# Spray and Prey / Flash in Weddings



## Austin Greene (May 20, 2014)

Hey folks,

No, I don't have my first wedding shoot yet. I'm still enjoying my time on the sidelines, watching, trying to get in as a second shooter with nearby pro's. That said, I did attend a family wedding about a month ago and I noticed something that really made me wonder. 

I'm a big fan of getting my lighting right in the field. I'll edit, but I'd prefer not filling my days with dodging and burning portions of images when I could just bring a flash along and get exactly the look I want with the camera still on my neck. Well as I watched my brother's wedding photographer I noticed something, she hardly ever used flash. Actually, _NEVER. _Not her, not her assistant, nada. Not even a reflector. She might have used some when she pulled them off after the ceremony, but I certainly didn't see so much as a lone speedlight for the entirety of the event beforehand, including the first look. Indoors, outdoors, directional lighting or not, she never broke one out (I don't know if she even brought one), and it confused the hell out of me because she's considered one of the best in her state. I've seen her photos, and they look beautiful, but something doesn't add up. Her strategy seemed to be: 

1. Meter
2. Somewhat compose (1 second behind the viewfinder)
3. _Spray_ frames like it's no ones business via her 5DmkIII on full burst. She wasn't looking through the viewfinder half the time. For what I'd expect to take one or two frames, she'd pop off 20-40_. _

I'm not knocking her technique, it seems to work for her. I am looking for a bit of clarification on two things though, as someone who is looking to go into wedding photography at some point. 

1. Is spray and pray normal in wedding photography? I suppose I expected more finesse, but perhaps it's really more about having the volume of frames as an insurance policy for missed moments? 
2. Is it normal to go an entire ceremony without once using a flash of any sort, even during the private first look and bride/groom portraits? Watching her I'd absolutely think the lighting demanded use of a flash, but my guess is she planned on just doing quite a bit of exposure adjustment after the fact to give them more "pop." I get not using flash during the ceremony (though we were outdoors), but even during the first look? Really?

Her images are beautiful, I'm just a little confused as to how she gets them to that point. It's either a lot of post work, or magic.

P.S: Something I found interesting was her use of a light panel (small one, 6x4 inches or so) during the evening as a light source while folks were dancing. I'd never seen that done before in place of a flash given the faster shutter speeds she'd need to be using.


----------



## Mach0 (May 20, 2014)

Maybe she bracketed ?


----------



## Austin Greene (May 20, 2014)

Mach0 said:


> Maybe she bracketed ?



Not that I could see. The shots weren't going off in sets (2/3/5/7/9) like the 5DmkIII utilizes for auto bracketing, nor was she adjusting settings between exposures. Also, this was for _every_ photo she took that she'd just spray away.

Now that I think of it, I kind of watched her like a hawk...


----------



## Designer (May 20, 2014)

I attended a wedding last fall in which the photographer took (IMO) some rather questionable shots.  Nearly every shot she did of the wedding party was against the sun, and no flash.  

Later, after the sun went down, she used her flash for the dance, etc.  

Only one time did she "spray", and that was during the toasting, when everyone was up and clapping.  She just pointed her camera toward the crowd and while panning; shot - shot - shot - shot.  It was not burst mode, but she was jabbing the shutter fairly rapidly.


----------



## IzzieK (May 20, 2014)

Those shot...shot...shot...takes getting used to. I only do that kind of thing during airshows...when I am following aerobatics.


----------



## Austin Greene (May 22, 2014)

Guys I think we could hash this one out a bit more. I'm genuinely curious why this is a thing, or if it _is_ a thing, and it could play a role when I eventually sign up for my first wedding as a second shooter. 

Bump?


----------



## tirediron (May 22, 2014)

This is a technique which has been developed by those who grew up in the digital age and never had to make it through an entire wedding with only 'X' rolls of 36 exposure Tri-X Pan.  Personally, I don't 'get it' either.  Like you, I prefer to take 1-2 shots and get them right, however with the high ISO capabilities of modern DSLRs and the high frame-rates, if you're a good "Photoshopper" you can easily get away with being a mediocre (at best) photographer and working your magic in the pixel room.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 22, 2014)

Every competent wedding photographer will "spray and pray" to _some degree_. It might only be taking 2-3 exposures of the critical shots, to make pretty sure there's at least one without some unfortunate closed eyes or whatever. Shooting 50 frames instead of 3 is just a matter of degree, and not a terrible idea. If you make 50 exposures of more or less the same thing, is it not true that one of that 50 will be the best one?

