An Example Of Low Light Photography...

With a fast prime lens. This is sort of a follow up to Another Views preference for a fast prime over a VR lens. A preference which I share.

Taken Sunday evening with my F5 with my 50mm f 1.4, NPH, a Hoya 80C filter, and my Bogen tripod. It was a LOT darker than I liked, and this is one of the few times I've shot people with my 50mm wide open. Even at that, I was getting shutter speeds of 1/8th to 1/10th of a second.

I would have loved to have been up front, where I could have shot at f 2.0 or higher. I usually stop down at least one stop for these type of shots. Since light follows the inverse square law (at twice the distance, you get 1/4th the light, at three times the distance, you get 1/9th the light, and so on), and I was at the back of the church, I was lucky to get what I did.

And yes, I know it's not level. It was VERY dark in the church, and framing and focusing were a real bear. But I wanted to post an example of a low light shot. And if anyone has a Nikon 85mm f 1.4 they no longer use, feel free to donate it to Speed at ....
Yeah, I didn't think so. ;-)

I'm sure the pros could critique this to pieces, but when I saw this, it kind of awestruck me. I like the way the bride and groom are highlighted and the bridal party is well lit, as well. But, the audience is in shadow, which, in a wedding is where they should be, with the focus being on the bride and groom. The levelness is easily fixed and I think this can be an excellent picture in your bride and grooms collection. IMHO, a great job...even if it wasn't exactly where you wanted to be.
Ken

Considering the the conditions that is a fantastic shot. I to am a big fan of the fast prime lens (my fastest is a 1.7...but beggers can't be choosers). Yes, a great job there. I agree completly with everything in the previous post. The focus is very clear on the front stage with the bride and groom and the wedding party with the crowd hidden in the shadows.

I like this shot and agree that the faster primes are a key to getting this type image. I agree with Another View as well in that the correction filters sacrifice much needed light and if you are shoting daylight film you will usely get a nice golden glow to these available light shots that the bride alwasy seem to really like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speed

And if anyone has a Nikon 85mm f 1.4 they no longer use, feel free to donate it to Speed at ....
Yeah, I didn't think so. ;-)

---

I keep that in mind. Say we trade for that D2X you're picking up? :)

You agree with me so I know you're right. ;) One thing though, I've never bothered with correction filters (80A, B, C) in a case like that. You'll lose about a stop and a half of light and you need every bit of shutter speed you can get. A good lab will correct most of the color shift out of it, and a little bit of warm cast looks kind of nice, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ken1953

I'm sure the pros could critique this to pieces, but when I saw this, it kind of awestruck me. I like the way the bride and groom are highlighted and the bridal party is well lit, as well. But, the audience is in shadow, which, in a wedding is where they should be, with the focus being on the bride and groom. The levelness is easily fixed and I think this can be an excellent picture in your bride and grooms collection. IMHO, a great job...even if it wasn't exactly where you wanted to be.
Ken

---

For your kind words. I really like this shot (except for it not being level). And for this shot, the back was the place to be. I had the F5 on the tripod set up behind me (I was on the back row) and when the bride and her father went by, I grab it and set up in the aisle, then shot.

I like being close to the front for the actual ceremony shots. I can usually shoot at f 2.0 or so , and I usually get 1/30th of a second or faster shutter speeds. With my 50mm, I can handhold that and get good shots. Being up close helps make the people more frame filling, and I get a lot more light in a situation like this one. But you've got to work with what you've got...

Thanks again for the comments. I do appreciate them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axle

Considering the the conditions that is a fantastic shot. I to am a big fan of the fast prime lens (my fastest is a 1.7...but beggers can't be choosers). Yes, a great job there. I agree completly with everything in the previous post. The focus is very clear on the front stage with the bride and groom and the wedding party with the crowd hidden in the shadows.

---

Start a fast prime club! :-)

Don't knock your f 1.7 - that is a fast lens. I opted for the f 1.4 version (at more than twice the price) so I could step down some and still have reasonable shutter speeds. Unless my memory is faulty, this is the first time I've used f 1.4 on people. I've used f 1.4 for astronomy work before, but not for people.

Oh yeah, I liked my Nikon 50mm f 1.4 so much that I bought a Pentax 50mm f 1.4 for my K1000 (got that one last year).

Now if I could just win the lottery, I get that Nikon 85mm f 1.4, a 200mm f 2.0, a 70-200mm f2.8 VR, a D2X, ........

:-O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by another view

I keep that in mind. Say we trade for that D2X you're picking up? :)

You agree with me so I know you're right. ;) One thing though, I've never bothered with correction filters (80A, B, C) in a case like that. You'll lose about a stop and a half of light and you need every bit of shutter speed you can get. A good lab will correct most of the color shift out of it, and a little bit of warm cast looks kind of nice, IMO.

---

The D2X is an incredible piece of machinery, but I don't ever expect to have one (unless I win the lottery!) Also, from what I've read by Moose Peterson, you'd better have a honking fast computer with LOTS and LOTS of RAM and storage space. Even more $$$$$.

On the other hand, a D70 is a possiblity (probability?) in my future. ;-)

"You agree with me so I know you're right." ;)

But of course....

Great minds think alike!

I also agree with you about losing a lot of light with a filter. Anything less than 1/30th of a second, and I reach for the tripod, or take off the filter, or put the camera away. Anything less than 1/8th of a second and the filter comes off. Below 1/8th of a second, people's movement will blur the images beyond use (unless you're after an artistic effect).

I know the lab can correct the color cast, but I'd rather eliminate as much exterior input as possible. What the lab tech finds acceptable, I may not. If the filter comes off, then I'll ask them to color correct the prints. But I try to get it right in camera if at all possible.

"a little bit of warm cast looks kind of nice, IMO."

No arguement here buddy. Like I said, great minds think alike. ;-)

Thanks for the comments my friend!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Timer

I like this shot and agree that the faster primes are a key to getting this type image. I agree with Another View as well in that the correction filters sacrifice much needed light and if you are shoting daylight film you will usely get a nice golden glow to these available light shots that the bride alwasy seem to really like.

---

I do appreciate the comments Old Timer. I'm glad you like the shot. It is my favorite of the non-flash shots. I like how the elements fit together, and the lighting is highlighting the important figures.

As I mentioned to Another View, I try my best to get it "right" in camera as much as possible. I've got a decent lab here in town, and they work with me well, but I know what to expect from my shots with the filter. And while I have no compuntion about asking them to do a color correction for me, I'd rather not argue about how much "golden light" is too much, or if the image is too blue from overcorrection.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm SO difficult to get along with. What can I say? I'm practicing to be a profession grouch one day! ;-)