I need more power

"a total of 5 light sources..." no foolin?<p>I used one... two, if you count the window. Lumedyne with 1/8 CTO @ 200ws, 1/10th sec to bring the window up, F5.6, iso 100, 50mm. <p>You know how weddings go... t

And that is just it, when viewing a wedding picture, the viewer should take into account

the limitations of the situation. Wedding lighting solutions need to be quick to set up,

hopefully light weight, and give the photographer a simple solution. Wedding

photographers do not have the time luxuries of the fashion photographer or commercial

photographer: "Take 1/2 a day for one picture." Wedding photographers have no more

time than a person wants to be "corralled at a weddng away from the fun". That gives the

wedding photographer about 3 minutes maximum, maybe only 90 seconds for general

shots. Even for a "portrait shot" the wedding photographer may be allowed no more than

7 minutes for everything, set-up, break down, shooting, adjusting, expression, metering.

Ellis Venier never got back to report what the celebrity photographer does WITH GROUPS.

At least he admitted that they use speciality lighting equipment at times.

 

As for Ellis' statement regarding "distance" and " flash duration". It would be assume that

if the photographer increases distance from the group, he will increase flash power to

compensate, always trying to attain a f8 or better no matter what distance he is at. As

power is turned up, sure enough, flash duration changes, it becomes longer. So, while

distance and flash duration are not directly influenced by one another, they are linked in

the process of taking a group picture at a wedding wherein you may be changing the

distances of lights to the altar. I take it that Ellis is not a wedding photographer, and

therefore he cannot "add in" his own experience of understanding of each situation that

happens at a wedding. This causes him to be all ? ? ? at times. But we wedding

photographers know the situation, even if not all the details are discussed for every

picture topic or picture situation. We know the parameters and limitations that exist for

each shot!

I understand the time constraints on wedding photography.

While I haven't shot a wedding since the early 1980's, I did shoot

over 100 of them before burning out. <p>

But that's not the issue. The issue is/was that a technique was

described, and an image presented to demonstrate it. <b>The

results from using that technique will give the results

shown</b>, and it doesn't matter whether it took 2 minutes or 2

days to set it up.<p>

The image you got is a direct result of the technique used. You

seem to like the results; other viewers may or may not.

(Obviously, I don't.)

Answer to above:

 

It does matter whether it takes 2 days to set up. By the time you set it up taking 2 days,

the wedding will be over.

 

You cannot just use any technique at a wedding: The subjects may walk away as they go

on to another adventure. You would be left there pleading with them to stay longer. This

will stress the photographer out: trying to do what is impossible.

 

No wonder you got burned out.

 

I always sought ways of saving even seconds of time if the procedure could save time.

Many brides are critical of photographers who are not organized. The reputation of the

wedding photographer follows him/her.

here's my solution to working fast... use one light for 75 percent of everything, use two for another 24 percent and three when nothing else will do. I try to have one of these lights be natural, like a stained glass window instead of a background light. <p>Five lights in one portrait made <i>at</i> a wedding seems nightmarishly excessive.<p>As for celebrity groups, I have read about Annie Leibowitz' photograph of the actors in The Sopranos. Several photographs were made of carefully posed smaller groupings and of individuals. The final image was a previsualized composite of the entire cast. So while commercial guys may not know every situation that may arise at a wedding, neither do wedding photographers have the ability to <i>guess</i> at what it takes to photograph a collection of celebrities... t <p>p.s. there is <i>no way</i> to know all the situations that may arise at a wedding, no matter how many you've photographed. Good photographers have the ability to invent solutions on the spot, with highly specialized, but minimal equipment and very little delay.<div></div>

I didn't use 5 lights on my photograph. I use 5 light sources. The total time to set it up

was about 45 seconds. There were no stands, no modeling lights. Because I already have

white cards bolted to my reflectors, each portable light constitutes 2 lights when the light

is bounced from a ceiling. The total time for setting up 4 of the sources is about 15

seconds, total. The hairlight in the right corner required a light stand.

 

Tom Meyer is showing a "flat picture" without any background. This is easy. This is not a

test of lighting skill per se. OK, one light is angled to the side. You would not light a

Baptist church this way, the background would go very, very dark and the shadow would

be extended way to the left. What you want when you have a background is a more even

illumination, if you want to call it "shapeless" fine. You just do not have the time to "shape

light" for each different size of group and person combination. You would have to do

polaroids, and the whole thing could take an hour and a half. You can't be in the church

for that long. You will get complaints.

