Lighting the first dance at a wedding

Personally I like to keep things simple for myself I use 2 speed lights in remote mode, one on stand the other my assistant holds up and my onboard camera flash to trigger the speed lights. I have studio lights but that's just to much to deal with on a wedding day in my eyes. Like I said I like to keep things as simple as possible even making my assistant wear a white blouse so I can use her as my reflector lol.
 
Carlo

It's all well and good people saying use flashes for this that and the other - or indeed studio heads however powered BUT you aren't used to shooting a first dance and it isn't any place to start practicing fancy lighting.

We don't know the type of room you will be faced with - the height of ceilings - the lighting levels - the space available ...... all these affect how you approach the dance and in fact if you can use fancy multiple light setups.

Just aim to get some nice properly exposed first dance shots using on camera flash bounced off the ceiling or a wall or both. If you are planning shooting weddings week in week out then you can look at all the lighting options available and add some in as you go along whilst still getting the safer shots.

I've seen many photographers who profess to use multiple this that and the other for first dances and the results they produce are horrendous.

Don't believe that just because you don't shoot a dance with OCF that your pictures are somehow going to be old fashioned and dated .. lets face it there are some very good documentary photographers that if they stick a flash on at all they consider if cutting edge :)

As I said get well focused well exposed bounced flash shots and don't stress - the first dance is only one small part of a very long day - don't build it up into some great must have dramatic lighting session
 
Hi all,

Thanks for the comments and advice, its all much appreciated.

I have been to the venue today to see where the first dance will be. Its not a massive area. so not gonna be bothering with taking a studio flash, planning on using the light from the DJ/Band to light the couple.

I was also considering using my Sony Flashgun, but wondering if this will give me too much light and nothing atmospheric.

few posts have questioned my knowledge of studio flash, i do use them but not an expert and im learning as i go along.

If i am to use my flashgun with an attached sto-fen, am i right in thinking point it to the ceiling and let it bounce?

Thanks
 
spxxxx said:
I said get well focused well exposed bounced flash shots and don't stress - the first dance is only one small part of a very long day - don't build it up into some great must have dramatic lighting session
Click to expand...

think i have started to do this too much and after the viewing of the venue today, not much was even mentioned about first dance, so im sure any image will be fine.
 
Another wedding question, this is a civil wedding in a restaurant/hotel venue.

Am i okay to be use a flashgun or should i be bumping up the iso?

Thanks
 
donkeymusic said:
Another wedding question, this is a civil wedding in a restaurant/hotel venue.

Am i okay to be use a flashgun or should i be bumping up the iso?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Generally speaking we shoot the ceremony without flash. Make the most of the light you've got. Bounced flash kills the atmosphere.
 
Phil V said:
Generally speaking we shoot the ceremony without flash. Make the most of the light you've got. Bounced flash kills the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

If i am looking at a dark room, shall i just be upping the iso?
 
It will depend on what the registrars allow. If the room is dark, as many are, & the registrars allow flash say thank you very much & use bounced flash. the 3 weddings I shot over christmas would have been at iso6400 & scarily low shutter speeds but the registrars allowed flash & the images look great.
 
As paul says - there is nothing wrong with using bounced flash in a dark dingy ceremony - used sparingly and with good knowledge it doesn't have to ruin the moment or atmosphere

Both these used flash and I think both are preferable to a horrible underexposed grainy OOF image ... both have atmosphere

Hassop-Hall-Wedding-Photography-006.jpg


Maynard-Arms-Wedding-007.jpg
 
spxxxx said:
As paul says - there is nothing wrong with using bounced flash in a dark dingy ceremony - used sparingly and with good knowledge it doesn't have to ruin the moment or atmosphere

Both these used flash and I think both are preferable to a horrible underexposed grainy OOF image ... both have atmosphere

Hassop-Hall-Wedding-Photography-006.jpg


Maynard-Arms-Wedding-007.jpg
Click to expand...

Great shots Simon, how often do you get permission to use flash at a ceremony? In my experience I'm more likely to meet a vicar that'll not allow photography than one who'll allow flash during a ceremony.
 
Phil V said:
Great shots Simon, how often do you get permission to use flash at a ceremony? In my experience I'm more likely to meet a vicar that'll not allow photography than one who'll allow flash during a ceremony.
Click to expand...

