| Joined: | Sun Aug 12th, 2012 |
| Location: | Copenhagen, Denmark |
| Posts: | 434 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Methinks each wedding photographer you ask will give you a different list depending on their style and their cameras.
Fast, heavy lenses for wide open use in poor light are not really needed now, there are many versatile and good slower lenses available which will do an excellent job, (24-120 f/4?) given the wonderful high ISO performance of recent cameras, D3 on. I also think the micro contrast and superb tonal range of the latest (current) cameras provides another dimension of separation, other than blurring the background with very fast lenses, I feel strong bokeh can actually detract from some images, masking what for a wedding is a natural setting. Depending on the actual setting of course! A council registry office is very different from a centuries old church... Although some registry offices are attractive in their own way. Capturing the setting should be as important as the people, presumably chosen by the couple (bride! (or bride's mother of course!!! LOL)) it should be a strong feature of the pictures, if appropriate, not masked by bokeh.
Successful use of very fast lenses especially for groups where some subjects may be outside the sharpness zone need too much messing about, in my opinion, resulting in many rejects on close examination during post processing.
At least two cameras, with a wide and a medium or zoom, so lens swaps are not needed should be a minimum, just like motor racing, you don't have time to switch lenses. Zooming with the feet is usually an option.
If two or more cameras are used, the time setting needs synchronising, else if the image files are mixed in the same folder, they will likely appear in a mixed order.
One other consideration is shutter noise, especially in church.
As usual experience has to be an advantage.
My two cents.
Yes , indeed...however , I was referring to rendering of skin-complexion, the photo s I saw showed meticulous detail of every wrinkle..
Already many years ago , a photog who was specialized in Model/ Portrait , had invested in the then new swish black Zeiss-Hasselblad lenses mentioned " the Definition was killing the shoot "..he resorted to his old silver-chrome Z/H lenses.
That sprung to mind when I saw the wedding photo s.
Having been on Long haul in far east recently , due to weight restrictions, my equipment consisted of :
D3S...pc Nikkor 28 f3.5...Nikkor 20 f2.8 ..55 f1.2...tc201 ( 2xconverter)..polarizers..flash..charger/batteries...carbon tripod.
Whenever People were the main subject ( close up/ portrait / small groups ), the 55 f1.2 was mounted..at times with the tc201..the definition of the other lenses would result in Unflattering skin rendition..
At times I even breath on the front lens so as to obtain a soft-focus / dreamy effect...canceling out effectively wrinkles and the like.
Has all this changed ??...do people nowadays really want every wrinkle..blemish and the like ,to be clearly visible ?...
Guess I must be a Dinosaur.
____________________
Back in Danmark
I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment
The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets.