barn lighting

<p>The receptions at the last couple of weddings I've done were held in barns. One was literally and truly a barn. The wedding was on a ranch. They cleaned the barn out (really well, I have to say) for the reception. But the ceiling was high and dark, and of course the walls were dark too. To make matters much worse, since the barn wasn't big enough, they attached a big tent to it. The tent was white and had low ceilings. So I had to change my settings whenever I moved from one space to the other. Then last weekend, the reception was in another barn or very barn-like building. I'm attaching a photo.</p>

<p><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_E63StVg0FS8/Smd5XoMUKzI/AAAAAAAANdU/L0ybGeusaSg/090718-174639-5246.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Both receptions were shot with a Pentax K20D whose high ISO capabilities are comparable, I believe, to those of the Canon 40D or perhaps the 50D. Most of the pics were at 1/30th sec, aperture f/5.6 (so I could get close and still have some depth of field), and auto ISO in a range from 200-800. I was using a Metz 58 AF-1 flash, set to EV+3, assisted by a Demb Flip-it card. Mostly I was pointing at the ceiling and bouncing - but letting the Demb reflect a little light more directly at the subject.</p>

<p>It wasn't a disaster - results were generally okay, occasionally a little better than okay. But results were unpredictable. One problem (I think) was that the ceiling was angled, fairly steeply. So if I moved just a few feet toward or away from the center of the room, the distance the light was bouncing changed pretty dramatically. How to handle that? Find a decent vantage point and stay there?</p>

<p>Another problem was that the reception last weekend was in the late afternoon, it was quite sunny outside, and the venue had windows around all four walls. The blinds on the windows were drawn, but there were often bright-ish windows in the background that may have been messing with the camera's metering. I was already controlling the shutter and aperture manually, most of the time. Should I have taken the flash out of p-ttl mode (Pentax's counterpart for i-ttl, etc.) and shot in auto or full manual?</p>

<p>Any suggestions? I have by the way read <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00N1q0">this thread</a> .</p>

<p>Hmmm. Image didn't come through. Let me try again.</p><div></div>

<p>If you are using a single flash, the Demb Diffuser with the card straight up would be my best suggestion. You can gel or not, but if you gel, the windows will look bluish, since they have daylight coming through. The card straight, I find, helps retain the flash/daylight color temp.</p>

<p>If you use bounce only, you will definitely get a color cast from the wood. It is similar to tungsten, but redder. With this method, your flash will work really hard (even with the card straight up), so you risk overheating and you will use a lot of battery power. Although, don't know why you would have needed +3 EV on your flash--that seems odd, but I don't know anything about Pentax flash metering.</p>

<p>In your situation, I would have used my two off camera flashes. Daylight/flash temperature would dominate and you don't abuse your on camera flash. You also light up dark corners, etc.</p>

<p>As for dealing with sloped ceilings, I use my flash tilted forward slightly, to always put the bounced spot between you and subject, which can be a problem with the positions where the flash head is turned so the short side faces the subject, since the bounced spot is put directly over you. Add a backward sloping ceiling and your bounce doesn't get to your subject. I made my own version of the Demb diffuser just for this situation, which allows me to quickly flip the unit from one side of the flash head to the other. You have to turn the flash head too.</p>

<p>You could always use the "bounce backward onto the top edge of the walls technique", which avoids the ceiling.</p>

<p>If you were getting good exposures with p-ttl, using auto thyristor or manual would only be better if they were more consistent. With manual flash, you definitely get more consistency, but it is sometimes slower. Manual camera mode is the way to go anyway.</p>

<p>As for going back and forth between two very different environments--that is life as a wedding photographer. If you have custom settings control, you could quick program one or two so you can flip back and forth. Otherwise, I just change accordingly.</p>

<p>I should add that even with off camera flashes and card straight up, you will get a bit of color cast from the wood. You 'could' use a cyan gel to counteract the reddish cast, but this can also be handled in post processing.</p>

<blockquote>With this method, your flash will work really hard (even with the card straight up), so you risk overheating and you will use a lot of battery power. Although, don't know why you would have needed +3 EV on your flash--that seems odd, but I don't know anything about Pentax flash metering.</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I had to change batteries a couple of times during the reception, but I expected that and brought plenty.</p>

