markonestudios Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Let me chip in here again: <p>Kim, if that IS indeed the craze up in Alaska at winter ;) maybe it's worthwile taking some test shots at the settings you've mentioned and then print a few to show potential clients what they're likely to get. Of course if they ARE happy, then you're home and dry. Then of course there is the shutter dragging, flash exposure compensation and use of flash modifiers like the DFD Pro by Joe Demb. I used this at an outdoor nighttime reception where I was shooting only film. The highest ISO I dared use was 400 and still I managed to get some decent shots. So flash is not always bad, just a matter of learning how to use it to accentuate rather than dominate the available lighting (unless that's your intention of course!) <p>William, that's a pretty broad question you ask there. Every single situation and location is different (bride getting ready, ceremony, reception, afterparty, etc). Could you be a bit more specific? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Kimberley--when faced with the kind of situation you describe, and until we get great quality with cameras using ISO 6400 and up, you can only use flash with medium/fast ISO and drag the shutter. If you can't bounce, at least bounce against a white card on the flash. It is a little better than direct flash. And there are ways to set up off camera flashes that don't involve stands to trip over, although it may be harder to find appropriate places to clamp flashes to. Also, direct flash can be very exciting if it is directional flash, rather than flat, on-camera flash, and actually, by controlling the background rendition, you can retain some of the quality of light by tealights with off camera flashes used direct--especially gelling them. William--my personal exposure MO is to use manual camera mode with incident meter when I can/have the time, and TV or AV otherwise. I've tweaked my TV and AV settings and compensations to fit what I want to accomplish. I pre-set everything on my camera before I leave for a wedding, and periodically re-set everything on it during the day, if I have time. Home base setting is f2.8 for AV and 1/200th for TV (5D--1/250th for 20D). Compensation is set for neutral, and I use averaging ambient metering. This is so when I go from manual to TV or AV, I know what it is set to. On my 5D, I use the custom setting (C on the mode dial) to a flash-less general setting so that when I quickly want to change, I can. For me, it is set to not fire the flash, ISO 800, TV at 1/60th, neutral ambient compensation. I can change to the C mode and whip the controls around pretty quick. There are reasons for the choices I made for home base settings, but those reasons might be different for you. Another thing I religiously do is change ISO from 400 (home base for inside) to 100 (home base for outside) when going inside to outside and vice versa. All of these pre-sets are based on being able to change the mode dial in an instant and know where I am. It is also a habit from the old days shooting film and manual cameras. I had a home base setting for that to, and it saved my rear a few times. I doubt very much that you can force clients to see lighting the way you do. Maybe to some extent regarding the advantage of having the ceremony in the shade, for instance, but their priority is always going to be the event itself and their experience of the event, and lighting considerations are probably a bit or a lot lower on the list. I know a photographer who always uses natural light, to the point that he will use a less than optimum background because of the natural light. Clients do not appreciate his use of natural light over nice backgrounds, and that is never going to change, I'm afraid. They will look at such a picture and wonder why the photographer took the picture with cars in the background, or that horrible looking church wall with poster on it, or something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Thinking about it further, I would add that ironically, in order to use the automated modes to the fullest, one needs to already have a good idea what the EVs are going to be. So actually, I would recommend maybe spending some time metering various lighting conditions for a particular ISO--say ISO 100 for outside, and memorizing or at least constructing in your head, a range of settings that one would use at a wedding. Once committed to memory, you can transpose if a variable is different. Same for indoors--use ISO 400 or 800 and commit some settings/EVs to memory. It used to be, with film, that once you committed these to memory, you could shoot the whole wedding without metering anything and just guessing the EV/settings and be OK. Not as easy to do with digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnWebster Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 If you can see it you should be able to record it. This bride and bridesmaid were lit by window light main, and the fill light from what was reflecting off the walls (no bounce fill flash. I look for this sort of light in homes because it requires no additional lighting equipment. Sometimes I do need a bounce into the shadow areas and will use a white table cloth or white reflector card.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 Man, my head is spinning. Nadine, I envy your memory abilities. I've never been able to do that. It's like a block I have. I could never even remember the simple "Sunny 16 Rule, let alone a bunch of EVs at a wedding or reception location. What I do trust is looking at the light. Find the light, before jumping to any other solution. We do spend a lot of time concentrating on how to artificially light wedding photos, and far less on making the existing light work for you. I wonder if this leads to beginners never really studying how to find the light ... and maybe a group mentality of homogenizing what a photo should look like? Meaning that there is a standard we strive for that is ... well ... standard ... and precludes other, more interesting lighting scenaros. Just wondering out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreul Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 i just wanted to say thanks to everyone for their help and responses earlier... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Marc--if anyone is bad with numbers and memorizing, it's me. However, I've shot a lot, and in the "old days", using manual cameras, it does finally sink into one's consciousness when you meter and come up with the same thing time after time. It gets to the point you don't need to meter. This is nothing more difficult than just taking note of what you do anyway--like Al Kaplan used to teach. I'm just suggesting to someone who does not have a handle on the range of light as it relates to settings used over and over--go out and deliberately make notes on settings for different kinds of lighting rather than rely on automated settings without using your brain. I'd be interested in your answer to William's question though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 Nadine, I assume you are referring to William's question on how to get clients to let us use the best light ... I attended a seminar put on by Jeff Ascough, and in his discussion concerning the best use of light I realized that I work in a similar way ... and when I don't I am disappointed in the over-all wedding shoot. The attempt isn't as much to force the issue with the clients who are busy with other things, it has to to with observing the best possibility, positioning for it, and being patient. It's a sniper's mentality. If a photographer's approach is capturing 1000+ images, then this can be nerve racking. However, if the opportunity presents itself to get the client into better light I'll take it. I often discuss the better use of available light with clients before the wedding, and even have showed how a slight adjustment in their wedding day itinerary will lead to more flattering photographs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Marc--yes, that question but also the technical one re basic camera settings, although I've read your general technique enough times, but wondered how you would answer his question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 Okay Nadine, the technical question ... hmmm ... to tell the truth I generally don't have any preconceived settings in mind ... except in really low light when using flash. Nor do I pre- scout anything. I think you are right, it depends on what you did in the olden days, if you were here then : -) Mine was mostly shooting with a Leica M almost never with flash. I got to instinctively know what part of a scene was "my grey card", metered that and made fine adjustments based on what the light was doing in relation to the subject. It does force you to "see the light" so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_s. Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I'm a pretty technical guy but I don't think there is an answer to William's question about camera settings. Sure, the light levels will fall in certain ranges during the day and it would not be difficult to say how many EVs those are. Problem is, how we turn that light in to photographs will depend on our ability, our equipment and our vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimberly_smith___anchorage Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Thanks for the answers! I usually use a Gary Fong attachment on flash, until it gets to the point of "just get some light on the suject, any light". I wish I was able to use automated modes correctly, so I am usually stuck on M mode.<BR><BR> I've always admired the few individuals that know the correct metering by just looking at the light. I think it just takes practice.<BR><BR> As for seeing light, that is why I always will prefer to use a reflector or an object that will act as one, and only use flash when nothing else is possible. We know that the camera does not see exactly what the eye sees, so why confuse yourself more, with adding artificial light the eye does not see at all? Studio photography is a completely different animal, but most weddings for me have been on location...well, all of them to be exact.<BR><BR> I am still looking for someone to work with that has mastered location lighting.<BR><BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 20, 2007 Author Share Posted October 20, 2007 Kimberly RE: "We know that the camera does not see exactly what the eye sees, so why confuse yourself more with adding artificial light the eye does not see at all?" It is because the camera can't see all we can with the eye that we sometimes need to use additional light. The idea is to make the outcome more like what we see. When flash is used to much, it becomes artifical looking .... when used to little, the camera doesn't capture what we see. The notion is "Light Balance" and is a subject of many threads here on the wedding forum available through the search function, as well as numerious dedicated sites mentioned in those threads. On the right side of the wedding forum page there are subject catagories including lighting. Scroll through those for low light threads. RE:" I wish I was able to use automated modes correctly, so I am usually stuck on M mode." In my experience, when shooting in low light, Manual is where it's at. On many cameras, automated modes like Aperture preffered either set the fastest flash sync speed which tends to concentrate the flash output on the foreground subject exposure at the expense of the background to produce that "cut out" look which is so artifical ... or the camera auto selects a shutter speed that's to slow and produces subject blur. RE: "I am still looking for someone to work with that has mastered location lighting". If you can't get one-on-one help where you are, select someone here who's location lighting work you admire and bug them to mentor you. Again, on the right side of the page there is a topic listing of many contributing photographers here who's work can be reviewed. I suggest Peter Steinhoff who uses both on camera flash and strobes in low light in the far north of Europe ... so he can be a kindred lighting pal. Hee, hee Peter .... what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_s. Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Hey Marc, what are you getting me into :-) Well, low light like EV2 (ISO1600,f/2.8,1/8s) and lower is demanding. The solution as I see it is to raise the light level just enough to make it work. A lot of people automaticly think flash is awful but it's not - flash is light and light is beautiful. You just need to control the direction, intensity and color temperature of the light to make it look good and have the mood you desire. In reality it's difficult because you don't have the resources to light an entire ceremony/reception the way they would have done on a high budget movie set so compromises needs to be done. To make it work I think the client needs to be educated on the additional complexity required to shoot in a low light environment and understand that you need to scout the location beforehand, additional time to set up on the wedding day or the day before if possible and/or assistents to help you and also any additional expenses if equipment needs to be rented. In the end they probably want good looking pictures even if it requires some more work. I shot a ceremony a while back where I used on camera flash and had 4 additional off camera strobes set up and the client complimented the images she got from a technical point of view because even if the guests where blasting away none of the photos they took were inteligble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 20, 2007 Author Share Posted October 20, 2007 "Hey Marc, what are you getting me into :-)" Teaching is just another form of learning Peter : -) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Is still shoot only manual : mainly because its way to technical to attempt what Nadine calculates :-) I have the fortunate opportunity, to only shoot, in the same 3/4 locations in the past 20+ years. I know every corner --every flower --every season & I rarely capture true PJ. Light is no less than "ideal" or I move the subjects. All the B&G/family images are preset in 1 of 5 locations( depends on season/wedding schedule ) of each venue. Approaching the formals 2 hours prior of the ceremony > allows plenty of idyllic scenes. Light is usually perfect for a fill situation. Again, I use 100-400 ISO and auto flash (no E-TTL )& manual camera . Trying to maintain a natural look : is one of our selling points...the hand meter with just the right fill from the flash controls ~ establishes that sequence.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Either create the light yourself .....<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Or let the natural light take over<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Very unwanted lighting situation ... but, bride desired the background for at least one shot.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 Here's an example of putting a few ideas into practice. This church was a cave where the ceilings reached to heaven and bounce wasn't an option ... so I didn't try to light up the whole place with my puny 550EX. Instead I dragged the shutter a bit, used the on-cameras flash diffused as fill, and set it to master so I could also fire my partners 500EX who was standing closer to them camera left. I didn't have time to play with ratios on the flashes, so I did it by having him move closer to the subjects than I was with my flash. I got the look I was after, not overly lit, but more like it appeared to the eye.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Great shot-Great use of light ~! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Thanks for answering Marc--it is too bad that your open invitation to ask questions about lighting didn't produce a lot of inquiries. Wonder what this means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 I guess it means not many people are interested in lighting, or they already know everything. Darn, I was hoping to learn something myself. I had a nightmare of a shooting day today. Last chance to get some fall shots on the property of one of my commercial clients. Get there and none of their trees have turned except a couple. I'm using a family for models, including a baby. It's gale force winds blowing everyone's hair all over the place. I can't position them to the few fall trees without shooting directly into the sun. I goose the Metz Potato masher to +3 comp and it hardly makes a dent in the fill. I set it manual at the max ... nada. So I gotta + comp the camera exposure and lose the sky ... even using ND Grads in the LEE hood. Big PITA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I did a stupid thing myself today. I usually plug my external pack into my flash before the ceremony for fast recycling and today's wedding, with a short aisle, was outside in the sun. I forgot about the pack. Plus the wedding party came streaming in, so I got a couple of shots without flash... I restaged them. I sure hope everyone doesn't think they know everything about lighting. I was looking forward to a good discussion about it and possibly learning something as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tammie_thessing Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I don't know crap. I'm so bummed. Awesome wedding in super dark chuch. Charged a 2.8 70-200 zoom lens to help out with this wedding. No flash. Had to shoot at 1600 ISO. Ugly. 1/40 second on zoom lens (still underexposed) produced hand movement. Did I mention Ugly? Grateful I was second shooter and not primary. I feel like I spend every spare moment outside of my "real job" (and sometime inside my real job) reading and trying to learn ... Boo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now