What specific brand/type/model/watts of lighting do you use when couple is dancing, and how many lights? i know some use dedo lights but they did not specify type. also, if there are uplights, and accent lighting setup, does this change the lights you use? I searched the forums but can't get a straight answer. Thanks.

I believe the reason you won't find a straight answer is due to the fact that many different videographers have various preferences. I feel for my style of shooting, I want to provide just enough light to allow a lower ISO usage on my 60Ds.

I use Comer 1800's on 12 foot stands to ensure I get both enough light and a high spread of light. As mentioned previously, the higher you can get the light, the better. This is the main reason why I say no way to on camera lights. This of course means you have to both prepare ahead of time and be strategic in your placement of lighting.

Also, if you are able to get the lights up to the 12 foot mark, you will have nice even light and it will not harshly blind or draw attention.

On camera lighting is easier to use, due the fact you just mount it and turn it on/dim up or down. However, the lights can often be harsh, blinding, and produce nasty shadows.

So chalk me up for a vote on two comer lights or equivalent, mounted off camera on high stands.

Here is a link to a thread about on camera and off camera lighting. Warning!!! On camera vs. off camera lighting is almost as bad as asking which camera or which NLE software should I use. ;-)
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/490227-2011-led-event-lighting-options.html

Erwin,

Ever consider a DSLR with a fast lens instead for these low light situations? The whole point of dimming lights on the dance floor is for ambience. When we crash in and light the place up like a christmas tree we do two things in most cases. One - kind of spoil the mood, and Two - create a false representation of the event, where near objects are lit up and backgrounds are dark.

Really one of the best aspects of DSLR is the natural quality of the image in as far as lighting is concerned. Granted a fast lens can create challenges with focus - but push the iso and go only as wide (say f1.4 - 2.8) as needed with the aperture. It can create some phenomenal images.

Just a thought...

Ken, you're absolutely right. It's simply not your right to inflict your needs on the couple's chosen mood or theme, the client remember?

Frankly, Erwin either get your equipment right as Ken suggests or learn your craft. Discover how to use silhouettes, backlighting, pool lighting (ie shoot the couple moving unseen perhaps from one pool of light to the next - the audience isn't daft, they know people can't be seen in the dark). Lighting the dance floor isn't our job.

Dances are very rarely in total darkness, but if you have to use light, we've found that 3W single LED maglites, with the lens heavily attacked with wire wool fit nicely into the microphone mounts and provide enough light for our cameras to "see". They provide a nice lighting source for reverse angle silhouettes if the cameras are on opposite sides of the couple but have almost no effect on the actual scene and are very inexpensive. In short, anything that's noticeable to the audience is too much.

Hey fellas,

I have to disagree with not putting lights at all.

no dslr or film camera with the best lenses will give you a great image when the dance floor is not lid properly enough. When the venue switch off all the lights, your best bet is to light it just enough for your camera and not ruining the mood.

You don't have to use big lights. We use a 250w lowel light placed as far away as we can for backlighting and sometimes we use a comer 1800 for fill lights when necessary.

When we light it properly, the dance floor would look great even in my eye. I think everyone would actually appreciate the lighting that we use instead of annoyed by it. Especially when they use a smoke machine. Smokes without any light looks horrible and zombie-like

When the dance floor is not lid at all, its not because the venue wants to create the mood. They just simply don't have the proper lighting setup for it. The best venues would already be equipped with proper lighting setup, which in that case we would not need to put up any lights whatsoever.

my 2 cents

Santo

Great point Susanto. I have experienced the same thing, the venue simply doesn't have a good inbetween setting. Usually it's all or none for their lighting. For example, most tents with lighting will just have an on or off setting. If you are objective in your lighting style, then the lighting can actually improve the mood rather than spoil it and you can get great footage.

Simply stating that lighting ruins a mood and that you should work with what you have seems like hogwash to me. If a bride has come to me wanting video and is asking me to produce a piece of art for her, I am going to do what is required and that does not mean you spoil anything. One key point is to make sure they are aware. I inform during consultations that if needed I may use lighting to enhance the video. They are always understanding and put their trust into my skills to not be the obvious pink elephant in the room.

Debate continue.

