Noisy wedding?

[MrB]

Robin, thank you for your explanation. A couple of hours before you posted here, I took up Colin's suggestion:-

I did a simple experiment that anyone can easily do in a few minutes - I took two test shots indoors with my Pentax DSLR set at ISO 6400, one with 12 MP and the other 6 MP, just using camera-processed jpeg files. As Colin and Robin explained - no significant difference. What's more, as they have both described, it is clear that noise would not be obviously evident in a print probably all the way up to A3, unless you were really determined to find it (or your name is Katy! ).

Between them, Colin and Robin have produced a detailed and intelligible description of noise, with excellent advice, not only for Nigel and his wedding photography, but for everyone's benefit. Many thanks to you both - for sharing your knowledge and experience, and for your patience with novices like me who might not have seen earlier explanations!

Philip

[Colin Southern]

. Many thanks to you both - for sharing your knowledge and experience, and for your patience with novices like me who might not have seen earlier explanations!

You're very welcome Philip - that's what we're here for

Just a quick "one more thing" before the family and I pop out for the afternoon ...

Shooting at high ISO settings doesn't usually present many real-world issues in terms of noise - BUT - even though one may be able to use a high ISO setting, that STILL doesn't necessarily mean that one is going to gave a great shutterspeed (especially with longer focal lengths) (eg 1/40th @ 200mm) - so one STILL has to take actions to minimise camera shake, eg

- Ensuring IS / VR modes are used wherever possible

- Ensuring tripods / monopods are used wherever possible

- Shooting small bursts in continuous drive mode instead of a single frame (one will be sharper than the others)

- Being aware of correct camera-holding techniques

- Being aware of how one's camera's AF functions in low-light situations (especially with regard to cross-type sensors) - and finally

- Being aware of DoF considerations when shooting wide-open to maximise the available light) Often many inexperienced people's "universal answer" to low light shooting is to simply "just use fast glass"!

[Squidgy]

I have a quick twenty minutes before setting off so will try and reply to a couple of posts. So, starting from the top!

Hi Nigel,

What software have you already got?

Hi Mark, I use Photoshop CS5 and Canon Photo Pro. Thanks.

[Squidgy]

You're going to inevitably get noise in church photos because they're so shadowy, Nigel (more noise in shadows). Personally I find that the most recent ACR noise reduction feature does the job to my satisfaction. And realistically its reduction not removal. Its a trade off between noise and detail. I would reduce the noise only so much that it doesn't affect the quality of the image, if you see what I mean. There are many factors to consider in processing an image, and noise level is only one of them. Capture a nice well-composed image of the happy couple in the church using natural light and who's going to get fixated on noise? I'm sure that others here will give you good advice about other noise reduction options. By the way, there's another wedding thread running at the moment, check it out.

Good luck with this great opportunity to be second shooter!

Thanks very much David. I will take a look into ACR and I'll also check out the other wedding thread when I have a little more time. I am also intrigued by Marks "Bruce Fraser method" so will look that up too.

[Dave Humphries]

Good luck today Nigel,

To anyone that does need to 'break the rules' after the event; e.g. they have accidentally captured a wonderful cameo within a larger image, but it needs a severe crop to obtain a good composition (which will make the noise visible), I would recommend Neat Image. It samples a blank area of the image, determines what the noise problem is on that shot and subtracts it across the image (I guess this qualifies as one of Colin's "fancy algorithms" ).

It works stand-alone, or as a plug in with most photo editing software (not 64 bit CS5 last time I looked though). It is also good for RAW shooting compact users, as I was when I got it.

Now I have a DSLR, it is true I don't use it often, usually only for the example given above, or ultra high iso shooting (e.g. 3200 and above), because, as Colin and Robin say, as long as a shot is well framed and well exposed when captured, noise won't be a problem.

Cheers,

[Squidgy]

Good luck today Nigel,

To anyone that does need to 'break the rules' after the event; e.g. they have accidentally captured a wonderful cameo within a larger image, but it needs a severe crop to obtain a good composition (which will make the noise visible), I would recommend Neat Image. It samples a blank area of the image, determines what the noise problem is on that shot and subtracts it across the image (I guess this qualifies as one of Colin's "fancy algorithms" ).

