lighting for weddings

[Mark Wynimko]

Again thanks for all the help. I'm waiting for the LED 160s to arrive. Do they have a shoe adapter for dslr's or do I need to get the separate? I looked all over and could not find that info

[Don Bloom]

They have a shoe mount but it seems kind of weak. Even when I mount it on my camera (which is never now since I have them on remotes) I used the 1/4-20 mount on the bottom of the shoe mount. Be careful when you use the shoe. Just sayin'!

[Steven Davis]

Originally Posted by Don Bloom

I don't think it has to do with guests not being able to see what's going on at all. Frankly IMHO it has to do with quality of footage/image. PERIOD. Why would I say that? Simple. When it's dark it's dark. I don't care if you kick the ISO up open your iris, slow the shutter, stand on your head, when it's dark...it's dark! Photo and video need LIGHT! Period!
I've shot well in excess of 2500 weddings as both a still photograhper (back in the days of real film) and as a videographer using video cameras not DSLRs. (that's another story for another day). The principle is the same. You need light to produce a quality image. If you don't have enough light in the room then you must add some. Whether you use a light on the camera or off the camera when it's dark it's dark and when it's dark the quality suffers.
If you've ever shot breaking news events (I have) you'll find that in many cases you end up using a light outside. Why? The sun is out and it's bright enough! Right, but depending an where the sun is at in the sky you might have people squinting or racoon eye shadows so you use a light. Why do you think most news stations use a light for the outdoor standups? Same reason you use one indoors. The lighting may not be enough, may not give good enough coverage, usually it's in the ceiling so you get nasty shadows, the reasons are endless.
I used to use a low powered light (well low powered in relationship to what else was out there at the time) the Anton Bauer Ultralite was my fav. that with a 30W bulb and a softbox and you didn't blind anyone and had good enough light coverage to be able to run at 1/60th shutter with iris somewhere between f/1.6 and f/2.4. Now it's LEDs so I use a small one (LP Micro) on the camera with 2 of the 160LEDs on stands by the DJs speaker stands which are usually about 5 to 8 feet from the edge of the dance floor and up about 7 feet in the air. They're both on remote control and depending on the general lighting in the room, I will adjust the level up or down.
Regardless of the type of light you use or where you place it chances are you are only fooling yourself if you don't use some sort of additional lighting for a dark(er) reception. And BTW, in all my years and all the weddings I've done I can probably count on 2 hands the number of times people have told me my light is too bright. People expect lighting. I don't disappoint them. I'm there for the bride and groom and they expect a certain level of quality and using some sort of additional lighting is the only way to give it to them.

What he said. I use frezzie lights on my sticks and Steadicam. You turn the lights off, mine come on. I had a bride a long time ago ask me not to use my lights, so I said sure as long as she signed my waiver which released me from any post correction. She said never mind.

[Chad Andreo]

Originally Posted by Buba Kastorski

and about focus too, i would love to see coming in shot at f/1.4

Its not that hard with a little practice. I shoot a ton of wedding footage wide open.

[Noa Put]

Be honest Chad, at F1.4 it's not a matter of a "little practice" to follow a object that moves towards you. I"m sure most here have a lot of experience and can confirm keeping spot on focus in such a situation is virtually impossible.

F1.4 is only good if you really need that shallow dof and if the subject you are shooting doesn't move too much.

[Khoi Pham]

Chad is right, if you practice you can do it, like him I shoot the reception at F1.4 99% of the time.

[Noa Put]

Sure, I shoot receptions at f1.4 as well, anyone with no practice can do that, when what you shoot almost doesn't move.

I was talking about a subject moving your direction, like a bride walking down the aisle, that's not a matter of little practise to keep constant focus, that needs a lot of practise and a lot of luck as well.

[Khoi Pham]

Well when they introduced the couple or the wedding party at the reception, that is what I meant, people dancing moving in and out is the same thing, band members singing dancing around moving back and forth, all that required you to focus on the fly, you just have to practice.

[Don Bloom]

While all of this is interesting, remember keeping a 180mm lens in focus at 1.4 is different than using a 28mm lens at 1.4.
I've shot football, basketball and NASCAR races with cars doing almost 200 mph. Trust me you don't shoot at 1.4 no matter what lens you have. (both stills and video)
Having said that, what is the purpose of shooting wide open with literally no depth of field at a wedding? I'm not sure I get it. For a ceremony and receptions especially dancing, some DoF is desirerable. (it helps cover ones butt if not focused perfectly) Of course eveyones style is different but the only time I ever found very shallow DoF workable for me was doing exectutive portraits, certain fashion work and in video very specific types of shots for training videos for products. For the other type of work I do, weddings of course and seminars some DoF is definately not only preferencial but can definately be a shot saver, especially when you have "rabbits" ( people who like to use all of a 60 foot wide X 20 foot deep stage to do a seminar or during the dancing portion of a reception when you might want to have more than 1 couple in focus.
Again lens selection, distance from the subject, lighting and style all have a say so in the f/stop which of course in turn determines the DoF you get. I might suggest that before we go any further with this discussion those that shoot at f/1.4 and swear by it, let us know the lens you use, how far from the main subjects you are and the general overall lighing you use so that the discussion can have some context to it. Otherwise, I could say I shoot at f/1.6 on my video camera but it means nothing without knowing the other aspects of the technical side of f/1.6.
Just sayin'.