Usually I will ask outright if I look at the conditions and think it may help - but I'm only talking maybe 3/4 over a whole year. Priests are more accommodating than Vicars and registrars are usually very good round here as they know me and know if I explain my reasons that I'm not taking the ****
 
My experience too is that priests are more accommodating than vicars (by some way) and registrars are ok if you approach them properly.
There's one local venue I'd have used flash (with hindsight) as there's no natural light. But I have to admit I never asked.
 
I have to agree with Simon. I love natural light, but even with the likes of the 1DX, D3/4 and the 5D3, there has to a point where you look at the quality of the natural light image and opt to use some flash.

My last wedding this year, the Vicar said use flash if you want. This was the only wedding (out of 20) this year where I had the opportunity to do so.

I shot maybe four exposures with flash. The Church had down lighters, so it really helped :)

Cheers.

Dav
 
spxxxx said:
As paul says - there is nothing wrong with using bounced flash in a dark dingy ceremony - used sparingly and with good knowledge it doesn't have to ruin the moment or atmosphere

Both these used flash and I think both are preferable to a horrible underexposed grainy OOF image ... both have atmosphere

Hassop-Hall-Wedding-Photography-006.jpg


Maynard-Arms-Wedding-007.jpg
Click to expand...

These look very cool indeed.
Most envious of your talents.
Myself I am a Plasterer and just faff about with a camera at home and love to read stuff like this.
You lot on here got yourselves in right old tither over this thread :-)
Anyways when you used flash here did you use it on hotshoe and bounce ?

Gaz

ps; I realize it's not that easy and you have to expose for ambiant and all ;-)
 
cargo said:
These look very cool indeed.
Most envious of your talents.
Myself I am a Plasterer and just faff about with a camera at home and love to read stuff like this.
You lot on here got yourselves in right old tither over this thread :-)
Anyways when you used flash here did you use it on hotshoe and bounce ?

Gaz

ps; I realize it's not that easy and you have to expose for ambiant and all ;-)
Click to expand...

Yep - bounced hotshoe flash
 
"You've shot loads of first dances but have little experience of studio lighting" - herrrumph!
I've actually got wide experience of both, and am frankly cheesed off with people making assumptions in an attempt to bolster their fixed ideas - as has been amply demonstrated, on-camera flash is capable of stunningly good results in the hands of people who know what they're doing......

As has also been demonstrated by subsequent posts, the original poster is going to go for simplicity, and I wish him well- he'll get results!

I'm quite willing to concede that there is a market for all sorts of "styles" in photography, and the popularity of gimmicks (rather like the practice in the 70's of "softing" and vignetting almost everything in wedding shots) holds sway in certain sectors, but am still firmly convinced that producing good photographs that won't date is far more important..... (infinitely prefer "photographs" to "images" which sadly seems to cover a multitude of over-Photoshopped monstrosities these days)
 
spxxxx said:
Yep - used them for years :)
Click to expand...

I take it these are another form of the bounce card.
Many thanks for the reply re the use of flash on hotshoe.
Great images that I am sure most people would be delighted if they could take any where near that standard.

Gaz
 
spxxxx said:
As paul says - there is nothing wrong with using bounced flash in a dark dingy ceremony - used sparingly and with good knowledge it doesn't have to ruin the moment or atmosphere

Both these used flash and I think both are preferable to a horrible underexposed grainy OOF image ... both have atmosphere

Hassop-Hall-Wedding-Photography-006.jpg


Maynard-Arms-Wedding-007.jpg
Click to expand...
The second one is amazing,i would be over the moon with these.:thumbs::clap:
 
Organnyx said:
but am still firmly convinced that producing good photographs that won't date is far more important..... (infinitely prefer "photographs" to "images" which sadly seems to cover a multitude of over-Photoshopped monstrosities these days)
Click to expand...

I think you'd be hard pushed to find many here disagree with you. But it is coming across as rather preachy and arrogant. Almost like you think you're the only person to believe it
 
boyfalldown said:
I think you'd be hard pushed to find many here disagree with you. But it is coming across as rather preachy and arrogant. Almost like you think you're the only person to believe it
Click to expand...

What Hugh said.

You seem to believe that there's only 'your way' or wrong.

I'm also pleased the OP has gone for simple, after recce'ing the venue and made the right decision. He hasn't decided to go with simple because you told him to. But because it's the best match for the venue.