Jeff,

I wholeheartedly agree that some venue lighting is butt ugly and needs to be improved. Some venues have very nice lighting that is too low and virtually impossible to film in without either major gain, additional lighting, or fast lenses. If you're happy with your way of fixing things, then by all means, I wouldn't argue.

But when you tell the couple that you're going to provide lighting to make it look good, then you are taking on a new responsibility as lighting director for the reception.

Personally, I prefer a DSLR with fast lenses. I don't have to drag extra equipment or worry about someone kicking over a lightstand. And when you nail the focus, you get some beautiful bokeh which is an added bonus.

This is just my experience since switching to DSLR.

My approach is that more light gives better colour & beautiful images. Have you ever seen a Hollywood movie about a wedding shot in low light? They are all brilliantly lit. I use 3x 800W Redheads, 1x 600 LED, 2x Z96 LEDs. I turn on as many lights as I can during speeches, formalities and back off between speeches.

Bouncing lights against surfaces helps soften them, I also try to keep them in corners which enhances the atmosphere. Sometimes it's so dark the guests are grateful when I turn on my lights, who ever gave brides the idea that pitch dark = atmosphere has it all screwed up.

For the dance floor I find that placing a light close to the floor and bouncing it off gives the floor a radiant glow however when it comes to lighting it's best to experiment with different styles until you find one that works for you.

Just a thought about DSLRs and low light. If they are so good as not to need any additional light why do photographers use flash when they shoot the dance floor?

Just a thought about DSLRs and low light. If they are so good as not to need any additional light why do photographers use flash when they shoot the dance floor?

photographers don't have to use the flash, but their photos come out better if they do..same thing with video DSLR, you don't need a light but your image comes out better if you have it.

photographers don't have to use the flash, but their photos come out better if they do..same thing with video DSLR, you don't need a light but your image comes out better if you have it.Lighting is not just about ensuring that shots aren't under-exposed. Not that an on camera flash necessarily does much in the way of sculpting to improve the illusion of depth.

Lighting is not just about ensuring that shots aren't under-exposed. Not that an on camera flash necessarily does much in the way of sculpting to improve the illusion of depth.

I think George was just trying to pick on DSLR shooters. ;-)

Well spotted Michael (wink).

No, really I know that fast still camera lenses will require less light to resolve more image than most lenses fitted to the average video camera, but the quality of the image will still depend on there being some light. If you have little or no hand in the setting and controlling the lighting of the room then some on hand (or camera) light is helpful, as in the use of flash for stills photographers.
A lot of the discussion around this subject seems to be based on theory and bears little resemblance to the real-life situations I encounter at most wedding venues I get to.

By the way I'm not a member of the DSLR apartheid party, after all it's only another tool in the box and those who do use them to good effect are achieving some admirable work, I can only compliment their ability to use such an unsuitable tool and obtain good results.

I agree with this, everyone raves about the low light capabilities of DSLR's as a reason not to use good lighting but at the end of the day the best photographers & videographers have mastered lighting, if you want to be the best you have to learn how to use light, light is the only truly spectacular ingredient to any photo or video.

Well, I was saving my 1,000th post for my 5th anniversary on March 14th of this year but it didn't work out that way...

Nicholas and Santo (in particular), produce some beautiful work - as do many others on this thread. And I completely agree that our craft is all about mastering light, and evolving as craftspeople.

My point is in the sub 2k wedding kit - I have a 5d2 with 5 lenses, an XLH1, an HV30, I like to squeeze in a second shooter when I can, 2 tripods, a glidecam, Senn wireless system, etc... I think you get my point. It becomes a matter of priority, where you expend expense and energy.

But having said all of that, I have run into venues that have ugly lighting and could definitely use a bump, so I may rethink my strategy and start packing a couple of softboxes with some egg crates, though it would be nice to add a high key as well. See this is what happens, where do you stop..?

Anyways, this is the great thing about dvinfo. That we can come together from all corners of the world and share our experiences.

Thanks to all.

Hi Ken,

I'm sure this 1000th post of yours is going to be worthwhile :)

That's right. Where do you stop? How many things that you have to haul along to each shoot? It gets really hard when you're only shooting by yourselves and carrying all these gears.

