# Low-Light wedding tips??  Please advise/help?!



## Rebekah5280 (Apr 26, 2012)

Ok, so I have been doing pictures and getting really busy with my on-the-side family photography business, and friends and clients have been asking me to do their weddings.

I've done outdoor weddings and I am confident about my work in that setting (lots of light).

However.. I've tackled a couple here recently that were indoors for friends and I have had some issues with the low-light conditions in the churches/venues. I need advise on how to get good pictures, without killing the atmosphere of being in a low-light/romantic venue. I've just been lighting up my pictures with unflattering flashes in order to shoot between 400-800 ISO. 

So I'm looking for help. I know these aren't good..  I want to get better though so advice would be greatly appreciated!!

#1 The littlegirl on the ground is the bride and grooms daughter. 



#2 she was very concerned about the petals being left beind by the other two flower girls in front of her.


#3 needs to be cropped differently. but lighting-wise...


#4 I needed to get a better angle for this over-the-shoulder shot, but lighting wise...


#5 This shot was when the were leaving in the limo. I only had a minute.. So yes, I flashed then *cringe* What I would have liked to do was catch the dimly-lit romantic feel of the inside of the limo. It was lit all around the top with small led lights, but all I was getting was underexposed images until I just put my flash on them (with a diffuser, but still.. yikes).


So ok, there you guys go. please help me. Is bumping up ISO the only way to get the look I want? 

Give me a wedding in the garden and I'll give you some great pictures.. wedding in a church dimly lit?? disaster..


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 27, 2012)

Was this a commissioned event?


----------



## Rebekah5280 (Apr 27, 2012)

I did not make money off the wedding... although, I'm not sure how that information will help in any advice you could offer with my question about lighting.  

I wanted to practice, they didn't have a photographer.


----------



## Granddad (Apr 27, 2012)

Low light is a pain in the rear. What camera and lenses do you have and what settings are you using when you shoot without flash? The image I checked doesn't have any exif data. I  do a lot of low light work and my kit couldn't handle it without flash  until I spent my childrens' inheritance on a Nikon D700 and a couple of  f2.8 lenses. The Nikon produces decent images at high ISO and the f2.8s  give me that extra aperture to keep the shutter speed high enough to  avoid shake. The only regret I have about spending the money is that my  kit now weighs half a ton! 

I know that spending that much  money isn't always an option (things like mortgage payments and food get  in the way), maybe some of the more experienced experts will have some  cheaper remedies. 

Good luck!

Edit: You might think about getting a 50mm  f1.8 prime lens, they are usually affordable, depending on your camera body, and would give you more flexibility.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 27, 2012)

The flash really hurts, blasting all the tone, etc. but with some effort I think you can make these better by cropping closer, lower contrast, fixing wb, etc.
There isn't much intimacy in these shots

Here is #4 after doing all the above and putting through Portrait Pro 10


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 27, 2012)

What lens(es) are you using?  

If you don't want to have to resort to using flash, then one option would be to use very 'fast' lenses (large maximum aperture).  Most 'pro' wedding photographers use zoom lenses with a maximum aperture of F2.8.  But you can go beyond that with prime (non zoom) lenses and use very large apertures like F1.8, F1.4 or even F1.2.  Also, you could use an even higher ISO.  If your camera can't handle it, then get a better/newer one that can.  Also, keep in mind that controlling noise at high ISO has a lot to do with getting good exposure.  

And of course, you could embrace flash and learn how to use it achieve your artistic goals.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 27, 2012)

Rebekah5280 said:


> I did not make money off the wedding... although, I'm not sure how that information will help in any advice you could offer with my question about lighting.
> 
> I wanted to practice, they didn't have a photographer.



That's wonderful news. Like others have said, you need a lens with a larger maximum aperture, and a camera  body with better ISO performance.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 27, 2012)

Delta 3200 @ 1600, expose for the shadows, live at f/1.2.


----------



## CCericola (Apr 27, 2012)

For low light situations like a church I get fast glass. You will need a camera that is decent at iso 1600 or above. I have an older 1D and a 50D so I rent two 5DII's (switching to III's), I have a 24-70 2.8, a 70-200 2.8, a 85 1.4 and a 50 1.4. I do not use flash in the church because I don't like it (personal preference). I have been able to shoot f2.8, 1/30 sec at iso 3200 with good results. I do not own a lot of equipment so I rent a lot and the rental fee is added to my cost of doing business. Slowly I add equipment each year so I have to rent less and less. I recommend Borrowlenses.com and LensGiant.com I use these two guys all the time and never had a problem.


