on location shooting

Hello, I am just starting to learn about all the diffrent lighting, I have been using naturual/availiable light when

shooting. Most of my shooting is on location portraits (family,senior,children) shoot in parks ect., and I occasionally

shoot a few weddings. When shooting in a park and on a normal portrait sessions we generally change location

many times within the park wich could mean a big hassle for picking up and moving lights around. So my question

is...Is the available light with a reflector generally enough? Do I need a bracket to move my flash slightly off camera

so it still travels easily with me? Or do I need another set up? Keeping in mind that I do shoot the occasional

weeding also. Thank you for your help. And rember I'm just starting with the lighting so simple lamen's terms will

help me greatly!lol.

Kim

I think you'd get best results w/ least hassle by putting a fairly powerful hot-shoe mounted strobe on a small stand like a Bogen 'Nano 001' stand and shoemount adaptor.

 

getting the flash off the camera, even on a bracket is an improvement.

 

depends on how much 'hassle' you're willing to endure to improve the quality of your output.

I dont really mind the set up and moving of lights, I was more thinking it would be a hassle to my clients if they had to wait on me to move and set up lights for each arrangment. My shoots are generally 1 1/2 to 2 hours in lenghth and I would say it involves 7-10 location moves within a park or area. So using a bracket is convient but not necisarly "acceptable"?

Kim

Good morning, Kimberly.

 

I did this sort of thing on a ton of families and seniors for the 17 years I had a portrait studio. Many of the

same techniques still apply to a lot of my current commercial out door work.

 

Admittedly, I am a very opinionated person and others may have equally valid opinions of their own, so don't take

my word as gospel. Definitely try these and the techniques that others suggest and make up your own mind.

 

Anyway, here goes. Keep your flash for weddings and portraits, indoors where you need it. It has almost no

acceptable artistic use outdoors!!!!

 

Fill in flash for outdoors DOES NOT LOOK NATURAL. I have always hated it because it does not match the beautiful

soft qualities that are available from the sky itself. It causes a burst of light on the face (when used badly,

as it almost always is) that doesn't remotely have the same quality and character of light that the background

will have, so it looks totally unnatural.

 

The only valid use for a portable flash in an outdoor portrait situation is with almost no power so that all that

records is the tiny highlights in the highly reflective eyes (which draws attention to the eyes), and to very

slightly raise the exposure level on the skin in the eye orbits if they are in shade. The problem is that most

people power those babies up enough that you actually see the horrible snapshot quality of light all over the

face and clothes.

 

It is tremendously superior to find the right kind of light or to create it with a few accessories.

 

First, you've got to understand the concept that you either have to recognize good locations for the quality and

direction of the light, or you have to be able to take that light and make it behave to your standards.

 

Number one lesson: The open sky (not the direct sun), is an enormous soft light source. A portable flash is a

specular source, meaning almost pinpoint, and those produce an extremely harsh contrast between highlight and

shadow.

 

There is something called the golden hour that occurs in very early morning and again before sunset. It's

actually more like a couple of hours in each period. These are the times when the light is warm toned and low to

the ground and enters the face and illuminates the eyes. Any other times of day, the light is too high and

causes raccoon like shadows in the eyes....dreadful!!!!

 

You can overcome this within the environment by posing under an overhang such as tree limbs near to the trunk so

it provides shade from the side. This causes the scatter of light from above to disappear and the light

illuminates the face or faces by coming in from the side....again a low to the ground angle from the side to

bring the light into the face. By choosing a site with an overhang, you have consciously made the light behave

to create beautiful portrait lighting in an otherwise bad lighting situation. Things like awnings and gazebos

also work this way.

 

You can further enhance this with a gold reflector placed outside of the shaded area to catch either the direct

sun or the light from the open sky. The reflector is placed and tilted to take that captured light and redirect

it toward the subject giving a wonderful warm glow to the people in the portrait. Again, you create a behavior

to the light that enhances the face in the portrait.

 

The same sculpting of the light can take place in the middle of an open field in the brightest high noon blazing

sun (or other less intimidating areas too).

