File :-(, x, )
Wedding Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
Sup /p/
I'm having to photograph my girlfriends sisters wedding come August.
She's marrying a Christian *megahurl*, so she's probably getting married in a church or something... meaning low, shitty lighting.

So what's the deal with wedding fotographie? I'm guessing i can't have my strobes blazing through the ceremony, as this will fuck everyone off royal.
So this is probably a good excuse to buy some fast glass.
Is the canon 50mm f/1.8 prime any good? Should have a focal length of around 80mm on my 40D, which is sex for portrait photography... amirite?

If anyone can recommend a 3rd party lens that is somehow even cheaper/better than the 1.8 that'd be awesome.
cheers~
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2004:11:08 01:26:54RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/19.0ISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/19.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo FlashFocal Length38.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width424Image Height624
>> Anonymous
Tamron 17-50 and an 85mm 1.8 on a second body
>> Anonymous
>lens that is somehow even cheaper/better than the 1.8
Impossible. The Canon 50/1.8 has the best price/performance of all current lenses, period.

In order not to fuck up, you should research where the wedding will take place, perhaps plan your position in advance and take a few test shots. The 50/1.8 is good, but since it's a fix-focal, make sure you'll be able to move around to frame your shots; or maybe the lighting in the church will be enough to use your zoom.
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136100
Yes, i can totally afford a second body and two new lenses. an 85mm lens would be the 35mm equivalent to 136mm on my 40D anyhu ~ probably too tele to be useful. Been thinking about the tamron 17-50... but it's $400 compared to $150 for the prime.

>>136101
Good idea.
The lighting would have to be fucking amazing for my normal zoom to work. It's the EFS 17-85mm... teach me to buy a camera+lens before i knew shit about fotographie
>> Anonymous
>>136102
you know, youll probably be standing pretty far back during the ceremony, which is where the extra distance comes in handy.
>> Anonymous
I'd recommend the following to shoot a wedding:
- A "normal" large-aperture zoom, like the aforementioned Tamron 17-50 for most shots. IS helps, but isn't really necessary.
- One or two large-aperture primes in the 50-135mm (equivalent) range for artsy-dreamy-happy staged shoots of bride and groom, or when the lighting is insufficient.
- A flash, as powerful as you can afford, plus bouncers/diffusers (selfmade ones are A-OK).
- Extra memory cards and batteries for everything!!!! Always have 1 set more than you think will be necessary.
- A second body is good to have, but it comes last on the list.

Most common mistakes, many of which I made myself:
- Plan where are you going to stand before the wedding starts.
- Avoid using direct flash as much as possible; one of my friends ruined most of the shots at his sister's wedding this way. Practice with the bouncers and diffusers indoor and outdoor so you have a good idea how they work.
- Flash can be very useful outdoors if you need to shoot against the sun, but correctly using it this way, again, takes practice.
- Swap lenses only when really necessary. Sure, primes are classy, but the zoom is your main tool.
- Better underexpose than overexpose. Most of the prints will be rather small, so some noise isn't a big issue, but even a slight overexposure will ruin the bride's dress (if it's white, of course).
- Ask the bride and groom how much you are allowed to interfere. Some people will happily stop and pose every time you point the camera at them, and some believe that a wedding photographer must be as discreet as possible.
>> Anonymous
>>136107
you could be right. I'll check to see where i'll be stationed with respect to the action.

>>136110
Ace advice. I have 2 Vivitar 285HV's +stands/brollies which i use for my own wankery projects... but surely i can't set up stands and umbrellas round the church and flash away during the ceremony?

Thinking of setting my strobes up in the nearby park and doing the vomit enducing dreamy/artsy shots of the happily married couple... probably do some strobe shots in the church after the ceremony too.
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136114
forgot my tripfaggotry
lulz.
>> Anonymous
>>136114
>Surely i can't set up stands and umbrellas round the church and flash away during the ceremony?
This depends on the church, but most likely no; some churches don't allow strobes inside at all. Plus for all of this to make sense, you'll need to rearrange the lighting on the fly for different shots, which is futile unless you have a ton of experience and a couple assistants.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
What flavor Christian are we talking about here? Catholics are going to have some pretty shit lighting, but one of the newer sects might have architecture amenable to fast exposures..
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136120
Groom's brother is a catholic priest... so yeah. stone, high ceilings, stained glass. Terrible light.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>136124
Ouch. Catholicism probably ups the "Don't use flash" probability, too.