Why NOT shoot 50 of everything, then? Well, editing time, obviously. So, one could argue that it's basically laziness or inefficiency that causes people to only shoot 2 or 3. Yes yes, I "get it right in the camera". What if you "got it right in the camera" 50 times instead of 2? Wouldn't you get a better picture? You'd surely get, overall, slightly better work out -- at least. With 50 you can throw out the 10 lousy ones, and still have 40 left to select the absolutely perfect expression, the ideal smile, the best eyes crinkled with joy, or whatever.

As for flash versus not, well, that's just a choice people make. Dan O has gone on and on about about natural light, and has shown us exactly how to get a strobe-like appearance out of natural light in post, with some relatively simple adjustments. If you can manage it, natural light DOES eliminate some weird looking effects (namely the "where the hell is that light coming from? Is there a bonfire on the altar?" effect, and similar). Natural light isn't easier than flash, it's harder. But it can be made to work just fine if you have the chops.

There's a lot more seeing involved, generally.

As a side note: It's pretty lame to try to separate "the photographer" from "the post production person" and suggest that doing more before the shutter press is somehow better. Who cares what happens before and what happens after? That line is always shifting anyways.


----------



## tirediron (May 22, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Every competent wedding photographer will "spray and pray" to _some degree_. It might only be taking 2-3 exposures of the critical shots, to make pretty sure there's at least one without some unfortunate closed eyes or whatever.


I don't really think that's "spray & pray" in the current context/



photoguy99 said:


> ... If you make 50 exposures of more or less the same thing, is it not true that one of that 50 will be the best one?


Yes, but it doesn't mean that any of them will be good.



photoguy99 said:


> What if you "got it right in the camera" 50 times instead of 2? Wouldn't you get a better picture? You'd surely get, overall, slightly better work out -- at least. With 50 you can throw out the 10 lousy ones, and still have 40 left to select the absolutely perfect expression, the ideal smile, the best eyes crinkled with joy, or whatever.


Seems like a lot of extra work to me...



photoguy99 said:


> As a side note: It's pretty lame to try to separate "the photographer" from "the post production person" and suggest that doing more before the shutter press is somehow better. Who cares what happens before and what happens after? That line is always shifting anyways.


Why?  Quite often they're totally different people.  As to what happens before and what happens after, the 'before' is critical to the 'after' - if the 'before' is done correctly, there's virtually no need for 'after'.

This puts me in mind of a presentation given by Dr. Ted Grant which I was fortunate enough to attend some years ago.  He told us how he captured his famous Ben Johnson image, explaining that for the last few yards of the race all of the other photographers in the press box had their motor drives on "Max" burning through the film on their bulk backs; he tracked Ben through the viewfinder, waited, saw the critical moment, and captured the frame that was plastered on every sports and news magazine around the world.  Spray and pray or pay attention and get it right...  I know which camp I fall in to!


----------



## astroNikon (May 22, 2014)

Oddly I've been thinking this through too.  I'm 2nd shooting a small wedding in June.

But I've seen the opposite. More precise and consciencious shooting.   Knowing how the wedding flow with the ceremony et all.
I think one would tend to get better shots being more precise.  Of course, spray and prey could be good but I'm going to assume alot of post processing, and alot more work going through the photos.

just doing sports and understanding and seeing the flow I've reduced my shooting 75% and I'm capturing better images.
I would think the same would hold true for weddings.

But the low light is where your fast glass f/2.8 comes into play - inside churches, poor outside lighting due to time or cloud cover, etc.
Light Panel - Would a light panels help to keep ISO down and shutter speed up .. just like a flash.  Maybe not as much but certainly not as irritating as a flash.

I did a kids field trip inside our state capital the other day.  I took my kit lens.  What a mistake.  I either needed a flash (not allowed) or fast glass.  live and learn.  Luckily all in RAW and LR took care of everything.  So I'm going to guess the photog does alot of editing too.

But for the wedding I'm bringing my fast glass as the dinner is inside a barn ( a very nice barn, but still).  The ceremony is outside.  But just doing sports outside could push ISO up with heavy clouds.


