WB/Color Nightmare seeking practical approach/solution

<p>Hi Guys, thanks for the time. Question and situation is as listed below and the link to the image in question is --> <a href="http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff467/tabubu2010/image.jpg">here</a><br>

<strong>Cultural Background:</strong> Asian weddings do not "fully" enjoy B&W pictures simply because in Asia B&W is the "theme" for funerals, so it's really a sensitive topic when approached by a photographer, of course most people today still accept a B&W picture if they appear sensible enough or if it is simply an amazing take.<br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>Problem:</strong> An economic solution to for some couples could mean to hold a wedding a in place with tents (red, yellow, blue or stripes of any mixture of color) and under broad daylight. Once these daylights actually pass through these translucent tents (they act like dense color filters) and hit skin tones of any type, it's a color nightmare. <br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>Question: </strong>Since B&W is only a last stand solution for a color demanding wedding culture, is there a sensible practical solution for such problems? Keep in mind that this is not just a single row of one colored tent that is translucent, but a like a row of disco lights in a short catwalk, as the couple walks through them to greet guest for EACH (again, a cultural must) table, whatever solution implied would HAVE to vary under each different set of tents.</p>

<p><strong>My thoughts: </strong>I'm sure everyone knows the simple notion that when a subject is hit with so much color density, there is no color "correction" the subject IS simply lit with that color, red is red. I thought about solutions with filter lenses like the case of using 30 Magenta for fluorescent dominated fields, but it still doesn't seem possible. I really couldn't imagine a solution so here I am. Please, any sensible advice would do. Maybe there isn't a solution but in that case I'm sure it would help to let a beginner like me know why there isn't one.<br>

Again, thanks so much for reading and helping out!</p>

<p>Sounds like time to use a flash. Or three. The logistics and technical details will depend on your circumstances, budget, and whether or not that would go over in a venue for an event with those cultural traditions/expectations.</p>

<p>The solution is to use flash. If you have the time and control, off camera flash in addition to on camera, used in the backgrounds. If you have an assistant, the assistant using a flash on a pole, preferably with softbox, in addition to the off camera covering the background. Leave the flash at daylight/flash K temperature. If you can, gel for the tent color but slightly--just enough to help the flash K temp a bit. This would not be very easy in the situation you describe, so I'd probably not do that.</p>

<p>If you don't have an assistant or control of off camera flash, use the flash in your hand for some directionality. I'd diffuse with a small softbox or large white card bounce.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that often you have one subject for each exposure. If you get them right, the rest of the color temp often is irrelevant (though not always obviously), regardless of how 'off' it is from the main subject. </p>

<p>As Nadine and Matt suggested, using a flash to 'dominate' the ambient light is an effective way to bring your subject back into a range that you can 'fix' in post. Not always easy, especially in balancing the two (ambient vs. flash output) during dynamic lighting, but in the situation you are describing, absolutely necesary since the variation is so dramatic.</p>

<p>For the event you are describing, a flash frame (plus some diffusion) may be helpful, moving the flash away from the camera, and also giving you decent static control (assuming you don't have an assistant - they are much better).<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>If this is a common occurrence in your geographical area, how do other wedding photographers there deal with it?</p>

<p>The color contamination is so over-whelming that the only solution would be flash ... but unless the background is also lit with flash, the edges of the subject and anything in the background will also be contaminated by such a dominant ambient color cast (when opening up to include the background ambience).</p>

<p>In this case, one would not bounce the additional flash off the tent surface because it would only add to the contamination. Instead a couple of flashes aimed down into the background could help ... or an assistant with a radio triggered diffused flash on a pole could be out of frame behind and at a right angle to the main foreground subject ... which side they would stand on would be determined by the predominant ambient light direction. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi All. Thanks for the input.<br>

@Williams. Regarding your question, they charge cheap hence they don't deal with the problem. They use B&W maybe but again, I don't really call that a solution, because the entire wedding area is under a tent and an entire B&W album is just silly. Quite unacceptable in my book since they get paid after all.</p>

<p>As a compilation of Laur, Ian, Ohara and Williams, there are my new thoughts:</p>

<p>Sol.1<br>

I tend to insist on off camera solutions whenever I could, but I know its a lot of fiddling. But preserving ambient light for mood is out of the question here so flash it is. Strong gelled flash maybe, I will need to try to simulate this and see the results, I'm thinking the flash would need more color density that might just mean a wink to intensify what ever color gel I put on and match it with WB adjustments on camera, which brings me to the question, with a Red scene which WB would I be looking at? A very high K Blue compensation perhaps?<br>