Man, someone should start a religion that has "All important ceremonies should be accompanied by floodlights allowing an exposure of 1/100th f/8 ISO100 or better" as one of its central tenets.
>> Anonymous
>>136126
Fuck yeah! Including the wedding night.
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136126
Yeah, for some reason antiquated metaphysical postulations and bright lights don't mix.

Probably because if you were able to see this 'soiled and transient' planet clearly, your mind would be lured away from the divine mystery and directed towards the arse of the girl infront of you.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>136128
Right.

COMMANDMENT 1: LV15 minimum, bitches
COMMANDMENT 2: Pix or it didn't happen.
>> Job Application Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136139
COMMANDMENT 3: No matrimonial ceremony involving a dude in a black suit, and a neurotic woman in a white dress demanding to look thin.
>> Anonymous
OMG Use make use of teh HDR!!!
>> Anonymous
>>136102
Because it's the only way someone without experience like you won't fuck this up (at least not totally). Sure, it's possible for you to take the whole wedding with just one prime and one body- if you're really good and have a lot of experience taking wedding photos. But seeing that you don't have any?

My best advice, ask them to hire a real photographer and be the backup photographer. You can take shit photos of concerts, sports events or portraits, but never take shit photos of a wedding.
>> Anonymous
>>136152
Some of the so-called "wedding pros" take shit photos all the time and get off with it...
>> des
Nevermind flash, some churches don't allow *shooting* to be done inside. Sometimes it's just during the ceremony. Talk to the priest in advance, and make sure the couple knows to stick around for reposing if he won't allow interruption during the ceremony.
>> Anonymous
>>136152
>>but never take shit photos of a wedding.
lulz.
serious business.
>> Anonymous
>>136155
so does OP have to present himself as the photographer for this wedding, considering that these are people he knows and wouldn't want to piss off, and take shit photos too?

True, some pro-photographers can get off with a couple of sub-par photos, but a photographer who's going to take photos of a friend or relative's wedding get it harder (even if it's fuckin' for free).

http://shimworld.wordpress.com/2006/11/03/pro-for-nothing-and-insults-for-free/
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136152
lololol
'real photographer'. I think the couple are too pov to afford one. Besides i work as a studio photographer, does that qualify as 'real'?

>>136156
repose!
awesome idea.
that i can use my strobes and everything will look righteous sex.
The priest is the groom's brother, so he'll let me away with it.
>> des
>>136161
>>repose!
>>awesome idea.

Please don't do this wedding.

>>136157
srsly srs biznas
>> Anonymous
I'm interested in how this will turn out.
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136159
Byaargh
Fucking weddings - banal, neurotic chaos. This is why i never wanted to be a wedding photographer.

shit, you've scared me into borrowing one of my friends bodies for the ceremony. Gonna be like squeezing blood from a stone, but he'll cave... he *must*
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136163
I don't want to!
But it's been made gruesomely clear i *have* to
>> Anonymous
>>136166
Oooh sucks to be you.
>> Anonymous
>>136166
>I don't want to!
Tell them that you suck at this kind of photography. Then, when photos turn out worse than they expected after the wedding, yell "I warned you!", cry and run away.
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136168
'reckon.
so not ready for this.
least i've got till august to get my shit together... kindasorta.
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136171
>>cry and run away.
best advice so far~
I've already told them that i'm used to doing artsy pre-meditated concept shit, and that i work shooting PRODUCTS in a STUDIO ~ but they're all 'shut up, you'll be great rarara'

So i'm just going to have to harden the fuck up, do what i can, and run away crying when it all turns to hell.
>> Anonymous
>>136173
Learn theatrics: you can even make THEM feel guilty for lowering your self-esteem as a photographer!
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136174
I think i'll just learn catholic.
then, when the time comes, i can stigmata and refuse to operate my camera with bleeding hands.
>> Anonymous
Don't forget to get the rock shot.
>> NGT
You'll be fine, I was skurr as fuck the first wedding I shot because I was doing it with a 35mm and could not get a preview of my shots. Everything came back fine...just pop a xanax before the ceremony and RELAX. Don't try to shoot 10,0000 shots. Take your time and don't miss the fucking kiss.
>> Anonymous
>>136098Is the canon 50mm f/1.8 prime any good? Should have a focal length of around 80mm on my 40D, which is sex for portrait photography... amirite?

>>136098If anyone can recommend a 3rd party lens that is somehow even cheaper/better than the 1.8 that'd be awesome.

>>136161Besides i work as a studio photographer, does that qualify as 'real'?

heh

something doesn't compute there
>> NGT
Oh yea, the reason nub ass nubbetrons get away with shitty wedding photos is because people just don't have the eye to critique the photos like we do. As long as they see themselves in it and they like the way they look you're gold.
>> Anonymous
>>136206
AND THAT'S OK.

