Wedding Pictures

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Borked Pseudo Mailed, Aug 11, 2008.

  1. Hello Everyone,

    I have a question I hope you can help me with. I was looking at a
    webpage of wedding pictures and the photographer used an ISO setting
    of 800 and up with and without flash. All the pictures were taken
    inside the church and were beautiful.

    My understanding was the higher the ISO the more noise in the picture.

    What am I missing here, everytime I use an ISO of 800 and up my pictures
    come out really bad.
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Aug 11, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    veevideo Guest

    If you have a passion for photography, why not learn from the BEST? We
    have the following DVDs at ATTRACTIVE discounted rates. Better prices
    than what the others are selling at!

    1. Gary Fong: How to Get Rich As a Photographer
    2. Mike Colon: Reaching the High-End Bride DVD
    3. Gino lucadamo (all 5 volumes)
    4. Jerry ghionis (all 3 volumes)
    5. Dean colins
    6. Masters of Wedding Photography 1 & 2
    7. Joe Buissink DVD: Defining the Moment
    8. Bambi Cantrell : volume 1: The Definitive Guide to Comtemporary
    Wedding Photography
    9. Bambi Cantrell : volume 2: Choices and Challenges
    10. Doug Gordon : How to Photograph the Bride Alone Flow Posing
    11. Doug Gordon : How to Photograph the Bride and Groom Flow Posing
    12. Ryan Schembri Debut
    13. Ryan Schembri Freaking Out in Photoshop
    14. Guy Gowan Adobe Photoshop Cosmetic Technique
    15. Kevin kubota actions volume 1-3 ,
    16. Yervant : dancing with poppy
    17. Doug gordon : Video light
    18. Tommy colbert : on location training
    19. Mary Du Prie : Photographing Models
    veevideo, Aug 11, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Matti Vuori Guest

    The photographer may have either or both of the following
    1) a better camera - for example the latest Canons and Nikons do a much
    better job at high ISOs than the models from a couple of years ago 2)
    better post-processing techniques, like using a noise reductions
    Matti Vuori, Aug 11, 2008
  4. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    richg99 Guest

    I believe that some of the "full frame" newest cameras go up to 6400 ISO!
    Of course, the cost can be as much as the ISO limit..and more...

    Oh, and then you need lenses, too!!

    You cannot compare most amateur's cameras to the pros. That's why they buy
    them. To get excellent shots in situations where we cannot even dream of
    regards, Rich
    richg99, Aug 11, 2008
  5. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Vance Guest

    For my Canon, noise really doesn't show up in any meaningful amounts
    until ISO 800 and I will often shoot 800-1600 and, occassionally 3,200
    for events. If you know how to use a multipass post processing
    workflow, with a combination of noise reduction, masking and selective
    sharpening, you can get extremely good images. However, the caveat
    is, as rich said, the price of the camera.

    All digital cameras produce more noise at higher ISO's, but in pro
    cameras the sensors have the lowest inherent noise available. Your
    images are deteriorated through noise at 800 where mine are just
    faintly beginning to show noise on the display and you won't see it in
    a print, unless you are really looking until 11 x 14 inches. With the
    right post process, you have to get your nose right up to the image
    and look in the shadows to see the noise.

    Consumer cameras less than the best prosumer level can't even touch
    the image quality and you can't fake it is post.

    Also, images with few dark tones to them show less noise for any given
    amount of noise. This is because there are less bits available to
    carry the tone in the darker areas. A one bit noise in medium and up
    tones doesn't have the same effect since it will be a lower percentage
    change in brightness (or color). That's why noise is the worst in the
    dark tones. Other factors also play a part in how much apparent
    noise, versus real noise, you see. How large the dark areas are is
    one of them. Large contiguous dark areas make the whole picture look

    Vance, Aug 12, 2008
  6. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Gummo Guest

    What do you reckon to be the least specified camera for the job?

    Gummo, Aug 12, 2008
  7. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    richg99 Guest

    I'm no pro so my answer means NOTHING.

    I recently bought a Sony A350 14 mgp ($800.00); hung a Sony 18-250
    ($600.00 ) on it and couldn't be happier. Due to in-camera SSS -image
    stabilization-- any and all lenses are automatically stabilized. Olympus;
    Pentax and Sony all have this feature.

    I shot a daytime Luau the other day and got 250 usable pix out of 600 taken
    ( good for me). Many more were usable, but were just duplications of other
    good shots.

    However, when the sun went down, I had to switch to my Minolta 50mm 1.7 lens
    ($100.00) and wished I had faster and longer and better glass. The 50mm
    limited my long distance shots...but the 1.7 came through pretty well
    considering the darkness. A few shots are on my Flickr site in August.
    Richg99[email protected]/sets/
    richg99, Aug 12, 2008
  8. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Akiralx Guest

    Er, the Nikon D3 goes to ISO 25600. ISOs of 2500 or even higher will look
    very good with that body.
    Akiralx, Aug 12, 2008
  9. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Joel Guest

    That's one of the reasons why I often suggest to spend $$$ to build a good
    system instead of trying to save some $$$ on getting around camera then end
    up not happy with it.

    And I often suggest to go with Canon DSLR for the price, better low-light
    handling (most can go up to ISO-3200), and plenty of good lens, and third
    party lens to chose.

    And I always suggest to save $$$ to spend on top_of_the_line lens instead
    of wasting money, energy, enjoyment etc. on the cheapie lens.
    Joel, Aug 12, 2008
  10. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Peter Guest

    So will the D700
    Peter, Aug 12, 2008
  11. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Scott W Guest

    Or maybe he was a pro with a camera that is better then a 10D?