----------



## Rebekah5280 (Apr 27, 2012)

I use a Nikon D3100, 24-70 F2.8.  I understand getting fast glass, my problem is shooting wide open, I tend to miss focus (like my focu will be on the hair instead of the eyes, ect..  Or if I'm trying to get two people in the shot together, I only get one in focus.  
I've been practicing with my camera since the wedding at ISO 1600, and I'm actually getting decent pictures as long as my exposure is right on and I'm not trying to fix it PP.
I love the edit or the bride, my concern is when printing the pictures that they will be really dark.  :\  I guess I need to try to work a little more in Post on these pictures and do a LOT of trial and error practice and NOT practice at an actual event.  lol


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 27, 2012)

How is your noise on the D3100? I know when I had the D3000 poor low light capabillities were one of the main reasons I stepped up to the D7000.  I just wasn't happy with it in low light at all. Really not sure if they changed that between the two models.


----------



## LuckySe7en (Apr 27, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Was this a commissioned event?



o lord


----------



## Dominantly (Apr 27, 2012)

The best place to practice, is in fact at peoples actual weddings.

How to get the shots you are after.

1. Get better gear
2. Practice with better gear
3. Learn how strobes work


----------



## Rebekah5280 (Apr 27, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> The flash really hurts, blasting all the tone, etc. but with some effort I think you can make these better by cropping closer, lower contrast, fixing wb, etc.
> There isn't much intimacy in these shots
> 
> Here is #4 after doing all the above and putting through Portrait Pro 10
> ...



I've never used portrait pro.  
I've been thinking about this ever since I posted these pictures and I think that I may have done damage to the pictures with my post work.  I processed them the same way I process my outside pictures to try to get the same light&bright feel.  The problem, of course, is that I wasn't outside doing a portrait session with little tots..  I was in a dimly lit church during a wedding ceremony.  
Your edit made everything click in my head.  I'm going to get back into my original files and start over.  I'll re-post the 2nd set and see what you all think.   
As always..  Thank you so much for your advice/critiques and suggestions to help me not suck so much!  lol


----------



## Rebekah5280 (Apr 27, 2012)

OK, so I went back to my originals and started over.  Keeping in mind, less is more when it came to editing, and I think these re-edits/un-edits are much better. 

Not the best wedding pictures ever, but a vast improvement from my previous edits.  Here are a few of the before and afters.  Better?  Worse? 
#1  (These aren't the same exact picture, but very similar) 

#2

#3

#4


----------



## Rebekah5280 (Apr 27, 2012)

#2, yes, the shadow bugs me to no end!


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 1, 2012)

Rebekah5280 said:


> I use a Nikon D3100, 24-70 F2.8.  I understand getting fast glass, my problem is shooting wide open, I tend to miss focus (like my focu will be on the hair instead of the eyes, ect..  Or if I'm trying to get two people in the shot together, I only get one in focus.
> I've been practicing with my camera since the wedding at ISO 1600, and I'm actually getting decent pictures as long as my exposure is right on and I'm not trying to fix it PP.
> I love the edit or the bride, my concern is when printing the pictures that they will be really dark.  :\  I guess I need to try to work a little more in Post on these pictures and do a LOT of trial and error practice and NOT practice at an actual event.  lol



A better motor is really needed to shoot inside a church. Stepping up to the d7000 as suggested would be a good move. You could then easily shoot at 1600-3200 with almost no noise and get better shots with no flash. Basically it just time to upgrade. Your doing more professional shoots now you need more professional gear. Get the upgrade. It will pay for itself.


----------



## PapaMatt (May 1, 2012)




----------



## IgsEMT (May 1, 2012)

Your lighting is a bit harsh and WB seems a bit too cold for my flavor.
Practice Practice Practice

Joe


----------



## o hey tyler (May 1, 2012)

LuckySe7en said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Was this a commissioned event?
> ...



Worth asking...


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> LuckySe7en said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



I dont think that is a bad question. If payment was arranged up front then this would effect what quality of product the customer would expect.


----------



## Rebekah5280 (May 4, 2012)

Yes, I think its time for me to upgrade my equipment.  I just don't know where to go from here!  

The suggestion of the D7000 would be a good upgrade for me?  Would there be something else that I should get instead?  Thank you all for your advice.  I really appreciate you taking the time to help me out.


----------



## 12sndsgood (May 4, 2012)

I traded up to the D7000 and low light ability is greatly enhanced. but if you want to get into this profesionally and your going to drop money on a new camera you may just want to look into a full frame option. I wonder if I should have just done that myself.


----------



## Rebekah5280 (May 4, 2012)

Yeah, I was thinking full-frame.  I wasn't sure if the D7000 was full frame, but I just looked and it is not.  

What are some of the Full-Frame Nikons that are great in low light?  I'm trying to find a few good leads on cameras that may be good for this typen of photography. I'd like to stick with Nikon, just because I have my lenses that are compatible with Nikon already.