The advent of digital hasn't made us put photoshop first. It's not cost effective to spend time in Photoshop. We do this for money and spending 10 minutes rescuing a shot that takes 1/100 to shoot properly isn't something advocated by anyone shooting at this level.

That amount of PP is reserved for top end studio work and amateurs. Your average wedding customer can't afford it. Just 10 mins photoshop per image would put my prices well beyond the ceiling for my area.
 
"You seem to believe that there's only 'your way' or wrong" :D

Excuse me while I roll about on the floor laughing - you've banged on about studio lighting, told me that I was giving bad advice because I dared to advise simplicity, and now have the barefaced cheek to accuse ME of being inflexible and claiming mine was the only way, when it's precisely what you have been guilty of in spades! (and you are now busily backpedalling on)
You've already accused me of having no knowledge of studio lighting with not a scintilla of proof of that....... I'd suggest that in future you make sure of your facts before "going for" people, and stop being so dogmatic in your own approach - I gave good straight advice to a tyro asking for help, and I stand 100% behind what I said.......
 
Organnyx said:
"You seem to believe that there's only 'your way' or wrong" :D

Excuse me while I roll about on the floor laughing - you've banged on about studio lighting, told me that I was giving bad advice because I dared to advise simplicity, and now have the barefaced cheek to accuse ME of being inflexible and claiming mine was the only way, when it's precisely what you have been guilty of in spades! (and you are now busily backpedalling on)
You've already accused me of having no knowledge of studio lighting with not a scintilla of proof of that....... I'd suggest that in future you make sure of your facts before "going for" people, and stop being so dogmatic in your own approach - I gave good straight advice to a tyro asking for help, and I stand 100% behind what I said.......
Click to expand...

Well you get 10 out of 10 for tenacity.
Lets see my first post.... (me banging on about studio lighting - where am I back-pedalling from:thinking:)
Phil V said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wrote an entire rebuttal - but I've deleted it because it's tedious for everyone else. :)
 
Got to love internet Forums!

Off camera flash. Ultimately, subjective or not, gives much better results than your standard on camera. Yes, people can work wonders with on camera but, when it comes to weddings, the couple are paying you to capture photographs that are the cut above the rest when it comes to quality. In my opinion, they're paying for something that clearly discerns between uncle and auntie bob's point and shoot results and something 'high end'.

With tech advances these days, uncle and auntie bob's cameras aren't half bad.

Sorry, should add that all of the above is just my opinion. ;)
 
Last edited:
The guy was doing his FIRST first dance - far better he gets results than gets his knickers in a twist by over-complication, as I said a few posts back, at the very least do some simple, safe "on camera flash" shots before faffing about -you may well consider "off camera" flash is superior in all ways, that's fine, but please accept that there are many of us who don't agree, and certainly if you add reasonable pragmatism for a tyro, then on balance I'd always recommend "keeping it simple" - far better to give them good if "safe" results than trying to be "arty" and failing miserably - once you've got a few weddings under your belt, by all means try the complications, but first time out, - play safe!
 
You really are banging the wrong drum.

The OP has more experience with studio flash than on camera. So it could be argued that using 'on camera' is complicating things for him.

I pointed this out earlier, however it doesn't fit with your world view so you ignored it.

I wouldn't use studio lighting (but I'm not the OP, we have different experience)

I always use both off and on camera flash, I don't find it difficult at all, and i like the range of different shots this gives me, but I'm neither you nor the OP. We're all different, with different skills and different gear.

Only you have suggested that using off camera lighting is somehow a prop for people who have no skill. You never suggested on camera as an addition. You only said it was the best option.
 
I think this is one of those classic forum moments.

It's not so much what you say as how you say it.
 
"Only you have suggested that using off camera lighting is somehow a prop for people who have no skill" - yet again twisting what's been said, - I have said, (several times) that I view it as an unnecessary complication for any beginner at wedding photography to try to use studio or "off camera" flash at their first gig's first dance (however proficient they may be with studio flash)
You seem to like "off camera" flash at weddings, and the results it produces - that is your prerogative, I don't actually agree with you, but you have every right to your opinion - but it doesn't alter the fact that in my opinion the OP is far better to "keep it simple" while he gains experience.
 
fraktion said:
With tech advances these days, uncle and auntie bob's cameras aren't half bad.
Click to expand...
Careful dude, I got totally flamed for daring to suggest such an horrendous thing earlier in this post. :D:D:D
 
