wedding photographers (and everyone else)- a plea

I am a full time wedding photographer (400 wedding, top 30 UK wedding photographer)
I use 2xA99 and 1 x A7Riii firstly I wouldn't bother with off camera flash setting it up is going to be a nightmare for you. I have photographed in some dark places with my A99 iso 6400 is usable if its very dark go with a 35 1.4 try to stay calm anything you give the B&G there going to love. I use manual flash when I need to use it. Don't go for manual focus you have a very capable AF on the A99 and it one less thing too worry about and go for auto iso. This way you can spend your time concentrating on the most important things like composition good luck David

Oh, good. I was trying to be kind in giving that bad arts and crafts item the benefit of the doubt.

TYSM, Lee, David (your and Richard's shots are a tremendous inspiration! -although in my case resulting in even more transpiration :-S -), Barry and Peter! how nice you joined our clan! hope you'll be very happy here! what a wonderful show! TYSM!


InMyHumblenincompoopO the foam thing c/b both? a flag while looking up, a snoot pointed ahead. ?
went to the local frobel-/craft-/hobby store for my black thingie. asked for foam. which, of course, they didn't have.
did however find a thin black round eh thing at 'Zeeman', a budget store. black and glittery on the outside, black base.
obv. meant as a (n ugly) very small placemat. somewhat riged (thus won't collapse and block the light?) and easily foldable, thin as a very thin mousepad, so I think it's perfect? :-)
(haven't tried it yet).
pls correct me if I'm wrong, but convinced a modifier of some sort is a must?
also thinking the MagMod grid c/b a very good idea for certain shots after the ceremony?
(what about the MagMod sphere/dome -looking up, or even slightly backwards, should there be a white wall- for the ceremony?
vs the 'small roof' I have vs the new black flag? -that will surely prevent the light from spreading into every direction? ? -.
hence 'testing plans' indeed).

(umbrella + ceremony did cross my mind. i.e. that it could result in hilarious pics. of people having a blast and complaining about the (lack of) rain. ;-) any of you seriously brought an umbrella to the ceremony? or a serious softbox? 'double'- at the moments the best lighting w/b the best idea, it's obv. not done to bring in the entire 'circus'? ;-)).

@Peter- Godox big and/or small lights? to me this was a bit of a disappointment (didn't expect it)?
what do you use?


there will be a 4 year old bridesmaid slash ringbearer. ?!
they were asked to not mess up the place with rice or confetti.

lenses are the next issue (although not huge- mine will have to do?). 24-70 + 70-200 sounds perfect! -and even better in terms of time + weight-.   
fave will be Minolta 135/2.8, the downside c/b min. distance. (planned to invade the city hall prior to the wedding to check all out. -Minolta 100mm macro c/b pretty sharp too and doesn't care about distances? ;-) - ). 135- a lovely little lens and luckily never had the chance to compare it to its CZ f1.8 counterpart. ;-)
perhaps a 28/1.8? don't own a 85/1.4 (yet :-)). fastest lens w/b a MF 50/1.4, a sharp one. -IMHO distance should be quite considerable though in an attempt not to blur out everyone + everything.-
right now we have the most gorgeous light (nothing like the glowing light of autumn?), but december can be very gloomy and darkness comes early?

zooms are the prob. since zoom seems such a good idea? my only CZ 24-70/2.8 so far is the one on my wishlist! -very much needed indeed-.
the most gorgeous of all, of course, is the beautiful 16-35, the perfect one! (TY, A.!!).
and intend to bring it for obvious reasons? + at 35mm and f2.8 + short distance it can generate lovely blur (bouquet and such?).
most of my lenses are primes. zooms are rather old- the ancient (bulky) Minolta 28-135 (aka secret handshake/Leica killer) and both versions of Minolta 35-105. (+ a bunch of WA and tele, that are not in this race. the 'good' thing about being a Dyxum member btw is that the stuff on the wishlist tends to become pricier and pricier. :-S).
don't think it will be a great idea to change lenses (more than perhaps once) during the ceremony. what would be wise- to use an ancient zoom? or trying to cope with 1 zoom + 2 primes?
(more 'arty' lenses depending on the other venues + plans).