 

I knew that you would be astounded by the figure of 5 light sources. But I have it

managed to a quick set-up style. I use the bridesmaids or ushers to put the portable

Norman 200b on their shoulder for 30 seconds while I shoot. I have 2 of the light sources

on my camera. I end up with nearly shadowless light. I can always throw light on the

background in a soft way by using cardlight from the reflector or by using a morris wide

slave or using any powerful Norman 200b with barebulb or reflector or soft reflector. I

have many, many choices. And all of my choices are fast, charlie.

 

I am thinking of winding a bed sheet around a 2" pole. Stapled on one end. I put a hole in

it, asymetrically placed. Thus, I can light the bed sheet with an emphasis of more light

power to the "broad side" of the hole. My cameras all have professional like shades to

block side light anyway. I simply bounce light off of the sheet in 2 places, or 1 place from

a distance. The broad side of the sheet will make some modeling light happen. The light

is perfectly soft. In a hurry to go, I simply fold up the sheet. A white piece of vinyl will do

the trick, too. You can get white vinyl from sign shops.

 

This type of reflector, white vinyl can also be held up using some 4' handles. I would have

the equivalent of a Jumbrella if I wanted.

 

As for "fill" light I invented last night a solution for portable butterfly lighting with a

Norman 200b using 2 soft dome reflectors positioned under any of my cameras with a

Stroboframe. As a result, I end up having 4, that's is right, 4 reflectors from my camera.

One is a center fill, one models the light, 2 below the camera provide the "butterfly

lighting fill so popular in fashion. And, I can provide this light while I am back peddleing

backwards down church stairs. I provide this light anywhere, anytime with no set-up time.

 

Beat that.

"beat that"<p> not with a ten foot pole... t

Lighting at the Altar - Ideas for flash power

lightingatthealtar

 

Read this thread for some ideas.

<i>It does matter whether it takes 2 days to set up. By the time

you set it up taking 2 days, the wedding will be over. </i><p>

Not in terms of <b>results</b>.<p>

You claimed that a particular technique was a good one, then

posted an image that didn't support the claim. <p>

It might have been a better comparison between taking 2

minutes to do a 'good' lighting job vs 2 minutes for a 'bad'

lighting job, but the point was that you're recommending

something that gives very poor results--and will do so on a

regular basis. In that light, the time involved isn't important--bad

results are bad results.<p>

Qualify it all you want -- "<i>And that is just it, when viewing a

wedding picture, the viewer should take into account the

limitations of the situation. </i>" -- but it's not going to make the

image any better.<p>

Oh, and please don't make false assertions about why I left the

field. It had nothing to do with any of the techniques or

responses to them from any of my clients, but for other reasons

entirely. My clients, on the whole, were delighted with the images

they got, and complaints about delays were--relative to the

profession--pretty rare. (Perhaps because I didn't try to set up

complex lighting where simpler setups would give better results

more quickly?)

Kevin you comment on using these words copied above:

 

It does matter whether it takes 2 days to set up. By the time you set it up taking 2 days,

the wedding will be over.

 

Not in terms of results.

 

You claimed that a particular technique was a good one, then posted an image that didn't

support the claim.

 

________________________________________

 

ANSWER:

 

I did not post any photographs on this thread. I have never posted a photograph on any

thread. Your accuracy is non-existent.

 

Furthermore, your usage of taking "2 Days" to set-up lighting will never work in wedding

photography. In wedding photography, the Bride would never permit the photographer to

take 2 days to set-up lighting as you referred to. I do not buy your extreme, off-target,

exaggerated discriptions. Perhaps you seek to manipulate the reader, but i am not so

turned around.

 

Wedding photography lighting solutions must be severely limited in time set-up and

break-down. The church must be closed down; the Bride must move to another room; the

reception hall is only leased for a few hours.

 

In wedding photography, the expectation of the photographer is to record the story. The

photographer is not required to use studio lighting at any time. Lighting modifications are

not "written into the contract". And this is so to allow flexibility; to allow the

photographer to "go with the flow".

 

In my experience, I am given about 1-3 minutes maximum to make all lighting and set-up

decisions. If I cannot perform under this tight schedule, the Bride will leave the set to go

have fun with her guests. I cannot hold her up to experiment and test for longer periods

of time without complaint.

