is demonstrating studio lighting a must have skill?

<p>i don't own any backdrops, umbrellas, soft boxes, monolight strobes, etc and have never demonstrated the ability to use studio lighting to replicate the kind of effects you would get with natural soft directional light that shapes and forms subjects. my question is, is this a must have skill for wedding photographers? i know there are lots of wedding photographers that don't even take this kind of lighting with then because the day is too fast paced anyway, but that doesn't mean that they don't know how to use it if needed. just wondering if i'm missing out by not owning, and not being able to demonstrate this skill. this has been bugging me a little lately if you haven't already picked up on that. i don't necessarily want to be bothered with studio lighting at a wedding, but i feel like i should own some kind of basic setup and be good at using it...</p>

<p>All the *stuff* -- backdrops, umbrellas, multi-strobes -- might be fine for a very, very formal wedding (i.e., no children or pets) and in a scheduled period of time for you to set it up, shoot your images, and then allow you time for you and your helper to pack-it-all-up, and head on to the reception.</p>

<p>Generally, for a local wedding in a local church or on a beach, no, the studio set-up is not required, in my estimation.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is most important to develop your style and if you don't do that sort of thing then that is just your style. Commercial photographers fall into this conundrum all the time, they do things a certain way and then someone asks them to do it differently. Some just say "I don't do that that way". In a wedding situation, you show what you do and that is what you need to do when hired, nothing else. The conflict seems to arise when there is money on the line and you don't want to pass it up.</p>

<p>I think this is a question only you can answer. However, I can only say that I've found location lighting tremendously useful, and it doesn't have to be overly complex or expensive. Also, I can't help thinking that it's something that can set you apart from Uncle Joe with his new digicam.<br>

Two portraits, two different setups:</p><div></div>

<p>A smaller setup:</p><div></div>

<p>Other than the fact that the principles guiding studio lighting <em>can</em> be of help in shooting any wedding, the decision should be based on several things.</p>

<p>1. Do you <strong>want</strong> to acquire the gear and study studio lighting?</p>

<p>2. Do you think your wedding product will be the better for it, or do you see a lack anywhere in your current offering that can be filled by studio lighting skills?</p>

<p>3. Are your customers showing any indication that they wouldn't hire you because you don't show studio lighting or the skills associated with studio lighting?</p>

<p>Knowledge of studio lighting isn't only about gear. Knowing the classic ways to light a human being is part of these skills, and that, by itself, can help a lot when shooting a wedding.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...is this a must have skill for wedding photographers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. People shoot weddings in all kinds of ways, with all kinds of equipment, including nearly no equipment. If it were a must-have, then everyone would be using similar studio lighting techniques all the time, and that's obviously not the case. Some people use it. Some people don't. Both are correct.</p>

<p>I'm not sure that any actual skills are necessary anymore before people get a nice camera, business cards, a price list, and their own website storefront.</p>

<p>I can tell you that when I began shooting weddings that most established pros belonged to PPA and understood broad light, short light, Rembrandt lighting, etc.... This was also during a time where most studios shot weddings, Seniors, personal & family portraits, along with some commercial and corporate events/assignments. Technicians can get by with less skills than do craftsmen. On a personal note, I think that a better awareness of lighting which includes a knowledge of studio lighting can be a source of some pride that is often lost on those who don't share it.</p>

<p>I think the answer to the question falls into the 'it doesn't hurt' category. It certainly doesn't hurt, and can help. However, it isn't a must have skill for a wedding photographer, particularly if you are a wedding photographer outside the norm. If what you do is so visually satisfying in and of itself, and if you can get clients with your vision, great.</p>

<p>However, let's face it--the majority of us are not visual geniuses and are not in the position of totally dictating to our clients what they will accept. IMHO, for most wedding photographers, some knowledge, like knowing a little about the history of wedding photography, will help, even if you hardly use the skills but go 'beyond' them.</p>

<p>Well it's a skill that is very handy to have even if you don't use it at a wedding as you may use it somewhere else not to mention the fact that it makes you aware of light. Personaly I am glad I learnt how to use studio lighting and learning how to color and B&W print in darkroom are also skills I am very happy to have.</p>

Well over twenty years ago Monte Zucker the famous but now deceased wedding photographer taught me some simple lighting principles with studio lights that I have used since then to do portraits in my former studio and on location but which I never used shooting a wedding. I did my weddings solo and had too much to do to fool with location lighting. I thought it essential to be highly mobile. I have had the same set of Novatron lights since about 1990. I used them a while ago on location to shoot PR pictures. Using studio lights for simple commercial photography is not rocket science IMO and may help with an overall knowledge of light diffusion but was not really necessary in my wedding business. Having said that, I believe that if you are trying to be a professional as I was, that anything one learns about photography contributes to ones overall professionalism and ability to satisfy customers.

The reason BTW that I took strobes on location on the job I mentioned is because I wanted control of light for shooting PR shots of a somewat prominent client. They are a guarantee against failure as the natural light on that day was dull and gray. I also had to take a few years off the subject on her request and a close softbox does wonders to help reduce the work in PS. I had not used the lights in a while but they really made the job much simpler. I also brought a portable backdrop to have control of the background and not worry about bokeh.