Organnyx said:
"Only you have suggested that using off camera lighting is somehow a prop for people who have no skill" - yet again twisting what's been said, - I have said, (several times) that I view it as an unnecessary complication for any beginner at wedding photography to try to use studio or "off camera" flash at their first gig's first dance (however proficient they may be with studio flash)
You seem to like "off camera" flash at weddings, and the results it produces - that is your prerogative, I don't actually agree with you, but you have every right to your opinion - but it doesn't alter the fact that in my opinion the OP is far better to "keep it simple" while he gains experience.
Click to expand...
I only use OCF for a few portraits and the 1st dance - I'm generally a natural light shooter - but I'm not the OP. If the OP had come along asking for advice to make the most of just using the DJ's lights, I'd have advised about that. Not turned it into a discussion about 'my way':thumbs:.

so let's see about me twisting your words about modern wedding photography...
Organnyx said:
To my mind, much modern wedding work is ruined by over-reliance on Photoshop.....

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...;)
Click to expand...
and...
Organnyx said:
I'm quite willing to concede that there is a market for all sorts of "styles" in photography, and the popularity of gimmicks (rather like the practice in the 70's of "softing" and vignetting almost everything in wedding shots) holds sway in certain sectors, but am still firmly convinced that producing good photographs that won't date is far more important..... (infinitely prefer "photographs" to "images" which sadly seems to cover a multitude of over-Photoshopped monstrosities these days)
Click to expand...

All that says to those of us still working as wedding photographers is that you believe that we over-rely on lighting and photoshop.

The fact that many of us have told you it isn't true won't change your mind. There are 4 wedding photographs in this thread, they probably haven't had more than 10 minutes photoshop work between them - 3 of them are lit with on camera flash, (your preference) and none of them are posed! There's also a link to another photographers examples, where he used off camera flash for the first dance but good use of natural light at other times - and no sign of over-processing or of posing the first dance shots either.

Frankly I don't know why I keep replying - just like with the website discussion, no amount of evidence will make you back down from what is clearly an indefensible position. If every working wedding photographer in the country came here to tell you we don't overcomplicate lighting and use loads of photoshop to hide our inadequacies you'd still come back and say that's what 'everyone' does.:cuckoo:
 
"those of us still working as wedding photographers is that you believe that we over-rely on lighting and photoshop" - yet again one of those broad sweeping "let's take it the wrong way" statements designed to paint me as Beelzebub, and act as a smokescreen for the fact that you had a go at rubbishing my good and straight advice to "keep it simple" to a BEGINNER

There are several "wedding photographers" at work in my area who are totally reliant on Photoshop, produce work that by any standards is atrocious, yet somehow remain in business - I have expressed my opinion that over-reliance on "gimmicks" is not to my taste - I have a right to that view.

As for "clearly an indefensible position" - what utter rubbish - All I've done is to suggest a simple foolproof method for a beginner

"If every working wedding photographer in the country came here to tell you we don't overcomplicate lighting and use loads of photoshop to hide our inadequacies you'd still come back and say that's what 'everyone' does" - I've never said "everyone" does, I gave good advice that you have tried every which way to rubbish, just like you did in the "website" thread by somehow claiming that the one and only true way for a beginner was to get a WP template -yet again, it is one way of doing it, which you find works for you, but it is NOT the only way - to be frank I'm getting rather fed up with the "you will follow the gospel of Phil, or else" attitude
 
Been watching this thread today. Besides the obvious difference of opinions, I would suggest the OP has a bit of a practice with both on-camera and off-camera flash before the wedding to see what he's comfortable with and what kind of results he gets. I'm sure he can make his own mind up :D

EDIT: Just realised the wedding is tomorrow, so maybe not much time to practice.
 
Organnyx said:
"those of us still working as wedding photographers is that you believe that we over-rely on lighting and photoshop" - yet again one of those broad sweeping "let's take it the wrong way" statements designed to paint me as Beelzebub, and act as a smokescreen for the fact that you had a go at rubbishing my good and straight advice to "keep it simple" to a BEGINNER

There are several "wedding photographers" at work in my area who are totally reliant on Photoshop, produce work that by any standards is atrocious, yet somehow remain in business - I have expressed my opinion that over-reliance on "gimmicks" is not to my taste - I have a right to that view.