 

Use of bounce flash, for example, is a very fast and effective substitute for umbrellas and

softboxes that must sit on stands using mono lights or packs. Bounce flash technique is a

popular wedding lighting procedure in all of the world. There are ways to improve it, to

modify it, to add fill to it. However, these procedures add precious time to the set-up.

 

Any professional wedding photographers reading this will agree that the need for brevity

in working at a wedding is very important. Nothing you say or imagine or invent can

change what has become a "given" at weddings around the world. The Wedding event

moves quickly for the photographer. Readers: Do I hear an "Amen" out there?

 

Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

almost. Almost everything you say in this last posting is correct, although I've not heard of a bride leaving the photo session after "3 minutes, maximum" to go have fun with her friends. Most of the brides I've worked with or seen are *very* concerned about having good photographs and will make the rest of the world wait with her, until the photographer gets what is required, and more. <p>But essentially you are correct, time is of the essence in this and all genre of photography. But it still has to look good. No one will remember if they had to wait 3 or 10 minutes when they have a beautiful image that will endure for years. But if it's a really bad image, it won't matter if it was done in a nano-second. <p>Also, while you may not have actually posted a photograph in a thread, you certainly did reference one: "<i>In my portfolio, "Princess Bride Cathleen" was done with this technique</i>" and after <b>I</b> posted it in line you confirmed it: "<i>This is her. Notice the gentle shadows under her arms and in her dress near the carpet. Notice also that there are no shadows projected on the walls, too.</i>". So do not deny the results of your techniques here, when you have so recently authenticated them... t

Tom Meyer:

 

I don't understand what you are trying to prove. Do you believe that Brides always have

unlimited time to do photographs with the photographer? Are you trying to prove that

they do have time 62% of the time, or 18% of the time? What?

 

I think you are writing for your own entertainment because you are bored right now. I am

sure that you will never be able to predict how much time any one Bride will exactly give

the photographer to do a photograph at such and such a time. You can continue with

trying to infer that Bride's care all the time, but I know that Bride's really care about their

ceremonies. I know they will drop the photographing session to be on time for the

ceremony.

 

I know, too, that some Bride's are late because the hairdresser partied the Friday night

before and opened their salon late, making the Bride late. There is no purpose in

theorizing this. You are beginning to make me suspect that you do not have all the

experience you profess. I don't need to speculate on this matter, I know what the

specifications need to be: Work quickly!

 

The picture above has no shine on her face. There are no odd shadows. And furthermore,

there is detail in her dress top. The carpet is evenly illuminated. You cannot do this with

your one softbox. You cannot do this with flash, or multiple flashes with normal

reflectors.

 

Actually, this is from a print which was mounted in an album. If I were to take the original

negative and have a high quality scan made of the negative, greater sharpness and higher

general quality should occur. This is because the lab used dichroic light for this print. Go

direct from the negative to a laser print, and you have more detail, more sharpness.

 

As I said above, I would like to have added a floor reflector. But aiming it can be tricky

unless you have time to do so. I did not have modeling lights on this day.

 

My newest solution is simply to have 5-6 Flexfills thrown on the carpet or aimed at the

subject while I use 5 sources of light. So, this then becomes 6 sources of light. I cannot

rely upon the one flexfill reflector to be aimed correctly by anyone. This could produce a

margin of error I cannot live with. Therefore, with "fhi018" silver mylar on the floor,

Flexflills on the hands of several people, I will catch bounce from the ceiling to fill in the

person with no visible shadows in the rear.

 

And this technique can be used by Carl Williams.

 

The Flexfills are lightweight and fast to unfold, taking only 5 seconds each to unfold. And

of course, there is white card fill from 2 sources already.

 

It can be perfected as a technique usable in most any indoor situation with a white ceiling.

 

No, I don't want black shadows on the wall. I want to see the room and the carpet. Bounce

works best to capture all this detail, in addition.

For Carl William's use, bounce light will allow dark skin to show itself without hardly any

shine. And his pictures will have a 3D look, too. This thread is about Carl William's

problems, remember.