On the umbrella, yes. For. Outside weddings where the dappled sunlight through the leaves looks pretty but photographs like crap. For inside wedding in penticostal halls and private residents (nothing but potlights). Useful when the ceiiling is roof decking and 15meters up.
On the black thing. My photography retailer labled it a "snoot". Mat rubber. I think it needs to be black and plyable, beyond that have fun.

Anita wrote: Ine, the best advice I can give you is to take things as simple as possible. Two camera's with a flash on both is great, not sure about your lenses, but I always work with a 24-70 on one and a 70-200 on the other. And normally I bring a marcolens (for the ring shot) and a lensbaby for the fun. I work with totally different settings (and they all depend on the light on the particular day, that is why I don't visit venue's before the wedding), but you are not stupid, work your way through it and you will be just fine. Bring as much memory as you have. Place a new card for every part of the day and if you to go for double safe, with the A99 you can write the file to two cards. One thing though ... please please please ask the couple to tell their guests NOT to take photo's with any mobile devices during the ceremony. It will spoil your photographs, it will spoil your light. Have fun!

The fact that the attendees are taking pictures with their mobile phone is a major gripe of Jason Lanier too and I'd say that it should be a gripe for loads of wedding photographers.

OTOH I was attending as a guest 8 or so weddings during the 2 past years and unfortunately that's impossible.

Everybody want to take a video of the entrance of the bride, at least her friends and family that are at the corridor side in the church.
For real it's a disaster for the togs except that it's backups for the couple if the tog isn't delivering good stuff... In a certain way.

Still it definitely spoils the pictures of the hired tog of this precise moments that's a given.

LAbernethy wrote: Still it definitely spoils the pictures of the hired tog of this precise moments that's a given.

I have to say I disagree. I find you can use them as a nice frame for photos - I love a shot with wide aperture of the screen of a phone taking a photo. It captures the experience of many of your guests. Lighting wise I often find it can add illumination in quite a pleasing way, and freeze the action quite well if very dimly lit. Yes, there will be some shots that don't turn out well because of them, but I don't find too many.

The key problem for me with guests taking photos - and something I stress to the couple in advance - is posed and group shots. I recall being a guest at weddings prior to doing weddings professionally and being told not to take photos over the hired 'togs shoulder. But I always assumed it was because the photographer wanted to protect his profit margin, and force me to buy their copy than capture my own. But what you need to convey to guests is that you need everyone in that group shot focused on YOUR camera, no one elses. More than one camera leads to eyes all over the place. So either find a secluded place where that isn't possible, or more realistically, if people are desperate to take their own, set up a turn by turn situation. I take my photo, then all guests (not one by one, that would take forever!) can step in and capture their own. Then onto next group shot.

If you've explained it well to the B+G in advance, they can be your advocates for it as well. Some examples of wondering eyes affecting other wedding photos is always a good aid in that conversation too!

Edited by Tricky01 - 09 March 2020 at 13:34

Dena wrote: LAbernethy wrote: I like the Sony/Minolta wireless flash system simple and effective (as long as you don't use a soft box). I do have a SMDV FlashWave-III Wireless Remote Flash Triggers & Transmitter but I usually leave it in the car. I bring 3 umbrellas - 40 inch white/black reversible, S-Type Bracket Holder with Bowens Mount (holds the flash units better), stands and sand bags (technically they're Weider ankle weights). ). Can you explain why the umbrellas and not a soft box? I'm trying to learn to use remote flash better. TIA

I use Sony/Minolta flash units aka speed lights. The wireless trigger is a pulse flash from the camera to the receiver in the base of the unit. Most soft box designs block this "line of sight" trigger.

The units lack the power to be effectively used in larger soft boxes at distance.

The umbrellas (as a shoot through) can be positioned out of the way for fill at distance. The Sony HVL-F20AM or M work best as a trigger for the larger units; more power than the built in flashes (more effective in sunlight) and will trigger indoors in the bounce position.
I find umbrellas more versatile than soft boxes. Granted, in a studio with a professional model, PROFOTO B10 Flash head and 48inch soft box some wedding catalog images are possible.
If I was to ditch the Sony/Minolta units I would probably go with a couple of GODOX AD200 units. But I find the Sony's too useful and easy for on and off camera use.

Edited by LAbernethy - 13 March 2020 at 13:06