Seriously, some people think the job of a wedding photographer is to take over 9000 artsy photos of newlyweds in staged poses in front of church doors, picturesque groves and motherfucking lion statues. That pisses me off, a wedding album shouldn't look like it's a model magazine or a clothing catalog.
>> Anonymous
>>136206
>>people just don't have the eye to critique the photos like we do

Posting on /p/ gives you some kind of supreme photography knowledge?

Get over yourself, douchebag, you and your kind are the cancer that is stifling this board.

Anyone can look a wedding photograph and tell you if they like it or not, and when you're taking photos for the bride and groom, THEY are the only people you should care about, not some dickhead basement dweller who thinks the composition is "boring".
>> NGT
>>136211

lulz.

Ok, a photographer and a random fuckdonut look at photos differently. By "we" I meant "photographers" not nub ass Anonfags like you that can't even turn on a camera but think they know shit about photography.

Show some random nubass two photographs of the same person. One where the exposure is fucked up and the other with better lighting. They will tell you they like the better exposed one but will have no fucking clue WHY...
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
i don't believe you work as a studio photographer. i really don't. pix or it didn't happen.

anyway. go pick up a fucking book on wedding photography. every good one should have the master list of the 200 photos you want to get, and the 50 photos you HAVE to get. there are four stages where you need to make photos.

1) bride's house
2) wedding ceremony
3) bride and groom formals
4) reception

you can do #3 whenever is convenient. after the ceremony is usually good, since no one's drunk yet and bride-groom relations are at astronomical levels. scheduling might be off for that one, since sometimes the reception is scheduled 12 minutes after the ceremony. of the three weddings i've shot, i did the formals for one of them the day after the wedding, before they went on their honeymoon.

as far as flash photography is concerned, ask the priest beforehand. the three weddings i've shot were all catholic, and i didn't have any restrictions.

just out of curiosity, are you charging?
>> Anonymous
OP is a liar
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>136215

Cosigned.

Talk to the priest at the church beforehand. I've been to weddings and anniversaries where the photographers used flash. Just ask the priest if its possible take pictures in a way that is not interruptive or disrespectful.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>136098

If you've never shot a wedding before, don't do it as the main shooter. Simple as that.
>> Anonymous
go all the way
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
     File :-(, x)
>>136215
I work photographing lasers/LED lights for the interweb.

I was hired as a videographer, 6 months ago, but they asked if i could do stills and I said 'ok'... since then photography's become my main thing.

Fotos more than videography at entry level because you don't have to heap in umpteen umpaid hours editing shit to perfection for a reasonable price.
Anyhu, that's why i'm somewhat a n00b.

& no, i isn't charging.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:07 11:36:38White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time5 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/12.9Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length30.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width500Image Height338RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136333
>> Fotos PAY more than videography at entry level
typo, sollay
>> Anonymous
You don't know what the fuck you're doing.

Give up now.
>> Anonymous
>>136250

I've done weddings before and I know it might sound to the OP like it is being said to be hurtful but it's such a HUGE deep end to go into that you really should have a back up and be a secondary shooter to someone older and wiser who has done it before. Please consider listening to that poster's curt advice if it is an option at all.

Don't just think of yourself. Remember it isn't just for you and your work, it is for them as it'd be awful for it to go wrong this unique event. Irreplaceable, heartbreaking and all that. It doesn't bear thinking about. Get help from someone more experienced than you if you can at all.

Even a pro on their own without a back up shooter or assistant would have back up gear in the car or location. You can't go without at least two sets of everything you will use or possibly need. A flat battery or a busted memory card can happen any time. A dropped camera or lens can happen too. Just think ahead. Take more than you need and have backups of that. Don't cut it fine.

You've got to scout out the locations and ask what is allowed and what isn't. Some places will allow *no photography* during the most important "holy" parts of the ritual. They'll allow a sort of set up re-enactment later. Some will allow *no flash* others will limit it to certain times. Sometimes the only place to shoot will be very close and you'll need a wide (50mm could be too long in that case), other times you'll be needing 135 or 200 if you're far back!
>> Anonymous
>>136340

CONT.

Remember to back up your stuff several times. First thing you after the wedding on the very same day or night is copy it to the hard drives, then copy everything onto at least one DVD as well and leave the images on the card. It might sound paranoid, but dead cards, DVDs or PCs happen all the time. You don't know when it can go. A few pennies for a couple of blank DVDs won't break the bank. Back up everything and at all stages you can. If you think it would be missed if it went now - back it up. I am labouring this point, I know, but it is one of the big nightmares for anyone in that situation.