----------



## Rebekah5280 (May 4, 2012)

OK, so I've been looking through Nikon's cameras...  
Do I need a full-frame?  Or would a 7000 work fine? 
What are the benefits of a full frame vs not?


----------



## manaheim (May 4, 2012)

D7000 is a VERY good camera and handles low-light even better than my D300, and my D300 handles low light admirably.  A full-frame camera will generally handle low light even better, but it's really all about budget.

If you have $20K, you go all out and get a D3S/D4 a 12-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 and an SB910.  (That's probably a little less than $20k, but you get the point.)  If you have less, you make compromises wherever you think you are able to.  For me, I would probably start by dropping the 12-24 2.8 and next I would probably drop the D3S/D4 and maybe go D700 or D7000.

If you have to go REALLY economical, at least get a flash that you can bounce off the ceiling and do not EVER pop a flash in someone's face.  Learn as much as you can about the flash and flash/high-ISO combinations (when apppropriate- ISO 800 and a flash bounced off a fairly high ceiling works surprisingly well), and you can handle a bit more than you're dealing with currently.

Unfortunately, beyond that... low light is almost all about gear.  There are some minor tricks to improve whatever you have, but if you don't have the gear to handle it, there are certain barriers that you just won't ever be able to cross.  

Good luck with it.


----------



## Rebekah5280 (May 4, 2012)

I currently work with a bounce flash, 28-70 2.8, D3100.  My lens was not good for the wedding ceremony.  I don't know if I'm going to offer to do another one, but I will not be doing another one for sure without a longer lens!  I'm thinking a 70-200 or 300..  not sure.  


So my thoughts are to get the D7000 and inverst in the 70-200.


----------



## Mach0 (May 4, 2012)

The 28-70 2.8 didn't work out? Feel like selling it ? Lol


----------



## Rebekah5280 (May 4, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> The 28-70 2.8 didn't work out? Feel like selling it ? Lol



No!!  Its my go-to portrait lens!  Love it so much I actually have two of them... lol

I just wanted/needed more reach.  There was a balcony that I would have loved to take pictures from, but 70 couldn't get me close enough.  :\


----------



## Rebekah5280 (May 4, 2012)

The other problem was that there was a giant white projector screen right above their heads.  It was installed so it could not roll up.  This problem was exaggerated by the fact that they decided to get married up on a stage so when I shot from the ground level, their heads were intersected with the bottom of the white screen (hard to explain..)  I could stand on my tip-toes (thank goodness I'm just about 6ft tall) and I was able to get the bottom of the screen to lay just above their heads, but I could have done more with composition had that not been an obstacle for me to work around.  
In hindsight..  actually..  I Should have used that gigantic white projector screen as a bounce for my speedlite!  Why can't I think of these things on the fly?!  uggh..  
The formal pictures are all fine.  I brought my umbrella lights and set up those pictures nicely (I'm a portrait photographer).  It was just the ceremony pictures I struggled with working with the low light.. Enough so that i will be investing innew gear.  Friends have seen the pictures from this wedding and some are asking me to do other weddings for them...  Im saying no until I get my camera upgrade.


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 4, 2012)

Skip the D7000.  The D700 has come down in price quite a bit, and your 28-70 2.8 will work fine for it.  It will be quite a bit wider than you are used to, but will deliver better backgrounds, better noise performance, and better focus.

Now, on that note, with a D700, you will no longer have a medium telephoto lens.  You will need to add about $600(minimum) for the 80-200 push-pull 2.8.  If you have a larger budget, you can go with the 70-200 VR or VRII.  If you don't, you can rent until then.

In Texas, there are very, very few ceremonies that allow flash, so we shoot pretty much available light(during the processional and recessional, we are generally alowed to use flash, but not always).  I will give you a lay out on how we usually shoot.  Generally, we have one photographer just off the center of the aisle with a 70-200 2.8 IS(he's cannon), and he is also carrying a 24-70 2.8.  If we can get relatively close, another photographer is using a 35 1.4 or a 70-200 2.8 IS.  Generally, I get stuck with the longer stuff so I am usually on a tripod shooting with a 70-300 VR.  That changed recently when I upgraded to a 120-300 2.8.

Basically, we shoot with three shooters and we run all the way from 24 to 300 at 2.8 from different angles.  Trying to do it with one person almost necessitates two camera bodies with different focal lengths.

So, for you, my advice, pick up a D700 and a 70/80-200 2.8.  Depending on the venue, use the D700 for your most used lens, and use the D3000 for your least used lens.

Unfortunately, you are significantly under-equipped for low light wedding photography.  Perhaps renting as Ccericola advised would be more advantageous to you in the short term if your budget doesn't allow purchasing what you really need.