It works stand-alone, or as a plug in with most photo editing software (not 64 bit CS5 last time I looked though). It is also good for RAW shooting compact users, as I was when I got it.

Now I have a DSLR, it is true I don't use it often, usually only for the example given above, or ultra high iso shooting (e.g. 3200 and above), because, as Colin and Robin say, as long as a shot is well framed and well exposed when captured, noise won't be a problem.

Cheers,

Hi Dave, thanks for the above info, neat image has been added to my list of software to try. I've just got back home after a real hard seven hours of looking through a lens, racing from the brides, to the grooms, to the church, to a park and then to the reception. If anyone ever says to me that wedding photography is easy money (I did not get paid) I will tell them to "get a life". It isnt just photography, Its a logistic and tactical nightmare where you have to capture as much as you can of someones very special day - but I loved every minute of the experience.

Once I have had the time to look at the best and worst I'll post some examples for advice but it wont be tonight because I am well and truly bushed and in desperate need of a beer or three! I will now read the replies to the thread in depth and reply to one or two while having a few cold ones! Cheers!!!

[Squidgy]

Between them, Colin and Robin have produced a detailed and intelligible description of noise, with excellent advice, not only for Nigel and his wedding photography, but for everyone's benefit. Many thanks to you both - for sharing your knowledge and experience, and for your patience with novices like me who might not have seen earlier explanations!

Philip

You hit the nail on the head Philip. Colin has a wonderful knowledge and shares it very openly and I have learned very much from his comments and are extremely great full to both him and Robin. My day went very well but I don't think that wedding photography is for me. I don't have the skill or confidence to deliver consistently good results on what may be a couples most important day in their lives. I was hoping to post some pictures today but it has taken me all day just to find the acceptable few of around 35 out of 6GB. I had a really great day but it was hard work!

PS: Colin, I think I owe you a few beers.

[Squidgy]

Hey Nigel,

What camera body you shooting? What PP software are you using? What lenses are you planning on using? Are you using on or off camera flash and either way make sure you use a diffuser. Just got into weddings this year (against Colin's advise) and have learned soooo much in a very short time. Fill in the answers and I think many people on here will be able to help.

Hi Chris, I vowed never to do weddings but as none of my shots are needed I thought I would give it a go. The kit I have is a new Canon 5D MKII - EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM - my old and trusty EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM - Speedlite 380EX & diffuser - and a Canon 40D for backup. Software - CS5 and Canon photo pro. I know it's after the event but I got some great shots thanks to all the advice given here.

[hoffstriker]

Make sure you post some. I'm sure everyone on here would love to see how you did. However, be a tad cautious since Colin is def. gonna critique everything you post .

[Squidgy]

Make sure you post some. I'm sure everyone on here would love to see how you did. However, be a tad cautious since Colin is def. gonna critique everything you post .

Ha ha ha! I'm sure Colin will Chris but I don't mind, I deserve all I get from this little exercise. I will post some of the worst and best pictures at the weekend as getting time to PP through the week is a little difficult due to work at the moment. Actually, my fear of noisy images turned out not to be as bad as I expected but the mistake I did make was not cranking the ISO up high enough. I only went as far as 800 which didn't give me fast enough shutter speeds over focal length so many of my pictures taken inside the church suffered from camera shake, bad exposure, poor focus, and too much shadow from the flash. It is really satisfying to know the pro was getting the shots for the bride and groom... Phew!!!

[ap.photo]

Hoffstriker:

I was interested to hear on how you became a wedding-photography addict like me. You noted you've learned a handful in a short time, was it because you had more "hands-on" experience? I've been shooting weddings for a few years now and I feel I need to roll up my sleeves and get down and dirty; familiarize myself with my camera; learn the techincal side...

I like the idea of finding a pro photographer and shooting alongisde, if it was only that easy to have such luck.

Your thoughts and ideas will be greatly appreciated.