<p>I did fuss with the EV on the flash from time to time. I usually don't chimp a lot while shooting but I did last weekend. Sometimes a shot came out way overexposed and I'd turn down the flash output. But a few shots later I'd get a badly underexposed shot and I'd push the power back up.<br>

.</p>

<blockquote>In your situation, I would have used my two off camera flashes. Daylight/flash temperature would dominate and you don't abuse your on camera flash. You also light up dark corners, etc.</blockquote>

<p>How would you have used these two off-camera flashes? Are you talking about mounting them somewhere near the dance floor and controlling with radio triggers (or wirelessly)? I had a total of three flashes with me, and I thought for a moment about hanging two of 'em somewhere and triggering wirelessly. I have plenty experience with wireless triggering and it was dark enough in the reception hall that it would have worked, most of the time. But I've never actually done that for a reception and decided that the risk of disaster wasn't worth taking. Anyway, is something like this what you were thinking of?<br>

.</p>

<blockquote>As for dealing with sloped ceilings, I use my flash tilted forward slightly, to always put the bounced spot between you and subject, which can be a problem with the positions where the flash head is turned so the short side faces the subject, since the bounced spot is put directly over you. Add a backward sloping ceiling and your bounce doesn't get to your subject. I made my own version of the Demb diffuser just for this situation, which allows me to quickly flip the unit from one side of the flash head to the other. You have to turn the flash head too.</blockquote>

<p>Interesting points and I think I understand you completely. I did mess about somewhat with the flash head and also the bounce card, and my experimentation might be sufficient to explain the inconsistency of my results. I am pretty sure that MOST of the time, the flash was just about straight up, with the wide side of the flash head toward the subject. This does complicate things a bit when I want to turn the camera and take a shot in portrait orientation. The flash I was using tilts and swivels completely but when I turn the camera, it messes up the orientation of the flash + Demb card. I think this may be why Demb came up with his flash bracket, which I do not have.</p>

<p>I've thought about your comment that a backward sloping ceiling would mean the bounce doesn't get to the subject, and I'm not sure I see that happening. I was almost always shooting INTO the center of the room, and the ceiling was sloping up toward the center of the room. If I were standing in the middle and shooting toward the outside walls, I can see the bounce going up and disappearing behind me, but I wasn't doing that. I wonder if perhaps some of the problems I had weren't a result of the bounce going up and then OVERSHOOTING the subject to a large degree. It's certainly the case that I was more successful when standing under the parts of the ceiling that were not so high. My guess is, either the bounce was going up and over the subjects, or the distance was simply causing the light to drop off more dramatically, or both.<br>

.</p>

<blockquote>If you were getting good exposures with p-ttl, using auto thyristor or manual would only be better if they were more consistent. With manual flash, you definitely get more consistency, but it is sometimes slower. Manual camera mode is the way to go anyway.</blockquote>

<p>Don't have much experience with auto or full manual control of the flash. The camera was in full manual, or rather, in the Pentax K20D's TAv mode, where I set T and Av and let the camera negotiate the ISO. Should perhaps have just set the ISO to 800 and left it there.<br>

.</p>

<blockquote>As for going back and forth between two very different environments--that is life as a wedding photographer. If you have custom settings control, you could quick program one or two so you can flip back and forth.</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for commenting on that issue, too. Yes, I can create and save custom settings - but it's a feature I've never thought to use. I think I'll start practicing with it.<br>

Thanks, Nadine.<br>

Will</p>

<p>Perhaps the EV fluctuation was due to the sloping ceilings. I thought about your forward sloping ceiling situation, and that would still present a problem, I think, at certain points. Basically, the bounced spot wasn't reflecting back down to the subject correctly. Or, the flash was running out of flash power where the ceiling got real high.</p>

<p>Yes to question about wireless off camera flashes. Looks like there might have been nooks and crannies where you could put a flash (the speaker shelf?). The typical arrangement is 2 flashes opposite each other, but it really depends on the layout, particularly if there is a particular spot where the action is to happen.</p>

<p>When you use the flash head with the short side to the subject, as recommended by many diffuser makers, it can be tilted forward slightly in the portrait (swiveled head) orientation, but not when you just flip the head back (still short side to the subject) for landscape orientation. I have noticed this causes problems with sloped ceilings and shadow box type ceilings where there are beams.</p>