[Khoi Pham]

The main reason for me to shoot at 1.4 is most reception are dark at high end places, I don't want to use additional lights and change the way the room look by putting light stands or on camera light, plus more crap you have to carry, I just love the available light look, I use a 30mm at 1.4 for close range and 50mm and 85mm at 1.4 for distance on a crop camera, so that is a little advantage of full frame camera since it got a little more depth, I'm not trying to say that this is what you want to do, just confirming what Chad was saying and that if you want to do it you can do it with practice, that is all.

[Chad Andreo]

There are very few situations in which I find it difficult to focus when shooting wide open. Just like Khoi mentioned, when youre shooting at high-end events, most will not allow you to use "excessive" lighting. Its almost a given that a lot of time and money was spend on lighting to create a certain mood.
Even when I am using my Glidecam(which I cannot adjust focus once flying) in a dimly lit area, I have to shoot @ 1.4 and I rarely have any OOF issues.

Something to consider.
Using my 24L 10ft away from my subject wide open, gives me a usable DOF of about 4ft.
With my Sigma 85mm @ 1.4 around 25ft away will give me usable DOF of 2ft.
Also, if you have a camera that can run magiclantern, the new software update has an amazing focus assist. I am anxious to test in out on my next wedding.

What one well known wedding cinematographer told me was to just practice chasing little kids, because they are as unpredictable as it gets. Haha

[Chad Andreo]

Originally Posted by Don Bloom

Having said that, what is the purpose of shooting wide open with literally no depth of field at a wedding? I'm not sure I get it. For a ceremony and receptions especially dancing, some DoF is desirerable. (it helps cover ones butt if not focused perfectly) Of course eveyones style is different but the only time I ever found very shallow DoF workable for me was doing exectutive portraits, certain fashion work and in video very specific types of shots for training videos for products. For the other type of work I do, weddings of course and seminars some DoF is definately not only preferencial but can definately be a shot saver, especially when you have "rabbits" ( people who like to use all of a 60 foot wide X 20 foot deep stage to do a seminar or during the dancing portion of a reception when you might want to have more than 1 couple in focus.
.

For me, its a look that I prefer for certain situations. I love the separation of subject and background that shooting wide open achieves especially when using my 135L.
To me, cinematographers that shoot everything at a closed aperture at a wide angle just to make sure that they "caught everything" reminds of most traditional wedding videos that usually bore me.
Seminars and corporate events are usually straightforward and trying to get creative with dof and angles can actually be detrimental to the task at hand.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Don Bloom

Having said that, what is the purpose of shooting wide open with literally no depth of field at a wedding? I'm not sure I get it.

I use f stops between f1.4 and 2.0 only if it adds something to the image, like when people are sitting down at a table talking to eachtother I use my 85mm f1.4 with a cropfactor of1.6 on my canon 550d, then I can film from a distance without them seeing me and push the backgoround out of focus which puts the focus on the person I"m filming, if there is some lights in the backgound that also creates a nice effect. It also enables me film without any additional lights, even when it gets quite dark so people won't notice me. This lens is also very nice for photoshoots to for the same reason, just because the shallow dof gives a nice creative touch to the image.

But other then that I prefer a much wider dof with the background just a little bit blurry and in many occasions I want a clear view from front to back.

Even when I am using my Glidecam(which I cannot adjust focus once flying) in a dimly lit area, I have to shoot @ 1.4 and I rarely have any OOF issues.

I find that hard to believe, I shoot with a steadycam as well and at f1.4 you have to stay at exactly the same distance to the subject you are following, you can pull it off if you are telling a couple to walk towards you and ask them to keep the same distance from you while you walk backward with your steadicam and even then it will be a bit trial and error but not impossible since I have seen some wedding videographers pull such a shot off. As you have no way to adjust the focus and steadicam while shooting, shots with a f1.4 lens wide open are very difficult to get right.

Since you have your vimeo account in your profile I just looked at the first wedding demo there, the video looked great but I saw quite some hunting and re-adjusting focus, one shot in particular proved my point and that was when the couple walked away from you at what appeared to be the aisle, I saw you were attempting to nail the focus but it was completely out of focus the entire shot you used in the video...