How do you do this?

<p>I find the longer I do photography and see other people's work, the more I am humbled and feel like I am way out of my league. I saw this AMAZING photographer Amelia Lyon on one of the weddings blogs. Her work really moves me! I was wondering if anyone could help figure out these shots that she does.</p>

<p>My guess is 2 pocketwizards, Underexposed, shutter open to get the flare of the flashes, wide angle, and? I'm not sure if any of these are right. Can anyone have a shot at it? :) Thank you!</p>

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> Hotlinking a single image, not your own, is frowned upon. I've asked Missy to link to Ms. Lyon's blog and describe the image.</p>

<p>Doesn't look too complicated. Start by manually metering for the environment so that you can keep the sky and background under control. If you want a bit of gloom, as shown in that example, underexpose a bit. You need to do this while keeping the shutter speed at or under the camera's the flash sync speed.<br /><br />And yes, probably two speedlights. One on the ground, and one being held by an assistant, I'm guessing. Notice that the two subjects aren't looking at the photographer, but probably right at the assistant holding the fill flash. <br /><br />The look of the flare from the on-the-ground flash suggests that the lens is stopped down a ways (say, f/8 or so? the look will depend on the lens design a bit). Not knowing if the shot was made on a full-frame body or a cropped body, it's hard to guess at the actual focal length. Based on the size of the leaves in the foreground, perhaps 18 or 20mm on an APS-C-ish body, or 24 to 30mm-ish on a 35mm body. That doesn't have much to do with the technique, though. The extra ghosting in the image suggests that there's a UV/protection filter in place.<br /><br />And then, as this photographer so often seems to do, she's done some desaturating and whatnot in post production.</p>

<p>I suspect that Matt's information is spot on but did you try an email to the photographer to ask her?</p>

<p>Missy,</p>

<p>Based on what I've seen of your work, you are way better than Amelia. I took a quick look at her portfolio and nearly every pic looks like it was post processed for use as a magazine ad. Absolutely no <em>naturality</em> at all!</p>

<p>I hope you won't be too affected by her style and try and adopt it in all your pics. That's my non-pro layman's opinion anyway :-)</p>

<p>Nish, Amelia did not volunteer her work for this thread and while you may like Missy's images I don't see a reason to bash on Amelia.........</p>

<p>Sorry about that David, I didn't particularly mean to bash Amelia.</p>

<p>I was more trying to express the fact that Missy's pics are really good (based on the links she's posted here), and I thought it odd that she said that she found this other photographer's pics to be "amazing"!</p>

<p>I know there are different styles of photography, so I guess it's all a matter of opinion.</p>

<p>And the main light is coming from the left, study the deep shadow under the groom's left arm and where the direction comes from as well as the shadows acros the brides face and the butterfly shape and position under his and her nose. She might just have them looking at a tree or other object as I often do to keep eyes on a certain direction without making eyeballs all white :)</p>

<p>The more I look at that picture, the more I'd like to see a version of without the flash on the ground. It quickly starts to look like a gimmick. (Sorry, I realize that the original post was not a request for criticism).</p>

<p>How much of what I'm looking at is done in post, do you think?</p>

<p>It depends on what you mean by that, Theresa. The slightly odd color cast and tone curve certainly isn't "as seen," so that's all in post. But the fact that the clouds and trees are where they are, tone-wise, and the subjects are lit as they are in relationship to the ambient light ... that's all done on the spot.</p>

<p>Ambient light underexposed, couple correctly exposed by off camera flash on left, flash on ground, f stop very small to create star effect. Shutter is no more open than 'normal' and was probably pretty fast, or at least not what one would consider particularly slow. 3 Pocket Wizards (2 flashes--I don't see evidence of fill), one on camera, one on the off camera, one on the flash on the ground. Unless she was using the camera brand wireless system. Matt is right about the blades of the lens and the star effect, and the probability of a UV filter causing the rainbow effect. You could also force the star effect by using a star filter.</p>

<p>It's quite possible that this was set up to shoot the couple with some rim lighting (from that strobe on the ground), in a tighter shot ... and this was just a wide view of the set/scene for the sake of it. I certainly do that whenever I'm shooting anything (especially if it involves some artificial lighting) - it's like taking notes about how the work was done.</p>

<p>I thought the same thing, Matt. I've actually done that by accident too (gotten the rim light flash flare in the shot).</p>

