Available light wedding

[ann sanfedele]

Hi, Drew

I've shot a dozen or so weddings for folk who, like you, wanted me 
because of the way I shoot and
the way  I have shot for years is available light  -  go with your 
gut... aside from the formal staged photos
that are required...

But I would certainly bring a digital camera along , too...   most 
importantly (I'll let others gab about the
precise tech stuff)  _shoot the reception too!  Some of the best photos 
I've gotten (and read - most loved by
the wedding participants) are those taken at the reception -- not just 
of the bride and groom, of course --

also, if you can, get some shots of the pre wedding process.  

Don't make the Bride and Groom spend a lot of time posing for you - they 
won't want to.

It's a bear of a job - but it can be fun, too.

ann





drew wrote:

>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
>
>  
>