frustrated with lighting

[kariann]

Okay, I've been out taking some portraits lately-yesterday was family

portraits. And, I'm getting very frustrated. I feel like I have a fairly good

understanding of available light portraits, but maybe not. We went to a park,

got in the shade under some trees, and I used my fill flash on some of

them,when I thought necessary. But, when I'm looking at many of the pictures in

the actual pixels, they are not crisp, like the lighting was too low. I had my

camera set on aperture priority, as I find that easier for doing portraits. My

ISO was at, like 200 or 250. A few of the ones with the fill flash look as if

it were nearing day's end, and it was 10am. I just don't know what I am doing

wrong. Am I putting them in too much shade? I don't know if you can help

without seeing the actual pictures, but thanks if you can. Kari

[alan_olander1664878205]

Perhaps your shots were underexposed. What does the histogram look like? The images with fill flash sound like they have an underexposed background. If that's the case you need to add to the ambient exposure when using fill. Was there a bright area in the distant background that could have fooled the meter?

[doug_axford1]

Most pros shoot portraits on manual setting, even outside.

 

Make sure that the people are in 'open shade' All shade is not alike. I see too many people putting subjects against a tree trunk. That's OK with some trees, but most is far too dark that far under it. Open shade is usually the area just at the edge of the sun lit area, but keep everyone in the shade.

 

Exposure typically will be 1/60 at f:8 to f:11 at 200 ISO. Flash fill should be either the same (8 or 11) for larger groups or one stop lower (5.6 or 8) for singles or couples.

 

Stop allowing your camera to think exposure for you, that's your job, to control the light.

 

Doug

[kariann]

Thanks, Alan and Doug. Alan, you're right-the ones that look dark were next to a tree trunk, for sure! That's what I was thinking-that maybe all shade is not alike, just like you said. Because, the pictures I did in another area turned out beautifully!

 

Honestly, Alan, I'm not sure what the histogram should look like-I've heard it should look like a bell? But, what does that tell me, and how do I get that where I want it? There WAS a bright area in the background in a few. Gosh, you guys are good! :) What do you mean by "add to the ambient exposure when using fill?"

 

You're right, Doug. I need to learn to control the light better. I really appreciate you telling me the truth! It's just that I feel like I fool so much with my aperture, fill flash exposure, shutter speed, and it takes so much more time. Does that just get quicker the longer you do it, because I've been taking pictures for many years now. Somedays I feel like it was so much easier when I didn't "know" what I was doing!

 

Thanks, I guess I just need to go back to the same spot with some people who are willing to let me play around to see what I did wrong. I had done some work there a few weeks ago and had the same troubles, but thought I knew how to fix it. Guess not. I'll go back when I can and do some of these things suggested and let you know what happens.

[alan_olander1664878205]

A histogram can look like a bell, but it often doesn't. The histogram is a "graph" of the number of pixels at each brightness level. The left end would show dark pixels, the right end bright ones. You don't want the histogram to be bunched up at one end or the other (unless you're going for some kind of effect), and you'll often hear, "expose to the right", meaning expose so the histogram is as far as it can be to the right without any pixels bunching up there. Here is a link to an article about "Understanding Histograms":

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml

 

What I meant when I said "add to the ambient exposure" was that you need to set your shutter speed/fstop for the available light exposure or a little less, then add your flash. You would could use manual or aperture priority exposure mode to do this.

[User_503771]

Generally speaking, if the histogram shows lots of data bunched up at either end, your exposure is off. The data should be distributed in the middle of the "graph".

 

I suppose that the "ideal histogram" would have nearly no data at the extreme ends; this is rarely the case, but you can get it close if you adjust carefully.

 

Perhaps a good way to go would be to run some experiments, as you've said you'll do, and make note of your exposures as you work, then check the results later. Bracket some as you work -- the resulting pictures will tell the tale.

 

Yes, exposure calculation does get quicker, it just takes practice. Note-taking -- written or even just talking into a voice activated cassette recorder -- is a great help.

 

If you have a light meter, that's a great help too. Or, learn to use your camera and its histogram as the meter.