----------



## pixmedic (May 22, 2014)

there are are more shooting options with digital than there were with film. 
memory cards give you many more shots, ISO settings let you shoot different conditions without worrying about changing films, higher FPS lets you shoot more, faster....
why is it always some weird issue when someone actually takes advantage of one of these things? what difference does it _*really *_make to anyone if you take two shots or 12 shots of the same scene?  are you going to judge someone by how many FPS they shoot, or by their final product? 
im always a little amused by people that take some "purist" approach to photography... did those same people complain when roll film came out and you could take more than one shot at a time? or complain that 220 gives you too many shots and makes you lazy, so only use 120 film?

pretty much every new feature is going to be criticized by _*someone*_ that thinks that things were  better "back in the day", whether its cheating by using Autofocus, or higher ISO, or higher FPS, or Photoshop, or a program mode...

my advice is this...use the equipment you have to the best of your abilities. use whatever features your camera offers that will help you get the best shot possible. 
if taking 10 shots gets you the best result...._*do it. *_when I second shoot at a wedding, i almost always take 2-3 shots of every scene i shoot. sometimes people blink, look away, move an arm...something. i would rather have a few shoots to choose the best from. Don't be fooled, film people do it too. they just have to change film instead of memory cards.


----------



## KmH (May 22, 2014)

From a business perspective, the cost of the time required to review, evaluate, and sort thousands of spray and pray images from a wedding makes little financial sense.
Factor in the wear and tear on the camera gear.

That a particular photographer is considered "one of the best in her state" does not mean that the photographer has an efficient business that is as profitable as it can be.

I would bet that *a ton* of man-hours are spent doing post production of her photographs.


----------



## Austin Greene (May 22, 2014)

Thanks for all the thorough replies folks, it's just what I was looking for. All in all I'm not trying to criticize her, like I said I have zero experience in wedding photography. I was more trying to understand what the norm is, and if I should expect to shift how I operate when I eventually do move into weddings. I've got no bones with folks who like to burst a few extra frames, though I do agree that in the case of excessive bursting it doesn't make much financial sense.


----------



## Derrel (May 22, 2014)

She sounds like a shooter that is not really competent, nor confident in her camera-handling tgechnique. Not looking through the viewfinder half the time? Maybe she shoots loose, and crops in post? With a short lens at moderate distances, like 10-30 feet, there's enough depth of field at f/4.5 or f/5.6 that focusing is not ultra-critical, and a modern camera can even be allowed to select the focus point using a multi-point approach, so it's not ESSENTIAL to be looking through the camera, like it would be with say a 300mm telephoto lens at f/2.8, where there's a 4-inch focus plane at 20 feet or whatever. Shoot loose, crop later? Shoot EVERY SINGLE FRAME with the camera held horizontal, crop whatever looks like it oughtta' be a tall into a tall? Sureeeeee...why not!?

But yeah...I've heard of this before actually, from a California wedding shooter who mentioned that there were some younger shooters doing entire weddings in long, extended bursts. I suppose it could be tailored and tweaked and made into a "system". But the idea of shooting indiscriminately because one CAN, using a d-slr and memory cards, as opposed to valuable film and processing, doe not seem to emphasize quality and selectivity over volume and happenstance. I suppose the idea of shooting 10,000 frames and hoping for 500 good pictures makes some sense to a person who has no idea of how to shoot 500 GOOD pictures more or less "on command", as in deliberately, and willfully. SO....sit back, mash down on the trigger, then cull through the dreck and pick out what's decent, and process the chit out of it...and there you go...*a wedding album.*


----------



## Overread (May 22, 2014)

There are some other thoughts:

1) Some photographers fire the shutter more than they need to and thus put the subjects at ease. When you make the moment itself a single event and a single shot some people tense up; they "put on their smile" for the camera. Sometimes if you gun a series of shots you're more likely going to remove that "moment" feeling and instead get people smiling in a more relaxed manner

2) Group shots many photographers often take a series of shots because someone is always blinking or looking away or otherwise not ideal - having a selection gives you options to clone/copy and fix potential problems. 

3) Different photographers develop different approaches toward the same end goal. This can mean that there are many ways to get great shots, not any one of which is "the best"; they are simply other approaches. 

4) No flash is more feasible today than it's ever been with high ISO cameras now in the hands of people without having to get into medium formats. So its likely there are many more with a 5DMIII going without flash. Indeed in some churches the use of flash is specificaly banned (mostly to stop the average person using little point and shoots all the time, but some extend it to include the pro as well - so you've always got to be ready for this eventuality). 

5) Sometimes spray and prey isn't professional, but is also distracting. If you're taking a few key shots at a quiet moment (eg the ring or the first kiss) chances are a sudden "slapslapslapslapslapslapslapslapsslap" of the camera shutter is an annoyance to those involved; a single click is far superior. 


It all depends and I'd say find a method that works for you and your clients; fewer shots is nearly always good and most good  photographers aim to get as much right in camera as they can in the least number of shots.


----------



## Mike_E (May 22, 2014)

Meter?  check.