<p>I would have used manual camera mode and kept all my settings in one spot. Auto thyristor has its own set of quirks and would not do any better with the ceilings. Manual flash mode might have driven you crazy with the sloping ceilings. You might give the upward wall, below the ceiling bounce a try, although if the place is really large, it could max out your flash's reach or you might have to keep turning the head to bounce off the wall next to you instead of behind.</p>

<p>Here's an image shot in a dark wood walled room with only one off camera flash. I used one because the room was small. This is also why the light 'appears' to be fairly harsh (the closer the light, the greater the contrast/fall off). The room also had spots of daylight coming into the skylight, so the color temperature problem was similar to your situation. I believe I used the Demb diffuser, card straight up with the diffuser piece on.</p><div></div>

<p>Nadine,</p>

<p>I always appreciate your responses in every thread and have learned a lot from you, and I thank you for responding to my question. Your responses tell me that, at least in terms of the theory, I wasn't doing anything terribly wrong, well, other than messing around with my settings when perhaps I should have left 'em alone.</p>

<p>I think it's time for me to start working with multiple flash units as well.</p>

<p>Thanks again,<br>

Will</p>

<p>Will, Here's an example of mine that was less than what I wanted originally but I think in retrospect, the 2nd diagram (below the first) would have nailed the lighting well. In my original attempt the 430EX was on a stand, diffused with an omnibounce angled at 45 degrees but was fairly close to the tent wall, to the right of the camera set for +1, my 580EX on my camera was set to fill at -.5. I think that had I moved the 430EX closer to middle it would have given me more even/better spread, and then I could have added a 3rd 430EX diffused on a stand toward the back and left of the frame set to neutral and bounced with the omnibounce (angled at 45 degrees), it would have given nice, relatively even lighting across the girls catching the bouquet and good light towards the rear of the tent.</p><div></div>

<p>Nice example, David. If I may make a suggestion. Since you have nice white walls and ceilings here instead of dark wood like William had, I'd maybe take the OmniBounce off the key flash and point it backward so you'd get a great, even, soft bounce off the wall opposite the ladies. The back accent flash would have been nice in any case, but that might also have been bounced backward because it would create hard shadows. To me, it is a shame, with those nice white walls, to not take advantage of the soft light you can get. Whenever I get to work in a white room, of any size, you can bet I'm bouncing the off camera flashes off walls and ceiling.</p>

<p>Also, William, you might want to look up some previous threads by William Morgan, who has posted some images taken in black walled rooms--can't get much less reflectivity than that. You do get more off color casts in a wood room, though. Black is still a neutral color. They are contained in the following thread.</p>

<p><a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00SnZ1">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SnZ1</a></p>

<p>Michael Church also has some info re 'muscling' flash off even dark surfaces. He uses an Alien Bee 1600 for that though.</p>

<p>And thank you. I am happy if any of the info has helped you.</p>

<p>Nadine, The opposite end of the tent was quite a distance and the majority of the light was bounced from the white ceiling. I think the omnibounce could be even more effective with the dark walls/ceilings that Will is encountering.</p>

<p>OK, but I disagree, David. My experience with the OmniBounce (I do have one and have used it), is that it just spreads the light around in a wide swath and does not give a directed beam of light to a bounce surface, so in situations where you WANT a beam of light to be directed onto the bounce surface, it fails. In larger spaces, I find it is not much different from direct flash or a Lumiquest softbox and the like, because the light gets to the subject through the front of the Omni before it can get to the bounce surface, widen out and give a nice, soft key light.</p>

<p>Also, I have found that you can bounce light quite a distance if the bounce surfaces are white. And, you could also bounce backward against the side wall (and slightly upward) to the right of the ladies, but backward, not forward. The backward bounce would make the light source larger (tent wall). Or just use the ceiling--again, without the OmniBounce.</p>

<p>However, you should use whatever lighting scheme you have found works for you. My point is, since photographers are always trying to make the source illumination bigger to achieve softer light, you can't get much bigger than a tent wall (or sloping downward ceiling). Again, just another thing to try sometime.</p>