As for "clearly an indefensible position" - what utter rubbish - All I've done is to suggest a simple foolproof method for a beginner

"If every working wedding photographer in the country came here to tell you we don't overcomplicate lighting and use loads of photoshop to hide our inadequacies you'd still come back and say that's what 'everyone' does" - I've never said "everyone" does, I gave good advice that you have tried every which way to rubbish, just like you did in the "website" thread by somehow claiming that the one and only true way for a beginner was to get a WP template -yet again, it is one way of doing it, which you find works for you, but it is NOT the only way - to be frank I'm getting rather fed up with the "you will follow the gospel of Phil, or else" attitude
Click to expand...

So there are a few wedding photographers near you that are crap - that's no reason to paint the rest of us with the same brush.

And as I quoted above - you went much further than 'keep it simple'. If all you'd said was 'keep it simple' this thread would be half the length. You decided to dress up 'keep it simple' with slagging off the demise of wedding photography (presumably since your retirement?) quoted above to make it easier for you to see:).
And you surely have misrepresented me twice here - I never said that WP was the only way - just it was far superior to Wix for what the OP wanted (and provided evidence from Wix to justify that decision remember). Just as advice on studio flash is what this OP wanted I DON'T USE STUDIO FLASH AT WEDDINGS, and I advised the OP against it too - you keep ignoring that simple relevant fact because it doesn't fit with your version of what I've said :bang:.

But don't let the evidence stand in the way of a strongly held belief, if you don't want to be confronted by it you can always use the ignore button and carry on believing whatever you want in your ivory tower.
 
"that's no reason to paint the rest of us with the same brush" - I didn't, that was the spin YOU put on it for your own dubious ends - to reiterate my very short, sharp, honest advice to the OP - "Kiss" - (keep it simple!) On-camera flash, wind up the iso if you need to - job done!"

Strong on the snide comments I see (as usual) - "slagging off the demise of wedding photography (presumably since your retirement?)" - I've come across truly atrocious photographers over several decades, there always were and always will be some true shockers out there - whether it's because of a lack of an "eye for a picture", rubbish technique, or an over-reliance on "gimmickry" - there are also some excellent photographers, many of whom post some stunningly good work on this forum - I may not always like their style, but will cheerfully admit their expertise - there are probably more better photographers about now than there were some years ago, but there are still some bally awful ones too.

And just to revisit the "web" thread - yet again we had a total beginner asking how was the easy way to build a simple website, so I advised him to go for "Weebly", as there was every chance he'd end up with a functioning website with very little effort - you come along banging on about WP and "SEO", completely ignoring the fact that he was very much a beginner (common thread there!), then twisting, turning and trying to paint me as something I'm not for several pages........It's time you accepted that there are other, perfectly valid opinions, apart from your own
 
You know what? Why don't the people fighting each other for supremacy on this thread take it to PM or maybe call each other or get a room or something? Either give the OP some sensible answers to his questions or stay away from the thread - really, all this arguing is REALLY tiresome. The rest of us are just sick of it, really. Constant bickering like this is THE main reason I hardly bother to interact on this forum anymore. What's the point in asking questions or even answering other peoples questions if all you get are these ridiculous arguments? :bang:
 
I think you're right, and can only apologise - I think it's time I bailed out of this thread as I'm getting the feeling that someone will just continue twisting everything that's said in an effort to "win" the argument, and always get the last word........
 
Ste Manns said:
You know what? Why don't the people fighting each other for supremacy on this thread take it to PM or maybe call each other or get a room or something? Either give the OP some sensible answers to his questions or stay away from the thread - really, all this arguing is REALLY tiresome. The rest of us are just sick of it, really. Constant bickering like this is THE main reason I hardly bother to interact on this forum anymore. What's the point in asking questions or even answering other peoples questions if all you get are these ridiculous arguments? :bang:
Click to expand...

Amen to that!
 
Ste Manns said:
You know what? Why don't the people fighting each other for supremacy on this thread take it to PM or maybe call each other or get a room or something? Either give the OP some sensible answers to his questions or stay away from the thread - really, all this arguing is REALLY tiresome. The rest of us are just sick of it, really. Constant bickering like this is THE main reason I hardly bother to interact on this forum anymore. What's the point in asking questions or even answering other peoples questions if all you get are these ridiculous arguments? :bang:
Click to expand...

Actually there has been some good advice from everyone who suggested something.

A discussion is a discussion and without replies, good or bad, we may never find out any answers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top