Compose _sorta_?  Really you should have already composed the shot before you raise the camera.  The only thing you need the viewfinder for is to aim it.

Spray and pray?  If you're not using flash then multiple shot bursts will increase your keeper rate in regards to camera shake/open eyes.  You shouldn't need more than three or four though.  Long bursts only wear out the shutter.

And just holding the camera up at the Dance reception speeches?  Sounds as though she was tired to me.

No flash?  Eh, it's a thing.  Some do, some don't and some can't for any number of reasons.


----------



## KmH (May 22, 2014)

I get the impression the way she shoots is more about putting on a show.
And actually, that can be good for business referrals and pumping up the rate she can charge.

The people who hire her likely do so as much for bragging rights and the show she puts on as she shoots as for the photographs she delivers later.


----------



## Light Guru (May 22, 2014)

Austin Greene said:


> I noticed something, she hardly ever used flash. Actually, _NEVER. _Not her, not her assistant, nada. Not even a reflector.



Many wedding venues do not allow photographers to use flash.  Even if they did you may not want to use it or a big reflector during the ceremony because you want to do *absolutely nothing* that will distract from the ceremony. 


Austin Greene said:


> _Spray_ frames like it's no ones business via her 5DmkIII on full burst.



Some like to do this because they are not confident that they will catch the decisive moment, and its not like you can stop the ceremony and have them start over because you missed the shot.


----------



## sk66 (May 22, 2014)

Mike_E said:


> Spray and pray?  If you're not using flash then multiple shot bursts will increase your keeper rate in regards to camera shake/open eyes.  You shouldn't need more than three or four though.  Long bursts only wear out the shutter.


This was my thought... when pushing boundaries w/ SS burst mode can help a lot.

And there's a world of difference between "available light" photography (no flash) w/ my D4 as compared to a D7000... I can get away w/o flash in situations I previously couldn't...


----------



## IzzieK (May 22, 2014)

Is there a possibility that she was only pretending to "shoot" and with her assistants, she shows off their shots instead of hers? Just thinking out loud here...


----------



## Austin Greene (May 23, 2014)

IzzieK said:


> Is there a possibility that she was only pretending to "shoot" and with her assistants, she shows off their shots instead of hers? Just thinking out loud here...



I doubt it. I kept pretty good track of her and her second shooter (no assistants to speak of) and I've hardly seen any frames from the perspective of the second shooter. As for how you can pretend to take photos, I'm not sure what you mean.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 23, 2014)

I don't consider pray 'n spray a technique as much as the thing people with cameras do in the hopes they'll get some usable shots. Doing some continuous shots can work but I think it takes knowing when and how to use that. 

People can probably manage to get by with doing what she does by being able to do some fancy editing, or she shoots so many photos that odds are some turn out. Seems like she's managed to produce photos that people like and for whatever reason, her marketing, her style being popular, etc. she's managed to build up her business and reputation. You know enough to know that her way of going about this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but people who aren't photographers probably wouldn't realize that and might be impressed by her 'show' (and see the wizard not the man behind the curtain so to speak).

You never know, if/when current styles aren't popular anymore some photographers like her may not stay in business years down the road. Lots of things are popular for a time, doesn't mean they're necessarily all that good or going to last all that long.


----------



## Derrel (May 23, 2014)

Well...here's a really interesting experiment; using your cell phone camera with this application. Fast Camera.

Fast Camera - Stop fixing mediocre pictures and start taking superior photos!

Like it says on their web page, "*Shoot like the pros do!* Take dozens of pictures using the front and/or rear camera, and save the best."

I actually have been using this app on my iPhone for well over a year, and there are situations where turning the iPhone into a 6-frames-per second at full-resolution camera has real benefits. It ALSO can waste tons of time and storage space. But despite the negatives associated with spray and pray, there actually have been situations where I wanted a LOT of image choices in very fast-moving, fluid situations, and where I have been able to cull through as many as 100 frames to pick out one or two or three moments that would simply not have been possible to shoot using the iPhone's normal, very sloooow firing rate.


----------



## 71M (May 23, 2014)

Austin Greene said:


> I'm a big fan of getting my lighting right in the field. I'll edit, but I'd prefer not filling my days with dodging and burning portions of images when I could just bring a flash along and get exactly the look I want with the camera still on my neck.



Well then that 'exactly the look' is sub-par; you cannot get the whitest whites and the blackest blacks in ~9 stops without doing that. Go to school in photography; it's more than being a _camera operator_.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 23, 2014)

I'm fascinated by this whole discussion. This photographer is running a business and is successful and make nice photographs. The general negativity seems to be, basically, that she is a bad person because where you would take three shots, she takes ten.

