Outdoor Night Wedding

<p>Hi Everyone, </p>

<p>I have a wedding in a weeks time which will take place outdoors, at night, under candle light. The space is big (around 20 Metres Squared). I am seeking advice on how to light the wedding, it will not be possible to bounce and I do not want to end up with horrible grainy images. Equipment wise I have a Nikon D300s, 3 flashes and 2 sets of triggers, obviously in slave mode only one trigger will be required. I have a range of lenses all between 1.8-2.8 aperture. </p>

<p>All ideas are welcome, thank you in advance for your help.</p>

<p>Andrew</p>

<p>consider gelling your flash units w/ some CTO or CTS to give them appropriate warmth and 'atmosphere'</p>

<p>Twenty square metres is not really all that big - indicative 5m x 4m, which means you will be shooting at a Working Flash Distance of about 3 metres per unit which is well within the power range of most "speedlite" type Flash units.</p>

<p>I assume the <em>"how to light the wedding,"</em> means the 'Ceremony Proper' and assuming the Celebrant and B&G are facing the Congregation, then, without more detailed information apropos the site – a basic plan I would think about is: a KEY set at about 15° off the main Aisle and INTO the BRIDE and a FILL set at about 45° off axis and you could use the third speedlite as a Kicker (Rim Light) at 45° off axis behind the BRIDE’S side. Drag the shutter to expose the Candlelight.</p>

<p>Gelling the Flash to about 3000K° would be nice.</p>

<p>BUT - Realistically:<br>

Key, Fill and are probably all that are necessary. It would be good to keep the third speedlite on your camera or on an Off Camera Cord, because, after the Ceremony, I expect that you will need to roam: in which case (if the venue is the same) you could move the speedlites on the stands to the extreme corners of the outdoor venue and use both as kicker/rim lights and use the third speedlite on camera or on an Off Camera Cord, as the Key Light, which I would bounce off a White Mitt or White Bounce Card. For these shots I would also Drag the Shutter, to expose for the Candlelight, ambient.</p>

<p>I would be ready to kill the Flash at any time and bump the ISO to make Available Light Shots – or carry another camera specifically for those AL shots.</p>

<p>For Flash exposures the Lens’ speed at F/1.8~F/2.8 is not really the critical element, the Focal Lengths and the ability to move freely and quickly is more important in a small area: and 5 m x 4m really is (small), not big.</p>

<p>On another point: to take on shooting a Wedding, one really needs at least two camera bodies. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>William's plan sounds good, but don't even try to get the WB down to that of candlelight; it just can't be done without using supplementary blue filters and a huge loss of ISO sensitivity. Candles are around 2000K CT and can't be matched on any DSLR. I suspect that the Tungsten setting is going to be as close as you can get (with a full CTO on the flash heads), which will still leave the candlelight looking very yellow. Therefore I'd only "drag" the shutter sufficiently to capture the candle flames brightly and forget about the ambient lighting otherwise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"William's plan sounds good, <strong><em>but don't even try to get the WB down to that of candlelit . . . </em></strong>Candles are around 2000K CT and<strong><em> can't be matched on any DSLR. </em></strong>I suspect that the<strong><em> Tungsten setting </em></strong>is going to be as close as you can get"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For clarity and accuracy: William's plan did NOT mention any adjustments nor advice apropos <strong>White Balance</strong>.<br>

<br /> It mentioned gelling the Flash Heads to about 3000K - and that is an entirely different operation to setting a DSLR camera's White Balance.</p>

<p>I would use Auto White Balance in that shooting scenario and I would capture raw +JPEG (L).</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I would further suggest setting the two remote lights on different frequencies, so you can turn them on an off as you find them either in your line of sight (which might be cool, too) or behind you, when they might provide too much flat light (for a night photo). <br /><br />The D300s is fine at iso 800, and I know good wedding photographers who take it well beyond that (as noise reduction also smooths skin tones)... t</p>

<p>God advices here. But I'm afraid that OP's "around 20 Metres Squared" does not means William's estimation of "indicative 5m x 4m" which is a room size but a square 20x20 which really is quite a space...</p>

<blockquote>

<p> "but a square 20x20 which really is quite a space..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes: after I wrote and the edit time was over I was thinking about that possibility.<br>

Perhaps the OP will come back to confirm what is actually what.<br>

In any case I would still suggest the general lighting outline for the Ceremony.<br>

I'll wait for the OP before commenting further.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>Hi Everyone, </p>