For me, shooting on my own, I wouldn't do it without two bodies that can comfortably shoot at ISO 1600 or higher, a tripod, lenses that span 24 to 200 with a 2.8 aperture, two high end speedlights, a studio light(modifiers, triggers, stands, etc), and at least one prime lens at a comfortable focal length for when none of the rest will work.  To be fair, I lack the 70 to 120(at 2.8) range because of the choices I made.  So far, I haven't found it a hinderance, but I will be picking up an 85 1.4 to fill the gap.


----------



## Rebekah5280 (May 4, 2012)

I live in a small town where equipment rental in not readily available.  I'm sure I could rent via internet somehow, but I have the means to spend approx $2-3000 on equipment upgrades.  
As I mentioned above, I'm a decent portrait photographer and have been doing quite well in my small business venture.  
Weddings are not my passion, but if I do them for family or friends, I would like to be able to give professional results.  So I will use the occasional need to do a wedding as the perfect excuse to buy new equipment!   
Just so I can clarify though..  the D700 will out perform the D7000 in low light.  Correct?


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 4, 2012)

Yes, the D700 blows the D7000 out of the water.  However, it still needs flattering light, good composition, and good glass to make a decent photo.

And in today's world, there is no town too small to gain access to equipment rental.  If you have a credit card, it can be there in a few days.


----------



## Granddad (May 5, 2012)

I wavered between the D7000 and the D700 for low light. The D700 won and I haven't regretted it. Derrel was the guy who swayed my opinion and I still think he's the bees knees. BTW, I picked up a 10 year old Nikon ED 80-200 f2.8D on Ebay at a good price so used is an option that's worth investigating. Now the D800 is out you may be able to find some good used D700 bodies for sale, too.


----------



## skinnyboy_74 (May 5, 2012)

As soon as the D800 was announced I was looking for a d700 daily everywhere. Eventually I got fed up and picked up a d7000 - it was very impressive and blew me away with its speed and ISO performance...I used a D90 before (which I still use as a backup) and it was definitely a noticeable step up. However, I was lucky to find a d700 a few days after that and decided to make the jump and return the d7000. I used it as much as I could over a few short days as I had a wedding to photograph that weekend and man, it was impressive. The 24-70 f2.8 pairs amazing with it and my 50mm 1.4 (and 85 1.8) were perfect for the reception. Being able to really crank up the ISO and use fast glass really helped retain how beautiful the light setting was in both the ceremony and reception. Thankfully my 2nd photographer has a 70-200 as he shot primarily with that so I could use the 24-70. A 70-200 2.8 is definitely on my list as I need something beyond 85 at the moment, but I also really like the 135mm DC so I may substitute it instead! 

and I agree - d700s are slowly popping up everywhere now that the d800 is out!


----------



## jake337 (May 5, 2012)

skinnyboy_74 said:


> As soon as the D800 was announced I was looking for a d700 daily everywhere. Eventually I got fed up and picked up a d7000 - it was very impressive and blew me away with its speed and ISO performance...I used a D90 before (which I still use as a backup) and it was definitely a noticeable step up. However, I was lucky to find a d700 a few days after that and decided to make the jump and return the d7000. I used it as much as I could over a few short days as I had a wedding to photograph that weekend and man, it was impressive. The 24-70 f2.8 pairs amazing with it and my 50mm 1.4 (and 85 1.8) were perfect for the reception. Being able to really crank up the ISO and use fast glass really helped retain how beautiful the light setting was in both the ceremony and reception. Thankfully my 2nd photographer has a 70-200 as he shot primarily with that so I could use the 24-70. A 70-200 2.8 is definitely on my list as I need something beyond 85 at the moment, but I also really like the 135mm DC so I may substitute it instead!
> 
> and I agree - d700s are slowly popping up everywhere now that the d800 is out!



Often for under $2,000 too!


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 6, 2012)

Get the d7000. The ISO capabilities will solve you problem. What that doesn't solve some cheap flash units will. Getting that motor and some more flash would be a lot cheaper then a full frame upgrade.


----------



## Rebekah5280 (May 6, 2012)

I played with the D7000 today and I LOVE it!!  I cranked it up to 6400 and on screen it looked pretty good!  I'm going to look at a 700 and then decide.  Thanks for all the information.  I look forward to trying out a low-light event with my new gear!!


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 7, 2012)

Rebekah5280 said:


> I played with the D7000 today and I LOVE it!!  I cranked it up to 6400 and on screen it looked pretty good!  I'm going to look at a 700 and then decide.  Thanks for all the information.  I look forward to trying out a low-light event with my new gear!!



I would go with the d7000 unless you have a sufficient supply of FX lenses. Otherwise you will have to upgrade all of your lenses. Its not a bad way to go but just not sure if you want to finance that sort of endeavor.


----------

