Amazon Kindle Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

Me again, weddings again!

Peter23 13 23 2
14 Sep 2012 9:43PM
Only me again on the same subject again.

Curious I have a a D700 and was wondering what iso's people would push this up to for a wedding!? Getting a sharp image with a little noise is possibly better than getting a blurred shot with no noise?

I asked this one before but I want more opinions on it, where does everyone expose from as a general rule?

Discuss guys!!!
User_Removed 15 398 6 United Kingdom
14 Sep 2012 10:47PM
What ever is required to give the shutter speed. If that means 6400 then so be it. But I use Canon.
pulsar69 17 1.6k 6 United Kingdom
14 Sep 2012 11:47PM
You really really shouldnt be asking that question ! but since you are, a sharp photo wether nosiy or not will be better than a blurred photo which almost always will be useless and binned. You would push your iso as far as the camera and lens can handle to get the shutter speed you need and that takes practise and the learning of a few other tricks ..
scottishphototours 17 2.6k 2
15 Sep 2012 12:32AM
I regularly use ISO 12,800 on the D700 at weddings.
thewilliam 13 6.1k
15 Sep 2012 10:30AM
You can remove noise with the appropriate software. You can't remove motion blur in post and VR lenses won't reduce it at the taking stage.
Peter23 13 23 2
15 Sep 2012 1:55PM
Thanks guys, especially scottish photo tours, thats good to know! Pulsar, why shouldn't I be asking that!?

scottishphototours 17 2.6k 2
15 Sep 2012 4:49PM
thewilliam's answer is spot-on as usual.

Pete, pulsar's point is probably that as a wedding pro selling your services you should be at the top of your game and you should probably know the answers to questions like this!!

Having said that, as thewilliam says, programs like NoiseNinja can help remove noise in your images to an acceptable level. Really depends on the usage in your final product - a noisy 4x2 inch picture in an album looks a lot better than the same pic at 16x12 inches!
Peter23 13 23 2
15 Sep 2012 9:11PM
Every photographer/wedding photographer has to start somewhere, the wedding is costing me more than I'm gaining. So I'm more than happy with how I'm doing it.

peterjones 19 5.1k 1 United Kingdom
16 Sep 2012 8:15PM
a wedding is quite unique within photography subjects, unlike a landscape or a street scene or whatever a wedding is an unrepeatable occasion and if a photographer does less than a competent job on a couple's day it can't be re-enacted; no wonder some epz contributors get aggravated when they are asked yet again basic techniques that should be totally second nature BEFORE you take on the responsibilty of photographing a wedding.

To be sure the industry needs new blood as old stagers leave , die off, become alcoholics, go insane or seek another more secure career however there are loads of avenues you can explore first and the first is get to know your technique so well you can fire on auto pilot; there are courses on wedding photography run by all the major organisations, there are good books on the subject; you can request to accompany a wedding photographer not in your locality ... you will have to travel!

Most weddings go off without a hitch but if the rain or sun pours down, the guests bitch, the bride and groom don't want their pictures taken, the officiants stand on the right hand side of Lucifer, your equipment breaks down etc etc you have to think on your feet and deliver, the show goes on whatever and you cannot fail.

Oh ermm up to 10,000 ISO on a D3S and of course you will know how to remove any noise in your chosen software .... don't you?

G' luck, Peter.
779HOB 9 1.2k United Kingdom
17 Sep 2012 11:23AM

Quote:a wedding is an unrepeatable occasion

All photogrpahy that isn't staged is unrepeatable.
Focus_Man 11 481 631 United Kingdom
17 Sep 2012 11:34AM

Quote:Every photographer/wedding photographer has to start somewhere, the wedding is costing me more than I'm gaining. So I'm more than happy with how I'm doing it.

Doesn't sound like a good deal for the customer though. What you are saying is that you are using the occasion in order to learn a trade and if the work is sub-standard "well tough as long as I am learning and as long as I am happy."

Why not start as the second man? That is a good way to learn.
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
17 Sep 2012 3:33PM
Most wedding photographers started with only the scantest of photographic knowledge relating to the problems which they will come across at some weddings.

I know the great collection of EPZ Toggery will tell me otherwise - but it's as true now as it ever was.
ade_mcfade 17 15.2k 216 England
17 Sep 2012 4:15PM
very true... prior to shooting my first wedding, I was the one in the bar being dragged out, kicking and screaming, pint in hand, for the group shot... and that's ALL I knew about it....

was quite an eye opener shooting the first one - in Rotherham... next to a roundabout...
thewilliam 13 6.1k
17 Sep 2012 6:00PM
When I started shooting weddings about 40 years back, I felt that I was well qualified because I had a nice camera and had been to a couple of weddings as a guest.
Peter23 13 23 2
17 Sep 2012 7:05PM
I get really frustrated when people on here try and tell me I shouldn't be doing it because of experience or from what questions I'm asking.

Ultimately I know how to take good potos, the client likes my work and particularly asked me to do there wedding. I'm charging peanuts, if I was qualified and knew it all, I wouldn't charge peanuts.

I just ask for specific advice on here. If I wanted to know if I was making the right decision on photographing a wedding, I'd ask that.

Thanks to those who are helpful which is most of you!


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.