 'better' than an off camera controlled source, you should be prepared to look stupid to anyone who knows anything about photography.

 

[Organnyx]

You think that in this circumstance studio lighting is "better" - I disagree that it is always "better" - (we'll have to agree to disagree over that).
He has made it plain it's his "first time" in the strange and dangerous world of wedding photography - as I've said ad nauseam, first priority is to get results, hence my recommendation for the "will get results" method using on-camera flash - as another poster has recommended, at least do some photos "my" way, and if needs be then fertle about with studio flash as well.
Anyone who's actually done some wedding photography will know that the dancers tend to move around a bit, making use of studio lighting somewhat "hit or miss" unless you're prepared to put one heck of a lot of time and trouble into it, so there is a need for a "belt and braces" approach if he is to use extra flash - to my mind, not worth the hassle first time out - shadows do NOT necessarily make a good picture (I've also seen many otherwise good pictures "butchered by light"), and I fear he may lose more than he gains by over-complicating things.......

 

[Phil V]

You think that in this circumstance studio lighting is "better" - I disagree that it is always "better" - (we'll have to agree to disagree over that).
He has made it plain it's his "first time" in the strange and dangerous world of wedding photography - as I've said ad nauseam, first priority is to get results, hence my recommendation for the "will get results" method using on-camera flash - as another poster has recommended, at least do some photos "my" way, and if needs be then fertle about with studio flash as well.
Anyone who's actually done some wedding photography will know that the dancers tend to move around a bit, making use of studio lighting somewhat "hit or miss" unless you're prepared to put one heck of a lot of time and trouble into it, so there is a need for a "belt and braces" approach if he is to use extra flash - to my mind, not worth the hassle first time out - shadows do NOT necessarily make a good picture (I've also seen many otherwise good pictures "butchered by light"), and I fear he may lose more than he gains by over-complicating things.......

But I think you're seeing this from your experiences rather than the OP's.

He's never shot a first dance before but has loads of experience with proper lighting.

You've shot loads of first dances but have little experience of studio lighting.

I recommended off camera speedlights, as they're more suitable than mains flash (battery powered studio flash would be better than both). There are a few of us who do both on and off camera flash for the first dance, it's a matter of personal preference as much as it's a matter of taste.

Off Camera

or On camera (obviously helped by the bride tilting her head to the light)?

Shot less than a minute apart, just pulled from my last wedding.

 

[Richard King]

Right ok. Yes, I've seen some dreadful 'pro' shots
My photographic taste borders on the weird, but I do know a good and bad photo.
That's why I stipulated a "good" point and shoot, I admit p & s aren't great, but compared to a bad 'pro' they can be a hell of a lot better.
I can't prove a thing as the only wedding I ever did was with a Canon bridge, purely as an amateur, where (to my mind) the photos were pretty ok (for a freebie) and the images were stored on my old hard drive which crashed last february and died, along with 5000 or so pics.
Basically what I'm saying is a good p & s can be better than a bad pro, and I have no proof other than looking at other peoples wedding photos.

When you shoot weddings week in week out, come back and discuss what gear (and approach) you and a pro can use to consistently get good results, no mater what happens

In the last few weddings (we are talking last dance here) I have dealt with near pitch black, Full DJ lighting + a billowing smoke machine. Subtle band lighting, and a very bright sterile room. Tell me how a "photographer" with a P&S and no lighting is going to cope with that lot

Pro bashing seems such an an easy target, but TBH, unless you know what the job actually entails, comments like this are just plain offensive

With regards to the pricing - again, if you know what the job entailed, you would understand why £500 is unsustainable

 

[Richard King]

You think that in this circumstance studio lighting is "better" - I disagree that it is always "better" - (we'll have to agree to disagree over that).
He has made it plain it's his "first time" in the strange and dangerous world of wedding photography - as I've said ad nauseam, first priority is to get results, hence my recommendation for the "will get results" method using on-camera flash - as another poster has recommended, at least do some photos "my" way, and if needs be then fertle about with studio flash as well.
Anyone who's actually done some wedding photography will know that the dancers tend to move around a bit, making use of studio lighting somewhat "hit or miss" unless you're prepared to put one heck of a lot of time and trouble into it, so there is a need for a "belt and braces" approach if he is to use extra flash - to my mind, not worth the hassle first time out - shadows do NOT necessarily make a good picture (I've also seen many otherwise good pictures "butchered by light"), and I fear he may lose more than he gains by over-complicating things.......

I use a combination of 2 cameras, one with a radio trigger, one with on camera flash. I can easily flick both between 2 modes of shooting, instantly giving me 4 options. If I want to be even more flashy, I can change flash chanells and use a different lighting configuration, all at the touch of a button

I imagine few photographers who have bothered to set up OCF, then only shoot with OCF

In addition to that< i will have done a lighting test, just after I set the flashes up, earleir in the day, so the results wont be a guess, I will know exactly what I am getting. Meaning that in the first dance, I can just concentrate on composition, knowing I have the lighting (or not) in the bag

 

[Richard King]

I am photographing a wedding on Saturday, and been asked to shoot the first dance, nothing special but just need it capturing.

First, first dance i will have done and want to make sure its lit correctly. I was thinking of taking along one of my studio flash heads and setting that up, to give some light across the dance floor, however i dont have any smaller softboxes so was thinking of using a modelling dish to fire diffuse the light across the dance floor.

any suggestions or comments would be much appreciated.

Thanks

If you do use the lights, bear this lot in mind

- set them up with the bands stuff (when the band set up)
- get them at the back in the corners as high as possible - you dont want them visible in every shot
- you have to set the power and leave them (so set the power right. Less is slightly better then to much)
- make a note of the settings (ISO, Apeture etc..)
- Do a test shot with a body in the same position as the dance (roughly)
- depending how many studio lights you have, 2 up front, and one splashing a little in from the back of the room is great
- remember the optical trigger (turn them off) unless you need to use them
- even if you bounce them off the ceiling a bit, you can sill use them as a burst (when shooting upwards through the B&G to make a silhouette)
- take a reel of gaffa tape to deal with the cables.
- just use standard reflectors. Grids are sort of OK, but you don't need really tight ones, as the B&G will be moving about. Unless you are really sure on the positioning, leave the grids off. You will then have a lighting option available for you all evening