    Scott W, Aug 15, 2008
  12. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Joel Guest

    Yes, if there is a box then there would be magic. Cuz Canon is real good
    with low-light and it should have no problem with ISO-800

    Wedding can't be darker than concert, and many people have captures real
    stunning images using ISO-1600 and ISO-3200. So the magic will depend on
    the light situation, lens, setting, and distance etc..

    But you would be right there may not be magic for Nikon older than Nikon
    D300. I don't own any Nikon but have seen few sample at ISO-400 (I can see
    some noise there) and ISO-800, and I read Nikon D300 is the first one with
    better noise handling (kinda similar to Canon but I haven't seen any sample
    of Nikon D300 myself).
    Joel, Aug 16, 2008
  13. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Scott W Guest

    I don't believe a 5D would have any problem at all with iso 800, or
    many of the new Nikon for that matter, say the D3. If you think the
    10D comes close to these cameras at iso 800 you need to take another
    A good pro should very good gear, and very good gear will have no
    problems at ISO 800.

    Scott W, Aug 16, 2008
  14. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Joel Guest

    Then you need to be an idiot to know how much you can learn from the

    If you are an idiot then you should know that sometime lighting is no
    option, that is why I would suggest you to learn to be an idiot.
    Joel, Aug 16, 2008
  15. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Joel Guest

    He is talking about both equipment and technique. If you don't have good
    equipment capable of shooting ISO-800 then just forget about your technique
    until you are capable of. Then we can talk and you can qualify to be an
    Joel, Aug 16, 2008
  16. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Vance Guest

    A more basic rule of professional photography is to get the image
    under the conditions that you necessarily face. Many venues limit a
    photographer's options as a matter of policy and that certainly
    includes weddings re using flash.

    I almost always have a flash system available, but that doesn't mean I
    am allowed to use it. I am not a heavy weight enough photographer
    working in an arena where I can be a prima donna and say I won't shoot
    unless everything is the way I would like it to be. I have the
    equipment I have I so I can deliver a high quality product, including
    shooting at ISO 800 and 1600 if the situation demands it. To play it
    any other way is the purview of the amateur, who has the enviable
    freedom to shoot what they want, when they want and under what
    circumstances they want.

    Also, it is not a basic rule to always shoot at the lowest ISO or use
    the slowest film speed. Grain has consciously been used as a creative
    component of photography for decades and digital noise can fill a
    similar creative role. Using the lowest speed film or ISO is solid
    convention, but it is not a basic 'always' rule. That's being
    dogmatic and narrow.

    Vance, Aug 16, 2008
  17. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Joel Guest

    That's what film is good for, but we are now living in the digital world
    and film and digital are not the same. Same with P&S vs DSLR they are both
    digital but don't work the same so they give different result.

    I am not the experted to give all small detail, but in general.

    1. Film depend on the chemical (on the film itself) and darkroom

    2. Digital depends on computer technology, so they use the same film term
    but they don't work exactly the same. IOW, digital ISO-100 may and may not
    work similar to film ISO-100, same with DSLR vs P&S on the FLASH system.

    Or film ISO-100 is the chemical calculated for ISO-100, when digital
    ISO-100 is the calculation of the PROGRAM (computer) *not* chemical. And
    that's why even same digital DSLR, Canon handles low-light situation much
    better than Nikon (it can do ISO-800 much better than Nikon ISO-400), and it
    took Nikon many years to be able to improve the noise issue as I read the
    D300 handle low-light much better than Nikon D2000 and older.

    3. Same with digital, the P&S with external flash can get much more light
    than DSLR with external flash. Same with digital, you will get a much
    brighter and cleaner image when you zoom in closer (at lower light) than
    wider angle (zoom out). And that's part of how digital works, and that's
    part of what most of us need to pay closer attention to what we do to learn
    some dirty trick of digital world.
    Joel, Aug 16, 2008
  18. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Guest Guest

    I tend to disagree with that, noise can always be added to an image but it
    is, as far as I know, virtually impossible to remove. As a working
    photographer I always strive for the highest quality, this usually involves
    using a low ISO and natural light. If the shutter speed is dropping I up the
    ISO, luckily my particular camera is quite low noise in the high ISO range.
    In the end though, a professional MUST get the picture, no matter what.
    Guest, Aug 16, 2008
  19. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Guest Guest

    5d and 1ds are low noise. I have been in low light situations and got very
    usable results, but don't forget about the quality of the glass up front.
    Guest, Aug 16, 2008
  20. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Joel Guest

    I am (or was because I am too sick to do any in the past 2 years) a
    wedding photographer and I do know how difficult wedding photography is.

    Just forget about the professional stuff but few general rules.

    - Some church, they won't allow using flash during ceremony.

    - Quite often we depend on the stained glass windows for extra light source.
    But sometime God won't be easy to please so we can run into stormy or cloudy

    - And because no FLASH ALLOWED so we have to depend on the available light
    (which I never worship the available light wishful) and others like lens,
    camera, technique, and post processing skill etc..

    That's one of the reason why I often suggest other to spend money on
    tip_of_the_line lens, camera can handle low-light situation, and spend few
    years learning to master Photoshop (or similar) instead of imaging. And
    again, *if* you are young and quick learner (which I am not), then I would
    suggest you to drop dead the film idea and start investing your energy on
    digital. But if you are too old to learn then I guess you may have to
    accept the loss (we can't win everything).
    Joel, Aug 16, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.