I try to minimize color related POST work if I can help it.</p>

<p>Sol.2<br>

Daylight flash seems more practical but I think it also means higher maybe even 1/1 power to over power traces of ambient on my main subjects (the couple). But to simply kill ambient lights means higher shutter speeds smaller aperture which would mostly mean HSS and therefore mean MANY flash strobes required to deal with the f/ loss. Am I sounding right here?</p>

 

<p>I think you're overanalyzing this. Just shoot with normal daylight-balanced flash and let the backgrounds fall where they may. Ordinarily, ignoring the background would be a problem -- orange backgrounds from regular bulbs, green from fluorescent. But in this case the colors are part of the show, like stage lighting in a theater. If you have normal colored faces and various colors of backgrounds, seems like that would fit right in with the idea of a "colorful" wedding. At normal distances for candids, having enough flash power to overcome the ambient should not be a problem.</p>

<p>Discuss the technical implications of colored tents with the client ahead of the event. If they are not willing to accept BW and/or garish colors then they need to rent white tents.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with Craig--you are overthinking a bit. As Marc said above, you cannot eliminate all traces of whatever color is present, even if you use daylight balanced flash, if you also are exposing to 'let in' some ambient light. The latter is preferable to totally black backgrounds and the deer in the headlight, flashy look you'll get from using small apertures and fast shutter speeds combined.</p>

<p>When you gel your flash, you put the <strong>same</strong> color gel over the flash reflector as the dominant color in the scene, which you then correct for in post. In camera, you can also dial in a K temp, to get you close. Gelling is not precise, and is fiddly, which is why you'd have difficulty with this going from different colored tent to different colored tent, with outside daylight in between. I would not do this.</p>

<p>I'd use daylight balanced flash and not expect to overpower all red (or whatever) casts entirely. I don't know why you'd need HSS, even if you were going to try to kill all casts, or many flashes for combined power either. Even with ISO 100, 1/200th or 1/250th shutter would certainly be enough to semi-kill ambient.</p>

<p>If you had an assistant with a flash on a pole, I'd put a small softbox on the flash--even a 12x12 would help and use that as the main light, with on camera fill if desired, directing the assistant where to stand.</p>

<p>If you had another assistant, you could light up some of the backgrounds. It could work with a flash on a stand, which you could have the assistant plant in place when you got into a tent. Then the assistant would be using the flash on a pole under your direction. However, if you move to different angles in the tent, the flash on a stand could become problematic.</p>

<p>If I didn't have an assistant, I'd maybe still put the softbox (maybe a smaller one so it doesn't block the focus assist light, or a foamie, baseball mitt diffuser) on a flash held in my hand. Old school way is to have the flash with a wrist strap, so you can drop the flash and use the hand when necessary, and then pick up the flash quickly. I sometimes use a flash bracket, and I can quickly take the flash off the bracket's shoe and put is back on.</p>

<p>Marc Williams has shown his flash on a handheld stick before. That would also work well. I have a handheld stick myself, which is equipped with a wrist strap.</p>

<p>I use two remote flashes with gelled filters to match the ambient light. I also use on camera flash for fill, which is also gelled. I'm shooting RAW so I can adjust WB in post.<br>

Mario<br>

<b>Signature URL removed. Not allowed per photo.net Terms of Use.</b><br /></a></p>

<p>The point of using both on-camera and at least one off-camera flash would be to overpower the ambient by at least two, and preferably three stops. If you do that, you'll still see some of the background and some of the ambient red, but the subject(s) will be exposed and balanced properly for flash/daylight. This will have the added benefit of having the area outside the tent, in the sun, roughly correctly white-balanced (this is not the primary purpose, but is good icing on the cake). </p>

<p>Your instinct to use off-camera is good (and I share it). But don't be afraid of on-camera as fill. If you can have an assistant use a light on a pole (with or without mod) <strong>as the key light, </strong>then you are just using your on-camera flash for fill (1-2 stops below the key) to help flush away most of the red on the shadow side of the key -- this would still be 1-2 stops above ambient. </p>

<p>Subjects will still be somewhat red -- that's unavoidable if you preserve any significant part of the ambient exposure, which you probably will want to do for two reasons:</p>

<ol>

<li>it simplifies the lighting setup -- to completely kill the ambient exposure yet still get the environment such as guests and surroundings, you'd need one assistant-with-light-pole for key, probably one on-camera for fill, and probably two off-camera mounted on tent poles or something, to light the environment; and</li>

<li>the ambient is an important part of the celebration, and you probably want to preserve some of that colorful feel without letting it ruin the images. </li>

</ol>