Timber, I believe that if you <b>read</b> what Tom wrote, you'd

understand his point: bad results are worse than taking the extra

minute and getting one less shot. He even agreed with you that

time is of the essence--though you chose to argue about that

point, and ignore the quality issue. (That is, you argued with him

about what he agreed with you on, and ignored the part where he

disagreed. <i>That's</i> manipulative--or would be, if it

worked.)<p>

I also believe that if you read my posts--instead of what you

seem to think I wrote--you'd see the same thing. A bad result that

takes 2 minutes is still worse than a good result that takes 2

minutes.<p>

And a bad result that takes a week, or a month is still a bad

result--it merely has the added 'badness' of being intolerable.

<p>

You've ignored that point multiple times so far, so I'll split it

out:<p><br>

<b>A bad technique that saves time but gives bad results is still

a bad decision, especially when better techniques, taking no

more time are available.</b><p><br>

If that's unclear, please ask for clarification., and I'll see if I can

make it any more clear.<p>

My sole reference to '2 days' was to comment on bad results--not

to in any way suggest that taking that long was in any way

possible for a wedding It was merely to show that the amount of

time it takes to create bad results isn't important; 10 seconds,

10 minutes, or 10 days--it's still bad results. <p>

I urge you to re-read (or even read them the first time) the posts

you've responded to, and pay attention to the words people

actually wrote. <p>

<i>I think you are writing for your own entertainment because you

are bored right now. </i><p>

<b>You</b> say this about someone else?

This is pointless... t<p>p.s. Good luck Carl, use bounce by all means if you've got the power and a good ceiling. But I'd add one direct source (like a 60" umbrella) feathered to cover the group. Two 1600s and one 3200 should be more than enough to do the job. Flash duration is not a relevant issue with this type of photography... t

Carl,

 

You can always add an umbrella to your bounce light. And I use white cards from my light

sources to act as that "umbrella". But if you use much power from your 'umbrella', you will

have a new look.

 

As for flash duration, I have found through 100,000s of exposures that the subject will not

show 'closed eyes' or 'partially closed eyes' if the flash duration is very short, such as 1/

1500th. They also do not complain as much about eye burn. You can test this yourself

by simply using a 2 headed flash system and using various power levels. You will notice

that you have a reaction to eye blink as a result of stronger and stronger light intensity.

 

The purpose of a short duration flash is to "beat the clock" before the subject reacts to

blink their eyes. The subject will start to react due to seeing the photographer move his

finger or body when he triggers. This movement signals the subject that something

hurtful may be coming very soon. Like Pavlov's dog, they eye blink uncontrollably.

 

Most photographers only go to a level of detail they are comfortable with. I was never

comfortable with having 1% or 4% of my photographs ruined by certain people who eye

blinked time after time. So, I long ago did the tests and used this knowledge which I have

used ever since. I rarely have anyone with a blinked eye closed in a picture. It is possible

to have a Bride which is pictured at the Altar 90% of the time with closed eyes. You will

never know who it will be....until later when you see the results.

 

I can live with 1/800th as a flash duration. I once had a flash of 1/240th duration, a Braun

200ws german strobe. I had this problem frequently, maybe 5% of the time when I used

highest power. With studio strobes, they can easily output 1/300th at highest power. So,

I think you can see the relationship and the danger in using studio packs if they are single

head types. Split the head to get shorter duration. Use a 'quad head' for shorter duration.

 

Then when you have this equipment, do a personal test on your own eyes. You will see

that the shorter duration is much more comfortable than the 'long duration burn' of the

single head, regular commercial bulb type systems.

"Bounce light" techniques emulate the output from a large softbox, particularly if the

ceiling is high up. Umbrella lighting is, of course, a "bounced light": the flash output

bounces against the white interior.

 

Bounced light is, for people, an excellent light source producing oftentimes skin tones that

have no shine, no evidence of sweat or moisture in the skin. My photograph proves this to

be the case with bounce light. A direct singlular flash gun or one larger normal reflector,

like a 11" reflector on a pack will produce this sweaty shiney on the person's forehead,

nose, cheeks, chin, time after time. Bounced light is the solution of choice for this

problem. And part of any wedding photographer's solution must be a fast system set-up

time.

Hey Everybody,

Thanks for all the info. I kinda think we got off a little but if we keep talking and listen also , we will learn. And I plan on learning. And this is a good place learn and add to each of our own ways of seeing. photography is light.