 

To do this, you have a well weighted light stand or a good assistant to hold it down and attach a black

Reflectasol (Larson) or large black foam core sheets a foot or so above the subject. This completely subtracts

the overhead light and opens up the eyes. However, you still have light coming in from all sides, so you have no

modeling of the light yet. Now you attach a longer black Reflectasol to the light stand in a vertical

position....subtracting all light from that side and creating a direction and modeling of the light. Of course

you make sure that you crop the stand and Reflectasols out of the image as you compose.

 

On a bright day this is enough. On a cloudy day you will again want the gold reflector to warm up the skin since

a tremendous amount of blue and ultra-violet is present on cloudy days. Yes, reflectors also work quite well on

dull cloudy days. White reflectors also work well, but don't throw off the warmth of the gold ones. Avoid

silver reflectors....too harsh and they reflect too much of the blue spectrum into the face.

 

I've got a diagram that shows this set-up from a class I used to teach. I'll be glad to forward it but I'll need

your direct email so I can attach it. I'll also send an example of a senior portrait I did with this technique

during a heavy rain shower. You'll swear it was done in late afternoon on a softly sunny day. My email is

Tludwigpix@yahoo.com.

 

(Another technique that works well is to pose the subject in the open with the sun fairly low in the sky behind

the subject but out of frame. That way, the huge open sky that the subject faces creates the light in their

face. Enhancing that open sky with a reflector that catches the sun and kicks it back toward the face makes for

gorgeous light. Many of the shots you see in Sport's Illustrated's swim suit edition are done with this kind of

technique.)

 

Hope this helps.

 

".....Keep your flash for weddings and portraits, indoors where you need it. It has almost no acceptable artistic use outdoors!!!!

 

Fill in flash for outdoors DOES NOT LOOK NATURAL. I have always hated it because it does not match the beautiful soft qualities that are available from the sky itself......."

 

AMEN !!! It's about time someone pointed out the lack of clothes on THAT emporer !!!

Kim, you don't need lights if you have this guys skill:

 

http://nestimendoza.com/

 

He's a shooter out of NYC and never brings a strobe to a shoot-- indoor or out.

 

As for fill flash outdoors, it all depends on how you use it. The below picture of Kim looks natural. The only tell tale sign that a flash was used is that the catch light in her eye is harder than what it would be from open sky. However, it allowed me to have minimum blown out background parts. So, I disagree w/ the above-- outdoors is just a larger studio than indoors (w/ a key light that's a diva), so if you don't kill a picture w/ your fill light in studio, why can't you do the same outside?<div></div>

Whether or not to use flash is dependent upon your being able to find and use locations for your clients that allow you to work with natural light only, or just some weak flash fill. Sometimes you can do this, sometimes it is hard, because your clients may want a particular spot for some reason ("We want the fountain in the background."--fountain is in blasting sunlight), which has too much contrast for you to successfully shoot, even with a reflector.

 

If you do need weak flash fill, you don't need a flash bracket, because the flash pattern of shadows isn't going to be obvious, although if there is something directly behind the subject(s), it will show up, even with weak fill. So whether to use a flash bracket is something you will need to figure out for yourself. You can always just hand hold the flash so you have a bit more off camera distance than a flash bracket will give you.

 

If you know you are going to need flash as more than weak fill or as main light, I would go with off camera flash on a stand or held by an assistant. Check out strobist for a compact traveling light on a stand. It is similiar to what I use when I need flash for portraits or at weddings. Weddings is another story. You can't dictate where to photograph the couple much, unless you are a rock star wedding photographer, so it is best to be prepared to use flash as main if you have to.

Hi Nathan !

 

Nathan says "....so if you don't kill a picture w/ your fill light in studio, why can't you do the same outside?..."

 

Because you don't use a small, hard, on-camera flash for a fill light in the studio?

 

It's not about not using flash for a fill light outside, it's about using a small, nasty, hard light camera flash as a fill light outside, inside or anywhere. A flash behind a large silk or through a shoot-thru umbrella can be a nice light if used carefully but a small un-diffused camera flash ala "Strobist" is always more than a compromise and never looks good IMHO.

Hi, Nathan and thanks for joining the fray on this topic.