God help you.
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136337
not an option, distressingly
>> Anonymous
Remember you'll have group shots to do too, BTW. Don't rely on one lens. A 50mm 1.8 alone doesn't really cut it.
>> Anonymous
you are crazy and out of your depth. run away. talk to the couple or something. no way you can do this. you've not got the budget or experience.
>> Anonymous
>>136350

NO U!!!!!!!1111111111
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136340
>>136341
Thanks for the info.
Don't worry, i've had the shit rightly scared out of me.
I was pretty cavalier about it before ~ probably because i hate weddings. But yeah, now i'm not going to even thinking about rocking up without a spare body, some fast zooms, a decent prime, batteries cards and a solid plan.
cheers /p/
>> Anonymous
ROFL

i know shit about photography

i'm going to buy some fast lenses, oh another body too but i'm complaining about a $400 lens

are there lenses cheaper than the $80 50mm?

RELAX GUYS LOL! I'M A STUDIO PHOTOGRAPHER, SERIOUS BUSINESS!

you're a fucking faggot
>> Relaxo !!wQLwX3d/ry2
>>136357
lulz!
<3 4chan.
not going to buy more than the prime. Going to leech equiptment off my friend... who will bitch, but give up eventually.
>> Anonymous
STAND BACK, MA'AM

I'VE GOT A DSLR, I'M A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER

SERIOUS BUSINESS
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>136340
>>136341
>>136340
>>136341

QFT
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
     File :-(, x)
I did my buddy's wedding last weekend. I kept refusing because I knew I couldn't do a good job, but he just wanted someone there to take a bunch of pictures. I hope they turned out to his liking. In my opinion, they're way too noisy because I had no choice but to use ISO800-1600 on my 30D for most of the ceremony ;_;

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DPhotographerTimothy MasonMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:03:07 11:25:35Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>136393
cute!
>> Anonymous
>>136429

And the girl too. ^_~
>> Anonymous
>>136110
>Better underexpose than overexpose.

if you're shooting digital, most of the data is stored in the higher range on the histogram. If you can, shoot about .5 stop to 1.5 stops over and bring it back in a photo editor. You'll have more information in shadows and highlights in the end. But don't /over/ do it, or you'll blow out the bride's pretty dress and wont be able to recover the information.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>136492

must.. resist.. urge..to argue...

this was the very first argument that i got into on /p/, and while my opinion on the subject hasn't changed, my ability to calmly discuss and concede photo technique has.

so i will simply say, i agree with what you said, insofar as it applies to shooting RAW. in my own experience, shooting JPEG, i've found that you can safely underexpose by two or three stops at the minimal expense of extra noise and at no cost to dynamic range. on the other hand, blown highlights caused by carefree overexposure are impossible to fix.

so, in short,

RAW, overexpose.
JPEG, 0 EV comp or underexpose.
>> Anonymous
>>136496

fair 'nuff. Was silly of me to think that everyone shoots raw.
>> Anonymous
>>136499
No, it's not. Anyone not shooting raw is being silly.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>136499
Ken Rockwell agrees. Don't bother him about it.
>> Anonymous
>>136496RAW, overexpose.

doesn't this mean i will have to use longer shutter speeds?
>> Anonymous
>>136506
>doesn't this mean i will have to use longer shutter speeds?

yeah, or wider aperture, or higher iso. I'd go for the wider aperture in most cases.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>136506

yeah.

>>136499

and, yeah. everyone should shoot raw. some people don't for whatever reason, however, and they're the ones who shouldn't overexpose.
>> Anonymous
if i'm overexposing

wouldn't my skies be blown out
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>136510

nah. i'm just going to be lazy and give you the luminous landscape link.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
>> Anonymous
>>The simple lesson to be learned from this is to bias your exposures so that the histogram is snugged up to the right, but not to the point that the highlights are blown. This can usually be seen by the flashing alert on most camera review screens. Just back off so that the flashing stops.

??????
>> Anonymous
Learn to expose properly and you won't need to use RAW. Most the wedding photographers I know of use jpgs.
>> Anonymous
>>136508
Why the aperture? That actually affects the look of the photograph. For most subjects at most focal lengths, anything faster than 1/125th or 1/100th or so will look about the same.

Increasing the ISO to overexpose is a bad idea, though. Bumping ISO increases noise and reduces dynamic range, the very things you're trying to reduce and increase (respectively) by overexposing.