Thanks everyone

Carl

<I>

 

"Bounce light" techniques emulate the output from a large softbox, particularly if the

ceiling is high up.</I><P> Well no of course it doesn't -- unless you have very

movable ceilings.

Ellis: I am referring to the OUTPUT, the LIGHT quality, not the versatility argument of a

softbox vs. a ceiling bounce.

 

I can actually CHOOSE how large a radiator of light I want, by simply increasing distance

from the ceiling, the angle, and additionally I can change the number of flash heads

'spraying' light on the ceiliing in various parts when I use bounce flash. I can vary power in

odd combinations of spots on the ceiling, too, for an asymetrical look.

 

My "Princess Bride" picture has a missing rear shadow as a result of one ceiiling bounce

being placed forward and to the left. This also created a shadow near the carpet on our

right.

 

While I cannot "lift the ceiling" I can do an alternative: change the effective size of the

radiator which you would accomplish by "lifting the softbox". Since the radiating surface

is so, so large, the law of inverse squares does not work against me in this situation. I am

creating a partial "light tent" similar to photographers using close-in umbrellas. But the

difference is, my "radiator" is about 8 feet away from her lap. That is a good distance.

 

I can vary the ceiling bounce spot by using a variable coverage Vivitar, or using different

reflectors on my Norman, or by raising up the light source to the ceiling. I can use 2 or 3

units to form a spot. I can create multiple spots. The options are many.

 

Wedding photographers have no requirement, no need for a softbox and stand in the

home pictures of a bride when a white ceiling and walls are available. Same goes for the

church location.

 

A little 19" softbox cannot compete in softness with my bouncing a 5' diameter spot on

the ceiling, with another 5' diameter spot elsewhere on the ceiling, and maybe a 8'

diameter spot on a white side wall all at the same time. Unfortunately for my picture

above the walls were green, so I could not bounce on a rear wall to use it as fill.

Wow!

 

That's so funny Timber, I too was referring to the quality of light! If you don't

think that a photographer's ability to control where the light is coming from,

that versality in placing that light source where you want it to help create the

emotional content and aesthetics desired of a set up photograph, isn't part &

parcel of the quality of light , who am I to argue?

 

The situation you describe is interesting but it could have been handled much

more effectively with larger softboxes and the photographer doing the shot

would not be forced to rely on the chancy proposition of having walls &

ceilings being a neutral shade of white.

 

I bounce light too , when it makes the shot work, but I ,make sure I am not

forced to rely on what I might find when i get to a location --especially one that

may not hve had time to have scouted before I arrived.

 

And just how high were your ceilings in that room? And what sort of light

levels were you getting at the subject from that 5' spot created by your Vivitar:

"<i>And I use white cards from my light sources to act as that "umbrella"</i>"... just how big are those white cards? 60 inches across? How can a card on any flash emulate a 60" umbrella? <p>As to bounce being the equivalent of a softbox or an umbrella. While bounce light is a useful and sometimes perfect solution, you cannot place a wall or ceiling wherever you want a light source. A "white card" on a Vivitar or even a more powerful unit is not a substitute for a softbox or an umbrella on that same source. I don't think Chimera would be in business very long, if this were true. <p>"<i>Since the radiating surface is so, so large, the law of inverse squares does not work against me in this situation.</i>". Einstein would be amazed by this capacity you have. These blanket statements by Timber are just more evidence... t

Ellis V.: You are talking like a commercial photographer. You need to limit your view and

choices to the situations that wedding photographers actually enter:

 

1. The ceiling is 8' high: This is a standard ceiling height in the US. Adding a softbox

and head could easily require 2' of room altitude. Therefore, the light source would be at

most 6' above the floor, and this is maximum. If the ceiling bounce is 8', this is better

from the standpoint of using added distance to reduce contrast and increase coverage

angles. A bounce shot from an angle, 45 degree angle can spread light very well, thank

you.

 

2. The photographer may have only 2-4 minutes total time to set-up everything and

anything. A softbox requires a stand oftentimes, unless you would use a tiny softbox

like Norman has in 19". I am not against use of soft boxes per se, but restricting my light

source to 19" puts me in danger of being liable to the "rule of inverse square" because the

light source is getting smaller than the subject. My shoulders are about 22" wide, to give

some illustration of size. When you use these smaller softboxes, the lit area may be soft,

but the shadows can be quite dark!