 

I dearly love a good argument about being able to make light behave and this is my number one bugaboo bill of

goods that we have been sold by the portable flash industry. Why, because it is convenient and easy to throw

light at a subject to achieve illumination

 

But,(!) illumination is not creative or beautiful lighting, nor does it offer the beautiful soft caress of light

when a photographer knows how to delicately wrap that light around a subject to bring out the nuances of the

facial planes, the glimmer in the eyes and the forms and planes of the body.

 

On camera flash SUCKS!!!! It is a rape of light when the subject cries out for and deserves the soft and

delicate seduction and caress of artistically applied lighting.

 

No matter how well it is done, all that on camera flash can do is blast light in a straight line directly at the

subject, completely illuminating the subject but giving no sense of the three dimensional beauty that really

skilled lighting should create.

 

Your portrait of Kim is good. I will definitely give you that and recognize that you have fine skills as a

photographer.

 

I agree when you say the the outdoors is just a bigger studio. but that gives you the responsibility to

understand light and to recognize that the light you are throwing at the subject DOES NOT MATCH OR COMPLIMENT THE

LIGHT THAT IS GIVEN BY NATURE. It creates a visual argument for the viewer to try to compromise visually and it

just does not work. By the way, when I say 'you', I am using that word as the collective, and not in an

accusatory way.

 

Take a real honest look at the photo you are showing.

 

You say that the only sign that you used a fill flash is the hard catch light in her eyes.

 

What about the hard shadow along the nose on the far cheek? What about the fact that the strobe illuminates the

inside of her nostrils? What about the glares at the bridge of her nose at her left eye, and inside her left

ear? What about the unnatural glowing highlights along the front of her left shoulder and her left cheek and her

chin? What about the harsh black shadow along her larynx and the fact that her throat and upper chest totally

compete for attention with her face because they are as bright as or brighter than the the face?

 

All of these are characteristic of smallish flash units used to try to "correct" the shadows in outdoor

portraiture by USING THE WRONG TOOL. If you were using a studio light system in a really big soft box (say a 3x4

feet or 4x 6 feet) placed at an angle to COMPLIMENT the existing light and the planes of her face as well as

powered carefully as to not overwhelm the highlight shadow ratio, and if you were using the appropriate large

warm (gold) reflectors to further sculpt that light to the contours of the face and body, we would have no

disagreement.

 

Better yet, if you were using black reflectors to control unwanted light and large gold reflectors placed at the

right height and angle to bring portrait lighting into her face and form. I would stand in total respect.

 

I come from a background of being an art major with a heavy interest in how the great portrait artists from

Rennaissance times through to today posed the subjects and then lit those subjects with enormous care to turn a

two dimensional canvas into a glowing three dimensional portrait because they knew how to make the face radiant

with lighting....not illumination.

 

I also have had the benefit of learning at the feet of giants in the photo industry, either directly or by

studying their work in countless books and samples.

 

I am not trying to set myself up as some paragon of knowledge or even of lighting, but....I was taught one thing

above all else and I've thanked God for it every day of my career for the gift of that knowledge. When you look

at a subject, whether a person or building or a still life......YOU HAVE GOT TO LEARN TO SEE THE LIGHT!!!!!! Not

just see the illumination. You have to look at it, study it, see how it changes as the subject or the light is

moved, how when the light wraps around from the side it creates a sense of depth and dimension, and above all

you've got to recognize how to use the right tools to make the changes to compliment it.

 

One of my mentors, (in two seminars and numerous tapes and publications), the late and brilliant Dean Collins

told of his several year apprenticeship with a master photographer in Europe (Switzerland or Germany I believe).

Dean told us all that for the first six months, even though he had been a successful working photographer in the

states, his Master would allow him only a bed sheet and an incandescent bulb to study light and how light creates

form on any subject.

 

We could all do much worse than to spend at least a day doing the same!

 

I'm sorry, but small raw flash units, especially on camera, are the worst possible solution!

 

 

Tim, "No matter how well it is done, all that on camera flash can do is blast light in a straight line directly at the subject..."

 

I agree completely. And the on flash attachments are often used by people that have no idea when they are actually helpful-- the omni-bounce for instances. And even then, it just reduces the level of suckage.

 

Note that my picture is only used as an example of "doesn't totally suck", b/c I only picked up a camera three years ago. However, I do see so many attempts like it that are botched so bad I threw it up there. Not saying that anyone thought otherwise, I just want to lead w/ it.