A

[Colin Southern]

Ha ha ha! I'm sure Colin will Chris but I don't mind, I deserve all I get from this little exercise.

I'm not THAT bad

Actually, my fear of noisy images turned out not to be as bad as I expected but the mistake I did make was not cranking the ISO up high enough. I only went as far as 800 which didn't give me fast enough shutter speeds over focal length so many of my pictures taken inside the church suffered from camera shake, bad exposure, poor focus, and too much shadow from the flash.

This is the thing that a lot of people don't seem to realise. There are ALWAYS limitations in photography - and thus it's our job as photographers to work around them as best possible. Whenever there is less than ideal light, the compromise is often between camera shake (from too low a shutter speed) or insufficient depth of field (from too wide an aperture) or noise (from too high an ISO). Generally, noise is BY FAR the lesser of the 3 evils (especially if one pushes the exposure).

It is really satisfying to know the pro was getting the shots for the bride and groom... Phew!!!

I think there's something else here that people sometimes don't realise. Amatuer photographers / 2nd shooters aren't under any pressure to deliver in these kinds of situations -- if they take 400 shots and only 10 are keepers then that's 10 great keepers. If the professional / primary shooter takes 400 shots and only has 10 keepers, he's in serious trouble. Amatuers practice until they get it right, professionals practice until they never get it wrong.

Now, lets see those shots!

[hoffstriker]

Anna,

I was interested to hear on how you became a wedding-photography addict like me.

Well, my wife roped me into a wedding this summer and that led to a bunch more opportunities.

You noted you've learned a handful in a short time, was it because you had more "hands-on" experience?

Exactly! The first wedding I did was very informal and the couple didn't seem to care about the quality of the prints, but I did. Out of 1000 exposure (after doubles were eliminated) only had approx. 400 that I liked. I knew this was enough for this wedding, but if I was to continue doing this had to get a better return so I could hand-pick the shots I really liked. Also, was not able to scope out the site before-hand. Major Problem!!! Must look at venue first and have a plan. Also have to have every needed shot in my head beforehand. Luckily, I had a second shooter (happened to be very inexperienced) that got some really nice shots to allow me to hand pick a little more. The biggest problem for me is the work-flow. It can get kinda confusing which shots are the keepers and which are so-so. Scott Kelby's book on Lightroom helped me out in that arena, but still have to refer to it from time to time.

I like the idea of finding a pro photographer and shooting alongisde, if it was only that easy to have such luck.

It is that easy. Find a pro that you admire his/her work and ask. It is that simple. I've found many pros that are always willing to take an unpaid asst. as a second shooter/helper. You will not be able to ask too many questions during the event so you will have to keep a close eye on what is happening and even consider taking "quick" notes for questions to ask later. They will be more than willing to help. However, the biggest thing you can do is experiment and see what works for you. I've found there are quite a bit of things that can be fixed in Lightroom/Photoshop, but it's a helluva lot easier if you can get it right in the camera to begin with and this only comes with experience. Ask Colin about that one. He rarely likes to go excessive photoshop on his prints.

Basically, I approach the shoots from a photojournalistic vantage point. That's where my background is from and it's what I know. Use what you know and are comfortable with and it all gets a lot easier from there. Plus, good glass (lensrentals.com if you don't own) and a good flash with diffuser help. I can not under state the last sentence in terms of importance! You need good glass!

Good luck
ps. love the profile pic

[hoffstriker]

[QUOTE]

I'm not THAT bad

No Colin, quite the contrary.... You are an asset to everyone on here!

[Colin Southern]

[QUOTE=hoffstriker;142350]

No Colin, quite the contrary.... You are an asset to everyone on here!

Thanks Chris - I try

[Squidgy]

[QUOTE=hoffstriker;142350]

No Colin, quite the contrary.... You are an asset to everyone on here!

I'll Second that Chris, I cant speak highly enough of what I have learned on CiC from Colin in the past few weeks. He's a real star! I'll post a few pics at the weekend.

[FrankMi]

Colin is def. gonna critique everything you post .

LOL! and I (for one of many) am SO thankful that he does!