<p>I think learning lighting will help in recognizing certain types of existing light on location and make better use of it. I.e. if you know how to produce the light, you'll recognize it when you see it. </p>

<p>Usually, the whole notion of the unobtrusive candid wedding photographer is not in sync with the use of studio lighting. So, style has a great influence on whether one employs lighting or not. However, not all candid photographers are purists, nor are all geographical areas the same in their expectations of wedding photography.</p>

<p>Lighting is a GREAT help if one has to shoot formals in poorly lit interiors, or to overcome poor lighting ratios outdoors on location due to schedules. People use speed-lights for this all the time, but studio lighting is much better at it. </p>

<p>To add to previous opinions with another perspective, I've found that if you study natural lighting and really learn how to work with it, then moving to studio lighting is easier. Most (not all) studio lighting is generally mimicking "ideal" nature ... not the other way around.</p>

<p>Mastering lighting can diversify your offering as a photographer and/or be a path else where should you not want to do weddings forever. I live and breath candid photography, but it's not the only type of photography that interest me or lights my after-burners : -) </p>

 

<p>I don't think I have learnt anything, which hasn't been useful at sometime, or another.<br />I think the fact that this has been bugging you, is “you” wanting to know more to increase / broaden your skill level.<br />Why don't you listen to yourself and go where you is taking YOU?<br>

You don't have to buy a three tonne truck and six head portable studio to get the hang of the basics: keep it simple at first - and see what develops.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>So far, mono-lights have not helped me at all at weddings. It seems to always happen that I'll pick a location to set them up and when the time comes to shoot groups, the location never works. I have to relocate to a location without access to power and I'll use my CL-45 flash. This portable flash packs enough power to work in many situations. I may see about adding portable power, but I have had to trek a long distance to find the best background, so dragging all of that equipment is something I would have to re-think.</p>

<p>I think you need to know how to use lights, yes. But I don't think you need to actually do it. I would strongly recommend picking up a high-end Canon/Nikon/Sony flash (whatever is appropriate) or two, and learning how to use it. If you get something in your brand, you can use them off-camera in TTL mode, provided you stay fairly close. If nothing else, you never want to have to pass on a paying gig because you don't know how to do something.</p>

<p>If you don't like the studio lighting look, then just use the lights to augment natural lighting rather than creating it.</p>

<p><strong>To expand a bit:</strong> Studio lighting can be fun to learn, and as Nadine said ... "It can't hurt".</p>

<p>Beyond being used to light formals and portraits ... which one may, or may not, have the time or man-power to achieve (or the inclination to do), it CAN be used at a wedding reception ... which often features very low ambient light. When used in this manner, the notion of being in conflict with shooting candidly is no longer necessarily true.</p>

<p>One radio triggered mono-block strategically placed (even if working solo), working in concert with an optional TTL on-camera speed-light for fill, can open up new possibilities ... whether the subject is aware of you or not. A strobe firing is no more intrusive than the DJ's disco lights, or 50 guests firing off their point&shoots. Plus, it isn't coming from your position, it's elsewhere in the room, so it doesn't draw attention to you. </p>

<p><strong>What it does do is provide directional lighting,</strong> and can be powerful enough to over-come poor ambient lighting which is usually straight downward and of questionable color temperature. Even smaller studio strobes are 3X the power of the best speed-light used off camera ... and can be less expensive. This allows you the <strong><em>option </em></strong>of faster shutter speeds and/or stopping down for more depth-of-field ... or both. It is the alternative to dragging the shutter techniques. I say optional, because you can simply turn off the radio sender.</p>

<p><strong>Attached are two examples that are completely candid, unaware shots:</strong> the B&W one is just a directional strobe <em>without</em> use of a TTL speed-light on camera ... the color one is a directional strobe using an on-camera TTL speed-light for fill. Note, that unlike just using a speed-light the close foreground subjects are NOT over-flashed despite the on-camera light. That is because the key light was the more powerful strobe elsewhere in the room. The TTL flash sees it, and suppresses the amount of light from the camera position just enough to act as fill.</p>

<p>This can be accomplished using one or more strobes carefully placed around the room. With modern radio senders, you can turn off one light and use the other to change the direction of the lighting depending on where you and the subject are when shooting. With just a little practice, it is quite fast and is actually a lot of fun controlling the direction of lighting. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>i apprecitate everyone chiming in on this! sounds like people who don't use them, still at least know how to use them and have an appreciation for it. my goal is still to master on location type of lighting using both natural and suplemental lighting and i don't anticipate dragging studio lights around at weddings, but yeah i agree with everyone learning studio lighting can only help. the funny thing is i feel like i already know it: i've studied it, seen others use it first hand, taken classes on it at a local camera store, but never demonstrated that i can do it myself. so it should be a piece of cake, just need that confidence that comes from being able to demonstrate it. and during the off season it may come in handy, a few family portraits here and there. i always get asked about family portraits with a backdrop but turn them down. i'll rent a setup and try it out. thanks!</p>