[jcuknz]

I would check the EXIF to discover just what shutter speed your camera was picking for you while working in AP mode. Some cameras default to quite slow a shutter speed in auto and semi-auto modes when using flash and the lack of sharpness could be coming from camera shake or subjest movement. The ambient light content of the shot mixed with the crisp flash image gives an unsharp look. Definitely safer to work in manual where you control things remembering that "The shutter controls the ambient light, and the aperture controls the flash content". The skill comes in achieving the correct balance between the light sources. Normally one detirmines the aperture first [ based on the flash to subject distance] and then organises a shutter speed to match based on the strength of the ambient light.

 

My other comment is what do the shots look like when you use 100ISO?

I don't like using anything faster than 100ISO unless using a DSLR, even then it still applies with a different standard level.

[kariann]

Okay, I'll go to that link for histograms. Thanks for that. JC, the EXIF said the shutter speed was at 200, so no lag there. Okay, and on the whole "flash to subject distance", do you mean the setting the flash bases on the aperture and making sure I'm at a proper distance, based on what my flash tells me my range is?

 

I have seen the calculators for the shutter speed/aperture settings for focal length, but that just baffles me and I have no idea how someone can remember that! Also, I use a DSLR, so 200 ISO is the slowest I can go. Okay, now, how do I determine the aperture based on the flash to subject distance? Is there another way to explain this? I am sorry if I sound dumb, but some of this is newer to me. I used to just take pictures, now I'm trying to understand more what I do and need to do better. Thanks for your patience, everyone. I already have some good ideas of what to go practice.

 

Also, about the ambient lighting (by that, I'm assuming you mean the natural light I have available), the reason I was shooting closer to the tree trunk was that on the outer perimeters of the tree, I had sun/shade spots. You know what I mean? The shade was patchy, whereas farther under the tree, the shading was solid. Am I just going to have to go at a different time of day? That's why I was shooting in these spots. Or, if exposed properly, is it possible to get a good portrait in the "heavier" shade?

 

And, what is everyone's opinions on a handheld light meter? I mean, how am I to get to the point where I can walk into any setting and pretty much calculate the aperture and shutter speed in my head just by looking around? I guess I have relied too much on my camera meter, and wonder how to venture away from that comfort! Thanks.

[doug_axford1]

The light in an 'open shade' area will be very similar almost anywhere. The only significant difference is if you are in Seattle and are using giant fir trees for shade (one stop darker) or if you have bright fluffy clouds (half stop lighter) or no clouds (half stop darker). One stop either way will be a lot closer than the method you are using now. A hand held meter is ideal, but you can use your camera and a simple grey card. Do not meter off grass, it can be more than 3 stops different depending upon how lush it is. Obviously, if you meter off people, your reading will depend upon what they are wearing, not so good.

 

Patchy shade is to be avoided on the faces at all costs, you are correct. But, turn people around and have the sun poking through and lighting their backs, problem solved as long as the background is good.

 

Now, all you need to know is how much flash your unit fires on manual, 1/2 power, etc. Seasoned pros have the flash set on manual, just like the camera. You don't want the camera or flash to think for you, you need to be sure exactly what both are exposing. That's the key to great portraits.

 

Doug

[Ed_Ingold]

A bright area in the background will often overwhelm the auto exposure system, making your actual subject too dark. Although you can bring up the exposure in post, it is often noisy and lacking in contrast. I suggest using the camera in manual mode, taking a spot reading from the faces. In general, you want a dark background, not a patchy one. The same with light on your subject.

 

The color temperature in shade is much higher (bluer) than electronic flash. If you balance for shade, then electronic flash will look too red. Try balancing for flash alone. If you shoot RAW images, you can play with this in post. Shade is also very flat lighting (as is fill flash on the camera), so don't expect these images to pop. Open shade (large area of open sky) gives better modeling than under a tree.

[kariann]

Edward, How do I balance for flash?

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Set your WB set feature to the "Flash" setting or try other settings

if your camera has it. That's what I do with my Pentax K100D.

 

Try out quick sample shots using different WB sets one after the

other using your own hand holding a piece of white paper as

reference. Make sure you view the shots on your calibrated

computer before you decide because the LCD will not be

accurate. My Pentax isn't. Fleshtones that look normal on the

LCD will look too blue or pinkish on the computer. See the

samples below.<div></div>