 

Tim, "Take a real honest look at the photo you are showing."

 

Sure, all those things are hints to an added light source. Including the specular highlight on the bottom of her top. However, those things can come from natural sources-- a wet rock in front bounces a lot of light. There may be clues to tell a clever viewer (i.e. a double shadow would tell us it's coming from a parabolic reflector, but most viewers would have no clue) the source is a small one-- but it's the catch light that bothers me-- I can ignore the others things (I'll blur the catch light befoer sending it out).

 

There is a hard shadow, but unlike truely bad pictures, it's not as dark or prominent as it could be... and I'm going somewhere w/ this.

 

It's all a matter of perspective (internal, not occular). I knew a "photographer", landscape enthusiest, who hated studio shots. I found this odd, b/c you may hate plain backgrounds, or some other thing, but all studio shots? He said he hated it b/c it looked unnatural, b/c the light was "too perfect". He is right, the light is "too perfect", but I find this distate for it inane-- but he shot landscapes, and he'll never have a studio set up for his work. So, I feel there is some biasness, that he feels all styles should be on a level field.

 

I often use a soft-gold reflector... no... I often carry a soft-gold reflector. However, the shoots move fast and w/o an assistant so I instead try to find a location which can get by w/o one if possible. I've also shot w/o a flash at all and found that the lighting was too flat-- I'm not saying that w/o a flash, the contrast will be wrong; however, finding a place in nature that sends that great amount of directional soft light to your subject is difficult-- difficult means less places to shoot. The great part about being outdoors is the varied backdrops.

 

Unnatural lighting: a ring light. You probably aren't into those, but it's a studio example. And of course having 3 catch lights in each eye, which is done in many ads published in respectable magazines. It's everywhere.

 

 

My point is: while I feel your statements of what is "wrong" is valid for a studio example, in this style of photography there is a different expectation. A small camera flash is not even a consideration for me for a key light-- I've brought other gear for that. But when it comes to having about 2 hours of good light to shoot in, and I can get 100 frames that have been deemed acceptable (sometimes praised) or only about 40 setting up reflectors... I'll go w/ the former. Clientiel for outdoor portriature won't expect commercial studio lighting... they will notice every frame where they gave a bad facial expression, however. Learning how to use a fill flash gives you agility-- even if it's not your cup of tea.

 

As for lighting, coincidently I study and query Brooks on lighting (probably too often) and have continued to try to get it as tight as possible. I always value good light.

Hi, Nathan.

 

I think we are both giving Kim (and maybe others) some lively things to think about and that is fantastic.

 

You've made some great points and I wont dispute them in the sense of trying to change the way you work. I like

your work, I just see ways that I (and there is my prejudice) would modify the lighting to fit the subject and

concentrate on the beauty of the face. The small fill flash can't do that!

 

I am sure that both our working techniques will continue to evolve over the next twenty years (at least I hope to

be around that much longer) as we are each exposed to new tools and the ideas and images of others.

 

OF COURSE your sample portrait DOESN'T totally, suck. Incredibly far from it, but I still see that the

accumulation of characteristics of the fill flash really harm what in other techniques could be outright brilliant.

 

I will never use the quick expediency of a small hard flash outdoors because I know what I can produce in only a

little

more time with my more structured techniques. That's why I believe totally that the little flashes produce lousy

results in modulating the lighting.

 

However, I understand completely why you work that way and if you have a market that loves your images, more

power to you. This is after all, a business as well as an art, and the bottom line is what makes it possible to

keep on creating.

 

We all have our own artistic directions produced by distilling our experience and observations into prejudices

and sometimes (and this is quite harmful), habit. God, how I try to avoid habit!!!!!!

 

Re: the landscape photographer, perhaps he is right about studio lighting being too perfect, but that is an

evolution from the simple natural light coming through windows, and then adding reflectors, then skylights, then

getting rid of the windows for carbon arc lamps in huge umbrellas (see the film "Pretty Baby"), and so on;

evolving into the work of incomparable lighting geniuses like George Hurrell, Edward Steichen, Robert

Maplethorpe, Yuusef Karsh and many others. That lighting "perfection" was evolved to create enhancement of the

beauty or character in any face, and that's what doing portraits is all about.

