Available light wedding

[pnstenquist at comcast.net]

Available light is always best if you can pull it off. Unfortunately, receptions are frequently too dark for even ISO 800. That's why most wedding shooters rely on flash. Perhaps you can scout the location  ahead of time and see how much light you have. The 50/1.4 should be a good  lens for the reception. You'll most likely have a color temp problem as well. I would guess that the lighting will be at least partly tungsten. And you probably won't have enough light to filter. If you scan your images, you can apply PhotoShop filters in post. Ourdoors, you should be okay, althogh one can never be sure. I shot an outdoor wedding last weekend that included some nice panoramas as a background. But the couple was under a gazebo. If I had exposed them correctly in available light, the backgrounds would have burned out. So I had to use flash for these shots as well as for the reception. Your 90 should be okay for most of your outdoor shots -- if you can get close enough. But I'd be more comf
ortable if I had at least a 135 as well. During the ceremony, you won't have time to change lenses, so you won't be able to shoot wide and tight unless you use both bodies. That's why we use zooms. Last week I used a 16-45 zoom on one camera and a 50-200 on a second camera when shooting the ceremony. From crowd shots to ring ceremonies and everything in between, I used the full focal length range of both lenses. I would have had to juggle eight lenses or so to do the same with primes. And the results are just as good as what could be achieved with primesl when the  prints are viewed without a magnifier. Don't leave home without your 35-105:-).
Paul
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "drew" <drewallen at fastmail.fm>
> Hi there,
> I'm relatively new to this list, but I would like to ask about a
> scenario I have not been able to find much discussion about in the
> archives.
> 
> I nearly always use available light in my photographs, and I still use
> film. I do work for a weekly newspaper and use a Nikon DSLR as time
> restraints and deadlines dictate, but my love is shooting with my pair
> of Pentax MXs and soon, a Pentax 645, which will replace my Mamiya C33
> as my primary medium format rig. (I also have a few Brownie Hawkeyes and
> a Graflex 22 TLR that round out my low-budget yet fun to use MF gear.)
> 
> To the scenario... I have been commissioned by some acquaintances to
> shoot their wedding this fall. Ceremony will be outdoors, mid September,
> at 4:30 p.m. at a mountaintop resort in West Virginia. (About three
> hours before sunset, according to the US Naval Observatory.)
> 
> Weather permitting, it should be a beautiful event, the light that time
> of year is wonderful, and the backdrop will be a panorama of mountains
> with leaves beginning to change.
> 
> I'm also being asked to photograph the first hour of the reception,
> which will be indoors, in a typical banquet hall setting at the
> resort--the luminescent and aesthetic antithesis of the ceremony. Guests
> are being provided with disposable cameras for the remainder of the
> reception.
> 
> Browsing this list's archives and a number of other respected forums, I
> see the vast majority of folks shoot weddings using zooms (typically
> ~28-70 and ~80-200) and flash (often using a stroboframe or similar
> bracket). My style, as mentioned before, however, is natural light and a
> collection of prime lenses, excluding my "new" SMC-A 35-105mm f3.5. 
> 
> While it's not the way the majority of folks shoot weddings, this couple
> approached me because they like my work. (And I've offered a reasonable
> fee, since this is my first wedding gig. I warned them of the risk of my
> inexperience, encouraged them to shop around for other photographers,
> they did, and they came back to me.)
> 
> I'm rather inspired to see that until recently, Jeff Ascough was
> shooting by available light and on film, with Leicas, of course, rather
> than the much under-rated MX. ;)  He has since gone digital.
> 
> The glass I plan to use includes the SMC-M 50mm 1.4, an Elicar 90mm 2.5,
> and I'd like to pick up a SMC-M 34mm f2 for something wide, fast and
> affordable that won't distort group shots. For the 645 I have the 75mm
> and the 45mm. I may consider picking up the 150mm. This camera will
> probably be relegated to the formal portraits, as I think the MX is more
> suited to the PJ coverage of the wedding and reception, being
> inconspicuous and less intimidating to people on the other end of the
> glass.
> 
> I'd like to hear folks' thoughts on lenses appropriate for the job, film
> recommendations for such a scenario (I'm thinking Portra 160 and 400 --
> likely 800 for the reception and Ilford XP2 Super), and if I'm being a
> crazy for eschewing flash.
> 
> I look forward to hearing what folks have to say.
> 
> Thanks,
> Drew
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML at pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net