Canon Lee - the photographer had the good sense to truncate the EXIF data. They don't have their name / copyright info embedded in the files nor have any keywords been applied. Only exposure, camera and lens info (all 5DIII and EF 35 f/1.4L II) can be seen from those posted so far, even the larger 20mb ish examples. None of the camera settings, other than manual exposure. The file was processed by Lightroom v6.8. The slight vignette seems film like; but actually, the operator has failed to load the lens profile to the camera body. The example posted here, similar to earlier examples, is an interesting, artistic view from the wedding day showing good skill working with the couple and composing / framing the image. But, the resulting image file shows a relative lack of technical skill in the processing.

Given the photographer had good updated equipment, no reason the images should be noticeably noisy, unless the entire wedding was held out doors at night. Todays DSLR's have excellent noise control since the ISO can be turned up to 1600% or better, (especially in post editing programs like Light room, which have additional noise cancellation generators). If she had a fast lens, 1.4~2.8mm, was allowed to use a flash ( or not), noise should not be an issue. I have taken action shots in a gym with low ambient light and no flash, at ISO 1600% and had excellent results. The problem is the photographer. There are companies like David's bridal or Craigs list that do weddings cheap because they are not pro's. I have never had noise in my photos, even in ambient light or indoors. Personally I would ask for my money back. Letting photographers get away with incompetence just perpetuates bad photographers. Just because anyone has bought a pro camera/lens doesn't guarantee good results. I would love to see her camera settings. The meta data might be on the images on the flash drive. Im sure we photographers would love to see the data. It just upsets me that some people are charging for weddings and are not pros. To all you uncles, friends or family members of the bride or groom, please don't shoot weddings, but as a wedding gift, hire a pro.

I would not shoot a wedding for less than $1600.00 ($1200.00 burned to a disc). All day shoot ( average 10hrs shoot time + 3hours editing time ), travel, assistant( $200.00), post editing time, print charge. Imperfections on a photo are not noticeable in a thumbnail image on line. It becomes noticeable when printed and enlarged. Considering burned to a disc, assistant pay, gas, that would be about $1000.00 divide that by 13 hours= $75 per hour. I know that most will think $1200.00 is a lot to charge but its not. You can get on Craigs list a wedding shoot for $500~750. It makes simple sense that you get what you get from an amateur that asks for less than the pros get.

rehess True that a wedding reception doesn't take 10 hours. but since 1945 wedding shoots have changed, in that the shoot starts early in the day, before the ceremony, where photos are taken in the house, then phase 2 is at the church or venue, where pre ceremony shots are taken, then Phase 3 the actual ceremony ( sometimes with a full mass), phase 4 the reception. All in all about a 10hr day. Some receptions are too long I agree. Not many couples want wedding albums, but burned to a disc. Most weddings aside from the church are not formal. I edit around 300 shots to give either on a disc or photos, which takes around 3hrs. I charge for a full day. Some occasions there is a gap of time between the ceremony shoot and when the venue reception begins, resulting in waiting around, some times hours. I wonder if you have ever shot a full wedding? Congrats on being married 37yrs.