I guess the answer depends on what do you want to end up doing. Do you want to keep on doing 1 camera person shoot or do you want to shoot with 2 people every time? We all know that we cannot produce consistent beautiful work with one person shooting. But the client doesn't know that. When you shoot with one camera person each time and uploading those highlights to your blog. That's what the future clients would see and expect. They wouldn't care about adding a second camera shooter because they haven't really seen much result with 2 camera person and they are happy with the result with 1 anyway. so why pay more?

We took out our 1 camera coverage a long time ago because we want to force our couples to get 2 camera person on the day every time. For sure we lost some potential customers and such and such because of the higher price. However, our work became more consistent and it allows us to do a lot more creative things with 4 hands and 2 brains. And when our future clients saw our work on the blog using 2 camera persons, that's what they wanted as well.

All in all, I understand that some of us might not have the luxury of doing 2 camera people shoot every time. in that case though, I would still carry one light with light stand to act as my backlight for dance and speeches. Carrying softboxes and egg crates sounds really obtrusive and heavy and massive.. I wouldn't do that. My lowel 250w is very very small and light. as well as my comer1800 and it takes probably 5 minutes in total to set a light up and leave it there. But yeah, when you're shooting with one person, 5dmark2 kit + XLH1 kit + HV30 + audio kit + glidecam + tripod kit + lighting kit would be 2-3 times return travel to the car.

Just an additional note that might help. We carry this bag to all of our shoot. It fits our 2 monopods, 1 slider, 1 tripod, 3 light stands, 1 lowel 250w, 1 comer 1800, cables and power boards, glidecam (disassembled), car rig, small accessories. We bring this bag to overseas/interstate shoots and it works wonders.

Kata OC-97. Organizers Rolling bags (Kata Bags) (http://www.kata-bags.com/product.asp?p_Id=368&Version=video)

Hope this helps :)

Santo

Hey Santo,

It's a good point. I think that there are many inherent flaws in solo shooting and to evolve, I think that I really do need to expand. And coincidentally I've met an assistant over the last couple of weeks and I am going to try adding her as a second shooter at a wedding today (19th). The budget wasn't for two shooters but I will pay her anyways and we will try it out. She's very creative and has a fine arts degree so it may work out.

We'll see where it ends up.

I always enjoy your work by the way. Again this is the great thing about dvinfo. That we can share and learn from others from around the globe.

I often advise clients to approach a reception lighting company who will light their venue quite artistically for about (£500) $750 per evening gig. Then I can use that setup (as Philip has mentioned) to shoot against. It frees me up and allows a specialist to do what they do - everyone's a winner.

Failing that tell them to hire a lighting director, especially if YOU (as opposed to the client) want to shoot a cinamatic video (for all you DSLRs out there) - that's what lighting directors and lighting people do. Clients do not pay me (or want to pay me) to turn up with a separate lighting rig to paint their reception and first dance with light. I record light, I don't project it.

Here in the UK, the Bride's idea of romantic lighting (and the venue's) is often the light eminating from one candel from a distance of one foot. If at all I use a Comer 1800 to throw a few shadows and create a soft light spot to give effect.

Strapping a light to your camera head simply creates a two-dimensional image - flat and all rather boring and makes people feel self-conscious when all they want to feel is romantic.

George... you're just being naughty again :)

I often advise clients to approach a reception lighting company who will light their venue quite artistically for about (£500) $750 per evening gig. Then I can use that setup (as Philip has mentioned) to shoot against. It frees me up and allows a specialist to do what they do - everyone's a winner.

I'm definitely not getting the kind of demographic that will pay an extra £500 for the venue lighting. I need to move to Cambridgeshire ;) It's bad enough trying to persuade them that Uncle Bob's camera won't cut it without getting them to light it for me too.

We tend to use Comer 1800 lights on two cameras to get good lighting from a couple of angles so as to not have simple flat lighting. Using DSLRs with fast glass also helps, but you need to have a couple of good operators to make sure you've got 'in-focus' shots to cut to if the couple are moving around quite a bit.

We rarely light anything other than the first dance..... and even then we try to use as little light as possible and shoot from the DJ's side so we get the benefit of his lighting too :)

spot on + 1

I have Comer light on camera as well as setting on the corner of the dance floor. During open dance floor time, I shot with steadicam. The lens flare and lighting off camera gives great dynamic to the footage. Check this out.

Wedding Open Dance Floor on Vimeo