 

So, wedding photographers need to do some tests and convince themselves that bounce

light sources are very versatile, though immovable. And they offer fast solutions with

large light source areas.

 

If I could predict what the effect would be adding another direct soft source of light, such

as a umbrella, I would consider it. However, the matter is so delicate a balance, that I

would rather stay in the "soft bounce light" camp rather than to blow out detail in a white

dress with a direct soft source.

 

There is no time to use the methods of wedding magazine, bridal magazine dress ads.

These photographers have lots of space to reduce contrast, and the time to enhance dress

details while they gobo and barndoor other areas. This cannot be done reliability,

wedding after wedding in less than a few minutes.

 

While you solutions to wedding photographers usually have good intentions, it is obvious

to me that you do not see where the limitations stand in this line of work. It is not safe to

assume that you have more than 10 minutes to set up any shot at a wedding. The people

can simply command the photographer to follow them to the next room, and the whole

thing is bust.

 

Traditionally, wedding photographers use direct flash. Any attempt by the wedding

photographer to offer a nice light on the subjects is the option of the photographer.

Commercial photographers take the time they need to get the results they need. If that

means staying up all night for one photograph, that's what they do. Wedding

photographers live with a demanding people environment that cannot accept much

"delay". They want to have fun.

Answering this:

""And I use white cards from my light sources to act as that "umbrella""... just

how big are those white cards? 60 inches across? How can a card on any flash

emulate a 60" umbrella? As to bounce being the equivalent of a softbox or an

umbrella. While bounce light is a useful and sometimes perfect solution, you

cannot place a wall or ceiling wherever you want a light source. A "white

card" on a Vivitar or even a more powerful unit is not a substitute for a

softbox or an umbrella on that same source. I don't think Chimera would be in

business very long, if this were true. "Since the radiating surface is so, so

large, the law of inverse squares does not work against me in this situation.".

Einstein would be amazed by this capacity you have. These blanket statements by

Timber are just more evidence... t

 

ANSWER: The Law of Inverse Square starts to operate when the light source is the same

size as or smaller than, the subject it illuminates. If the subject is 20" wide, and we have a

18" diameter softbox, we will have the effect of the rule of inverse square. Shadows will

be dark, too. A softbox that is much larger, say 4'x4' will provide a partial 'light tent' for

the subject if close, say 4' from the subject and contrast and light fall off will not decrease

as rapidly than if we had chosen a smaller light source. (re: rule of inverse square)

 

As for my cards, well that is a big secret. But, I may as well tell everyone. The surface

area of the white cards is important. I use substantial cards on 5" reflectors that are about

9"x 10". They curve around the reflectors. And I use 2 heads. So that gives double the

white card area. But these cards are confined to my camera bracket area, and they are sort

of high up to do a great fill in some situations.

 

So, my newest thing is to use monolights, Specifically Speedotron Force 10. These have

10" reflectors, and I can attach a BIG WHITE CARD to the reflector. I believe they are

14x18" and are cut with six sides so that I can heat bend them alittle so that the white

card "catches alittle light". But I was thinking today, that it would be nice to have a bigger

one. So, I will be cutting a 18x24 card or thereabouts, which is velcro attached to the

white cards bolted to the reflector. This big card wil be easy to store 'flat'; but it will be

slightly curved.

 

My plan with the BIG CARD is to keep the mono light lower on the person seated. No

problem with a mono light because it is not attached to my camera bracket. As for speed,

no problem there either, because I can use an usher or bridesmaid to hold it for 60

seconds. My Force 10s are 1/10th or 1/3rd stop adjustable: great!

 

I may cut some cards that are larger, just to give a feathered edge to the light/shadow on

the wall in back of the person. I can place this low card under my lens, just in front. I can

also use it to model the person from an angle.

 

The beauty of using a white card is that the light emitted is totally predicted given that the

white card does not change. The only major variable is the bounce light size/angle

chosen on the white ceiling. But I can test for this in advance.

 

I am also considering hooking 2 LH2 heads together, even 4 of them on a bar with a white

card behind all 2 or 4 reflectors. There is no limit, of course.

 

I am not worried about Chimera staying in business. I need solutions that are tough, easy

to set-up and fast to set-up. My big white card takes 3 seconds to "set-up". If I can't set

it up quickly, it can't be used. This is the frequent situation of weddings and events.