Alas! I've arrived after the image and the link thereto was removed, and therefore do not know which particular photo is being discussed :) However, I googled the name and have been totally taken by Amelia's photojournalism in Haiti. Powerful stuff indeed. Sorry to go off-topic :)

<p>Mark, if you go to Ms. Lyon's blog, toward the bottom, where wedding pictures start, you will see a number of images where there is a starburst in the background. The image Missy hotlinked to was similar to the one of the couple in the field, with the starburst in the background.</p>

<p>Mark, I agree that the Haiti pics were moving. They were taken by Justin, Ms. Lyon's husband. A double sorry for the off-topic. </p>

<p>Question arising from the topic at hand, though -- how does one control the flare in a shot like this? I shoot into the sun or into a focused light source like this and the flare isn't discrete as it is here -- it bounces all through the image, even with clean optics. </p>

<p>Kendra: Good multicoating on the lens and/or filter is a must. Some multicoatings are simply better than others, that way. Also, the angle at which you're shooting when you include such bright, direct point sources of light can make a big difference. You can include a strobe (as in the image being discussed) while shooting straight at it, or while shooting <em>past</em> it at, say, 45 degrees. You'll still see it in the image either way, but depending on the glass recipe involved, one angle or the next will produce a lot of - or very little ghosting and flare. You have to test your own rig to see what it can tolerate.</p>

<p>Kendra--are you talking about the star effect or the flare? Further information about the star effect is in a previous thread.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00V0sG">http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00V0sG</a></p>

<p>The light source has to be small (so distance helps), and you have to be stopped down--f8 and smaller.</p>

<p>Flare, by itself, is very hard to predict. It depends to some extent, on your lens, and as Matt explains, angle and even, what is around to bend the light rays. In any case, be careful. I have heard of photographers who do a lot of flare pictures, whose sensors were damaged.</p>

<p>[ In any case, be careful. I have heard of photographers who do a lot of flare pictures, whose sensors were damaged.]]</p>

<p>Can you point to a verification of this? It takes more than flare to damage a sensor, it takes a deliberate attempt.</p>

<p>On another forum, a photographer who shoots a lot of flare images reported that he sent his camera in to Canon, who told him he had to replace his sensor. The assumption was that the frequent flare images were the cause. Another photographer found his sensor affected as well. In any case, the Canon instruction manuals warn against shooting into the sun a lot--also for live view.</p>

<p>Matt and Nadine, thank you. Nadine, I did mean the flare. Also, Nadine, thanks for the warning -- I'd read that as well... somewhere else. If I can find a verification I'll post it as well. </p>

<p>Missy,</p>

<p>I no pro, but after looking at the images you have in your gallery, you are a very talented photographer. </p>

<p>Please don't get caught up in other people's styles, just develop your own and shoot what makes you happy. I've found that the work it takes to set up shots like Ms. Lyon's completely take the fun out of photography for me.</p>

<p>If you really to get flare in your photos without damaging your sensor, just use Photoshop. You can add flare to anything in post and, with little effort, make it look as if it was caught at the original shoot. Just my 2¢</p>

<p>I wouldn't get too worried about the flash ruining your sensor. Anecdotally, I've been shooting similar stuff for a year-plus now and I've seen no negative effects. I don't shoot straight into the sun (which combined with heat, I could see causing a problem, nor do I point laser pointers at my camera). It looks like an off-camera flash that could be either held by an assistant (if you need more height) or placed on the ground (in the case of the ones outdoors.)</p>

<p>I shoot with a nice TTL flash on top of my camera, and one or two off-camera flashes. I get very similar results. It's not something I do all the time, but it produces a cool effect.</p>

<p>Also, if you don't want to spring for brand-name pocketwizards, you can get flash triggers that don't have TTL functionality fairly cheaply. I've had good success, and they're inexpensive enough I can keep a backup set. If they fail, I'm not totally dependent on them anyway, it's just an extra thing that gives some of the photos a little extra pop. Further you can put an inexpensive (or even used pre-TTL) flash on top and get the same effect as if you were shooting with a $1000 setup. Lastly, because it is an inexpensive flash setup, I can put it on a light stand and I don't have to worry about losing my shirt if it walks off.</p>

<p>It takes a while to get it right, but it can give you a little edge over competitors whose reception pictures lack that "pop."</p>

<p>Here's an example of adding flare in PS:</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yeah Juanita--wasn't talking about flash ruining the sensor, but the sun, since Kendra talked about shooting into the sun. The photographers I mentioned were basically shooting 'a lot' of sun flare images.</p>