FWIW, I overexpose my raw files when my shutter speed to do so is fast enough to stop the motion in the scene, but otherwise I don't worry about doing so. Proper photograph with a little less DR > Screwed-up photograph with 100 stops of DR.
>> Anonymous
>>136522
Raw isn't for fixing mistakes. It's for:

-Avoiding lossy compression before it even leaves the camera, and so exploiting the full potential of the sensor and lens.
-Reserving total control about the look of the file for the photographer.
-Extending dynamic range as we're discussing here.
>> Anonymous
>>136529
All of which a wedding photographer does not have to concern himself about if he knows what to do.
>> Anonymous
>>136522
JPEG was relevant when cards were expensive and processors were slow, so you needed $1000 worth of cards/microdrives to fit all photos from a wedding in RAW and a whole day of processor time to convert them. Now I shoot mostly in RAW, because getting JPEGs with default settings is a matter of a couple minutes and several clicks in Lightroom.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>136529
...however, it is also great for fixing small mistakes in exposure.

Not to mention white balance. I used to constantly be adjusting and fiddling with my white balance. Now I just shoot RAW and don't worry about it. It's very liberating.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
Shootin pure jpg would be quite HC in weddings. All white dress versus all black suit. That really would need some correct exposure.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>136575

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system
>> Anonymous
>>136553
Bull. Why should he be turning out inferior-quality work?

>>136565
I sorta include those with
>-Reserving total control about the look of the file for the photographer.

I don't consider pushing or pulling by little fractional amounts to be "fixing" so much as fine-tuning, and WB was one of the things I had in mind when I wrote that. But yeah, when I first started, I had an S3IS with no raw and I was always pointing the custom white balance sensor at pieces of paper lying around. Ha.

>>136593
Something like the zone system would best be done in raw. I mean, it was originally designed for black and white negative sheet film. It can be used for anything, from JPEGs to a roll of 135 color slides, but it's ideal for things with more DR than less DR.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>136597

the zone system isn't "better" for one format or another. it's the de facto standard, and if you're shooting jpeg, it's a guaranteed way to get consistent exposure.
>> Anonymous
>>136597
When they cant tell the difference and when you are pushed for time.
>> des
geis, srsly- It's harder to make money if you have to dick around post-processing instead of dropping memory cards off.
Expose correctly and avoid bodies with shit JPEG rendering. I'm not certain any of the current production models would be a problem.

In OP's case, it doesn't make a difference. :P

>>136640
>>When they cant tell the difference and when you are pushed for time.
Ultimate truth- Perfection is the enemy of good enough
>> Anonymous
hi op

how's the studio photography business going

OH SNAPPPPPPPPPPP

faggot
>> Anonymous
>>136679
>dropping memory cards off.

Bad idea, unless you're an ace photographer or just don't care. Otherwise, gotta clean some bad pimples off bride's face and delete the shots where Auntie is yawning in the background. People may not notice about underexposure and fucked WB, but shit like this can be a major source of complaints.
>> des
>>136683
Gross exageration to make a point
>> Anonymous
>>136688
I'm not exagerrating much, you just haven't dealt with enough hicks.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>136679
See, the thing is, if you shoot RAW, you have the option of just taking the camera's defaults to output to JPEG. If you shoot JPEG, you don't have the option of converting to RAW if you need to rescue some shadows/highlights or futz with the WB. And I've found that damn near every one of my photos (except for the staged ones where I've had total control of the light) look better with some levels/curves adjustment, which is easier to do if you're starting from a RAW.

This is especially if you're using something like Aperture or Lightroom, which is optimized for a RAW workflow.

I used to be a "Blah. JPEG's fine, you don't need RAW" person for years. Then I actually tried it for a while and I'm a total convert.
>> Anonymous
>>136683
next time i shoot a family event i'll make sure to get the worst shots possible then only give those out. then i'll laugh at the fuckers when they complain.
>> Anonymous
>>136600
1. Nothing is standard if most people don't use it. Zone system's great, but it's far from the standard. Standard for most people is automatic, and even for most serious photographers it's probably matrix metering and aperture priority. Which is a shame, but it's the truth.

2. Of course it works better on something with more DR. It'll function on anything, but any system will be more precise if you have a wider range of tones to work with. A digital file effectively functions on its own 256 (for 8-Bit, I forget what it is for larger files) zone system. Going to a larger file with more DR will get better results no matter what you do.

>>136640
>>136679
Most professionals shoot raw. Like someone said, people usually demand enough bullshit retouching that taking a few minutes to play with sliders on a few ones that'll be printed large and setting batch process settings for the rest is nothing.