If I take five, am I still bad?

If I only take two, does that mean I'm getting  to heaven before you, you filthy three-framer?


----------



## Austin Greene (May 23, 2014)

71M said:


> Austin Greene said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a big fan of getting my lighting right in the field. I'll edit, but I'd prefer not filling my days with dodging and burning portions of images when I could just bring a flash along and get exactly the look I want with the camera still on my neck.
> ...



Cool your jets and take off the troll mask. I made no efforts to say that editing doesn't happen, on my part, or that I have anything against minor dodging/burning. I'm speaking strictly in terms of lighting and quality of light, and their relation to what industry standards (if any) might exist. To say that you can't nail a photo in camera, with minimal editing in post, is a joke. Maybe "_photography school_ did you more harm than good if you honestly believe that. You don't need your blacks to be -9 below when photographic black is only 4 below, and what a viewer or printer can discern is far less.



photoguy99 said:


> I'm fascinated by this whole discussion. This photographer is running a business and is successful and make nice photographs. The general negativity seems to be, basically, that she is a bad person because where you would take three shots, she takes ten.
> 
> If I take five, am I still bad?
> 
> If I only take two, does that mean I'm getting  to heaven before you, you filthy three-framer?



I think you'd be reading into everyone's comments a bit too much if you think they, or myself, have been speaking poorly of her. We're talking about what she might be doing in regards to, again, and industry standard (if there is one), and how that might impact a business. This isn't about putting down a photographer, it's about fleshing out the why's and why not's involved in shooting tons of frames per composition. 

Also, it helps if the first post gets a re-read on occasion. We're not talking about 5 or 10 exposures, we're talking about _tens of exposures._&#8203; Beyond what most seem to call prudent.


----------



## snerd (May 23, 2014)

Not that I would have a clue about any of this topic, but at the end of the day, if her customers are happy, and she is making money, and new and repeat customers are still calling, she could bring a couple of monkeys with her and I wouldn't care.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 23, 2014)

I get that you were just asking a simple question about standard practices, Austin. I should have said something about that. I was specifically addressing a subset of the follow-ups. And should have said so.


----------



## Derrel (May 23, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I'm fascinated by this whole discussion. This photographer is running a business and is successful and make nice photographs. The general negativity seems to be, basically, that she is a bad person because where you would take three shots, she takes ten.
> 
> If I take five, am I still bad?
> 
> If I only take two, does that mean I'm getting  to heaven before you, you filthy three-framer?



YES, this is a fascinating topic for discussion!

Let's step back a bit in time...to the film days...since lately, I've been scanning a fair amount of older slides and B&W negatives. I used to buy Tri-X by the bulk roll, and also Ektachrome 64 and Ektachrome 100 Professional by the bulk roll...E-6 slide processing was cheap...developer for B&W used to be cheap...anyway...I've noticed just HOW FEW SHOTS I made of each scene, of each situation, compared against the freedom I have today with a d-slr and an almost unlimited amount of CF storage space worn around my neck on a lanyard with two CF card mini-wallets on it. 

Despite the large amount of card storage I carry, a "typical" day spent out shooting photos sees me filling usually, two 8-gig cards, and then maybe another 2 gigabytes' worth of images. On almost ALL typical days, that's right around 708 to 735 images in total. In situations where I need to actually FIND SOMETHING to shoot, where the subject matter must be sought out, encountered, and identified by ME, that's about all I can manage to shoot, even in target-rich places like the Oregon coast, or the Columbia Gorge national scenic area. A wedding is a different type of shooting scenario, where there is a LOT to shoot, with people playing dress-up, and there are huge lists of invitees and large family contingents, and loads of concentrated subject matter (wedding + reception  normally = one or two locations, not 150 miles of driving over a 12-hour day and eight stops).

So, what I'm working to is, *What is the normal,natural, organic shooting amount for a regular wedding?* I can EASILY see 2,500 frames being fired, on MOST weddings.

Where does the line between normal shooting, and spray-and-pray start? I mean, I've seen 1950's weddings, several, that were 24-frame albums, done on B&W Speed Graphic. Two dozen images. Each one posed, each one technically excellent.Each one 'iconic', and yet...not organic, not of-the-moment, not spontaneous, but totally, totally staged.  So, how many frames is "normal" in today's d-slr world of weddings? My feeling is 1,400 pictures is what most brides today expect to see. Is that close?


----------