<p>Don't understand why bringing lights to a wedding seems like such a chore. In the Chicagoland area it's very common to see wedding photographers cover a reception alone and bring a portable studio as well. Occasionally you can catch a portrait of some interesting P-net characters :-)</p>

<p>Monte Zucker was able to capture beautiful portraits using one light, his illuminator, and a backdrop......truly a master. For comprehensive location lighting, this DVD set offers several hours of instruction: <a href="http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/shop.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Product_Code=LLT028&Category_Code=DVD">http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/shop.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Product_Code=LLT028&Category_Code=DVD</a></p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't understand why bringing lights to a wedding seems like such a chore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, geographic and market influence has a lot of bearing. Clients don't always want or expect their wedding to be turned into a photoshoot with pro heads, cables, powerpacks, lightstands, umbrellas, octolites....</p>

<p>And canvas portrait backdrops are in negative demand in many places. What works well in one location can be notably unsuccessful in another.</p>

<p>I think you should use it to play with on your off-time, but not use it at weddings. Weddings are so fluid, that you might be missing important moments by fussing with all that equipment. You are right that you can often find better lighting in nature than can be produced in the studio. There are only three situations where I feel I must have strobe--indoors in the dark during a formal portait shoot, freezing motion indoors, and balancing a scene that contains the indoors and outdoors. I have studied Zucker and Zeltzman and all the lighting patterns. The knowledge of formal lighting patterns is very valuable but the patterns can come from natural lighting. At weddings there is also the issue of safety with lightstands to be knocked over or equipment failing. Studio lighting has to be adjusted for maximum results and often there is just not the time for all of this. </p>

<p>Sounds like you kind of answered your own question. I would say "Yes" if you want to be a serious photographer then having the skill and know how to use studio equipment is a must. There will always be the unexpected, what if some gets married and wants a night wedding? What about the formal shoots before the wedding. I am a die hard studio photographer and even when I shoot outdoors or a wedding I am always using exteranal lights. Those may be 580 EXII on or off camera, 1000 Watt LED panels, or my trusty Alien Bees which I always have with me. Of course I can shoot natural light, but that is how most ameteurs also learn I feel my lighting skills is definetely what sets me a part. I would rather upgrade my strobes or light modifiers rather than spend money on L-series lens. Why, almost any lens looks good at F8 1/200 not zoomed to extreme and on a tripod with beautiful soft lighting.</p>

<p><em>"Well, geographic and market influence has a lot of bearing. Clients don't always want or expect their wedding to be turned into a photoshoot with pro heads, cables, powerpacks, lightstands, umbrellas, octolites....And canvas portrait backdrops are in negative demand in many places. What works well in one location can be notably unsuccessful in another." Neil Ambrose</em></p>

<p>Nice job stating the obvious, of course clients will want & expect whatever it is that they want and expect. Since I'm limited to the Midwest of the US, I certainly can't speak about what is or isn't successful anywhere, and everywhere, else in the world. However, Chicagoland is about as middle to Middle-America can be and I doubt that there’s a huge general difference across the States. When I attended the National Conventions of PPA I also witnessed more similarities than differences across the studios. Intuitively, I don't know that what may work well here might not work well somewhere else, it simply could and the fact that the locals may not be doing it could increase the odds of success. The canvas backgrounds continue to more the norm than the exception in my area in weddings that typically involve 150-300 guests hosted at the local banquet halls, country clubs, & Hotel ballrooms. They are probably much less common at the courthouse weddings, backyard affairs, 2nd & 3rd weddings, and those weddings with less than 100 guests.....and anyone that is targeting that market may do very well in deed not offering the portable studio. Then again, if it's available ale- carte and some clients are willing to spend some extra money on it, then it might be a worthwhile add-on. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Perhaps it's less of a black and white application rather than exaggerated extremes one way or the other. </p>

<p>While I have taken strobes with me to solve certain problems or client requests, I've never taken a back-drop to a wedding and probably never will. Just not my cup of tea. </p>

<p>Personally, it doesn't offend my artistic sensibilities, nor does it take away from my main drive to candidly capture the "real" wedding, if a client asks me to shoot their entire family in a group shot since the participants are from all over the country (even the world) and gather like this only a couple of times in a lifetime. Strobes make that an easy task if the venue is poorly lit ... which it almost always is. Why wouldn't I use them? It takes ten minutes and eliminates almost all post work fixing bad ambient lighting.</p>

<p>Never took all the lighting gear Neil outlined to a wedding either ... and I have an entire Profoto system in my commercial studio that I could employ. For the occasional wedding application, one "wedding" roller bag with everything set to go for ease and speed. If the schedule is THAT hectic, I hire an assistant. It's a no brainer.</p>

<p>Lighting doesn't have to be a main driver, or a style altering event. It's there if you need it or want it. Other wise leave it in the trunk. </p>

<p> </p>