<p>Firstly, thanks for your great response and advice! Mihai is correct, the space is huge! Just to confirm with Williams comments, I need advice on the setup just for the ceremony (The private shoot afterwards is not a problem and the party is inside so I can bounce). Also I work as part of a team of two, therefore a 2nd camera is not necessary. My partner usually shoots candid, without flash. The key for me is to find a consistent light flow, as to not burn some people and under expose others. William, I will be using an SP on my camera body for fill in and it was initial plan to place the other SP´s on stands in two corners as you have also said. I have small soft boxes for these so I am considering using them to apply a more defused light.</p>

<p>Just to confirm the space is roughly 20m x 20m. Thanks Andrew</p>

<p>Forget the soft boxes Andrew, all they will do is rob you of precious light. Use the speed-lights bare. </p>

<p>Specular light is a function of a light source's size, and distance to subject. The bigger and closer, the more gentle and wrap around the quality of light becomes.</p>

<p>Even a larger soft-box produces a specular quality of light when it is at a greater distance from the subject. A smaller soft box at distance will do absolutely nothing compared to a bare speed-light. The quality of light will be the same. </p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

Will the 20x20m space include many people? I think it would be best to focus on lighting the bride,

groom and officiant as well as possible and maybe let the light on other people fall as it may. William's

suggestion at the beginning of the thread seems very good. I think if there are more people in that

space and light on them is to be optimal, it could get very challenging given the very long distances

from corner to corner. So focus on the most important people during the ceremony while making sure

that no one is burned out.

<p>I also would NOT use soft boxes, because as Marc wrote, you'll just be robbed of light for no gain in the quality of the light.</p>

<p>I also agree with Ilkka to concentrate primarily on lighting the Wedding Party and for that I re-iterate my original suggestion. But I note that you mentioned using two lights, one in each corner of the room (which was my suggestion for later on, after the Ceremony, <strong>and also my suggestion for a much smaller space</strong>).</p>

<p>Because this is a larger space (than I first understood), I add to my comments that you will need to consider the DISTANCE to the Wedding Party at which you set lights and the resultant RANGE of APERTURES and ISO you will have available to you, to use.<br /> For example: if you have two lights, one in each REAR corner of the space - those lights will be working at about 20~22meters to get light to the Bridal Party. Even with the most powerful speedlights; at that Working Distance you'll be using moderately large apertures; you will not have a large range of aperture from which to choose; and / or you will need to use medium to high ISO's, to accommodate (a larger range of) apertures.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The biggest problem you are going to have is light-fall off when it gets dark. Light Fall OFF is when your flash does not cover the background only the subjects. It gives the impression that your subjects just came out of a cave. Combine that with red-eye and you can have some really scary photos. You can slow-down the shutter and use a tripod but that may get cumbersome. I would forget about ETTL/iTTL unless you really know what you are doing. Setting the flash/camera to 'Manual' might help, also having an assistant with off-camera flash.</p>

<p>Why jump down my throat William? When I didn't contradict anything you said at all. My advice was based on actual experience of shooting an outdoor party at night, which was lit by candles and low-power "fairy lights". It was impossible, even from RAW, to match the CT of the ambient light without incurring heavy shadow noise. I had to use a complementary colour mask layer in PS to get anything like a neutral colour balance and reasonable flesh tones. A straightforward CT adjustment simply wouldn't cut it.</p>

<p>WRT fall off: Fall off decreases as the distance from light source to subject increases. Therefore if the off-camera flashes are set a reasonable distance away from the main subject - say at least 20 foot - then the background won't appear to be a "dark cave". And redeye is only caused by on camera flash that's <em>really</em> close to the lens axis. It's quite rare to get redeye from a pro-sized speedlight fitted in the hotshoe, especially if it's only used as a fill light.</p>

<p>Thanks again for your great response. Harry you have hit the nail on the head! Light Fall is a huge concern for me. I am going to do some test shots this weekend using all of your helpful advice. I will report back on Monday! Thanks again everyone! </p>

<p>Rodeo, I didn't "jump down your throat", I simply made it clear that I did not mention white balance, which your first sentence implied. <br>

I then gave my opinion of what White Balance that I would use.<br>

<br /> The fact that our opinions of what White Balance to use is most appropriate: opinions vary.<br /> I would use AWB and correct the nuances (if any were necessary) in Post Production.<br>

Also I'll make it clear now that my suggestions did NOT include balancing the Colour Temperature Flash to be the same as the Ambient Candlelight Temperature. I was quite specific about that when I gave the values that I would use. <br /> <br /> <br /> WW</p>