 

He is certainly correct for his own work, but perhaps not so for the portrait client.

 

In nature, Ansel Adams, my absolute hero, disdained soft lenses and "pictorialism" for landscape work. That was

the founding tenet for the Group f64. While I prefer Adams over any other landscape camera artist, I also have

seen many of the images from the pictorialist school that I find compelling. It's all completely individual and

I'm afraid I'm quite dogmatic about the choice of correct tools to light a human face outdoors.

 

Believe it or or not, I do respect the use of a ring light......when it is used for ads for makeup..... period.

Those require a light that is both high energy and very flat to show the delicate textural qualities of the

subject...which in this case is NOT the face. The ring light is perfect for that. It also has some usefulness

in fashion, but see the rig that Francesco Scavullo uses in the film "Lipstick" if you want to see a wild fashion

lighting unit. If you're not familiar with him, he did the Cosmo covers for decades.

 

One more commentary regarding locations if I may.

 

I had my portrait studio in a small town in southeast Missouri. It was a very nice town as far as people; but a

town that was flatter than western Kansas and had no streams other than an ugly drainage canal, parks that were

so wide open that you could see garbage dumpsters a couple of blocks away, and a downtown that was old enough to

look "seasoned" but not shabby enough to have character. In short pretty sparse on good outdoor shooting

environments.

 

Since a huge amount of my business was seniors, I needed some reliable outdoor spaces. There were maybe five

decent spots in town including only one three acre plot of woods. Anyway I took the time (a few days) to just

sit and watch those places for the changes in lighting and to walk all around them and in them to study where and

when I could shoot to have the quality of light I needed at a given time of day. At that point I knew where I

could go and what I could do at a given appointment time. It was fast and never too repetitive throughout

thousands of senior portraits. I just changed angles toward the subject which brought new background elements

into play and used the reflector on a portable stand as needed to add lighting when it was appropriate. I also

used mom's, boyfriends, girlfriends, best friends, whomever was around to handle the reflectors. That created a

great teamwork atmosphere and made the whole experience more fun for the subject and that turned into bigger

sales and lots of referrals.

 

Whether from the reflector, or soft light tunneling in under the trees, it's quite easy to pose the subject to

the camera and then have them slightly turn the face to catch that glorious 45 to 90 degree side lighting. That

little counter twist of the head also adds a great body language dynamic, just as you've done here with Kim.

 

If you haven't yet seen the movie "Girl with a Pearl Earing", it is brilliant for a photographer to study for old

portrait lighting techniques. A good part of it takes place in the actual studio (as built for the film) of Jan

Vermeer, one of the most brilliant of all portrait painters. He lived from 1632-1675 in Delft, in the

Netherlands at the height of talent of the great Dutch Masters painters. In my mind he was only eclipsed by

Rembrandt in seeing and using light on faces and forms.

 

Anyway, enjoy seeing how he used huge windows and skylights and shutters on those to control the direction and

delicacy of light on his subjects. That film is almost a seminar in portrait lighting as well as a fine movie.

 

Your clientele, should and will expect your very best work and lighting, regardless of site.....beyond that edit

like the devil and don't EVER show them an image with a bad expression. Why create a doubt about you or about

themselves?

 

The very best luck to you!!!!!!!

 

 

Thank you all so much. I appreciate everyones take on the subject and enjoying seeing the views of each. I have aways to go and can use all the help possible. Thanks everyone!

Hi Kimberly,

 

I am in a similar situation as you RE my experience and kinds of jobs I do. My mentor is a superb headshot photographer in LA, and his philosophy RE lighting is very similar to what Tim was saying, and he goes to great efforts to "look for the light", as opposed to looking for a specific background, e.g., looking for directional light via open sky in front with overhead cover. He showed me a swimsuit calander he created in the Bahamas for a Hollywood actress that used all natural light (no strobes) in every shot (except one out in the water where overhead cover was n/a) - the images were amazing (lighting-wise, of course). Then I also read a very similar outdoor philosophy from Scott Smiths website. I've attached the link below. I hope this helps you to define your own style. Good Luck!

 

http://www.lightingmagic.com/outlitqa.htm