david_schilling___chicago_ Posted November 24, 2008 Author Share Posted November 24, 2008 Phillip, actually this image is primarily lit with bounce from the cieling. The omnibounce was angled at about 45 degrees (as in diagram) so most of the light came off the cieling while some traveled straight forward to serve as fill. I also used a long lens to give me a comfortable distance from the subject and to allow space for the light to open up. The bracket keeps the speedlight higher and directly over the lens. For quick and easy, it comes pretty close to a studio "butterfly" lighting scheme.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirk_van_der_duim Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 David -- nice job on the wedding. I paged through a few of the photos on your Smugmug site, and these folks are fortunate to have a photographer who's excellent at catching the moments. Your posing of people and their expressions show that you indeed have a good rapport with folks. Which is a big part of making good photos, as you know. With the lighting in this photo (and other photos nearby in the album), the shadows are a bit too defined for my tastes. Those Sto-fen omnibounces can be good, but especially if you have some distance between you and the subject, it quickly becomes a point source. Also, the bounce/direct ratio changes quickly if you crouch for a different angle or get closer to or farther from a side wall. Sometimes the diffuser is a good tool, but I often use the card on my SB-800 and bounce the direct flash off of a wall or shoot into the corner between the wall and ceiling. This often gives me a lot more bounce than direct, which softens things up. It really depends on the situation and the effect you're going for. If I have the time, I do my best to set up some off-camera flash in an umbrella or two. I find that of all the ways I can spend my time, this makes the biggest difference in the finished product -- and costs the least amount of time overall. Diffused, predictable light saves me so much time in post-processing, it's not even funny. Over the last few years, I've built up a Strobist-type system (see www.strobist.com) that's very portable, quick to set up, and (if I use it correctly) gives me consistent, good light. I've got an SB-800 and a couple of 600's which I put in an umbrella or two and trigger with the on-camera controller of my D300. For a couple years, though, I shot with a D70, an 800, and a 600, usually with the 600 off-camera in an umbrella. (And I'm still amazed at some of the stuff I could get with that setup.) I've gotten to the point where I can set up a flash and umbrella in about 3 minutes, and take it down just as fast. For a grab shot (especially on a wedding day), where it's just a one-off, I'll make the best of it with ceiling/wall bounce. But if I have more than a few minutes to make the photo, it's worth spending 6 or 7 to have good light. All that being said, it looks like you're doing some excellent work for these folks -- keep it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted November 24, 2008 Author Share Posted November 24, 2008 Hi Dirk, thanks for the comments. I like to do some multiple light setups if I have an assistant or have a little extra time. With this wedding I had a huge room with high cielings....so, I did do a two light setup for the girls catching the bouquet /dwesleyportraits dot smugmug dot com/gallery/6630607_aXr2U#423601917_EMkCt) and the guys catching the garter. I set a 430EX set to slave, 1 stop hotter than my 580EX, positioned on top of a table just a bit behind and to the left of the camera, bounced off the ceiling and it worked out well. In hindsight, I wish I would have used this for the cake cutting and toasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francie_baltazar Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 I haven't read any of the other comments - so if I am repeating it is not to be redunant just to give my opinion... the light seems a bit - and I mean just a bit harsh... the shadow under her chin I find a bit distracting...I really like the photo in general and and yet there is something that is bugging me about it... maybe it needs less flowers and a tighter crop... maybe she could be offset just a bit? the more I look at it the more I think it is that I would like a tighter crop... but that is personal preferance... that would also remove the shadow from her arm... and this is not a "bridal portrait" it is the bride on her wedding day...so lighting will never be as it is in a studio.... so with that in mind I think it is really nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DickArnold Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 David. I am afraid I was looking at the picture like a bloody photographer would look at it. Too close. I sat back and looked at it like a normal person would. . What an appealing face and you captured it. I bet her mother likes it. I have used a 45 degree flash angle when doing tables at large gatherings and I find it works very well with a relatively short lens in softening the light and allowing me to move rapidly. Thanks for sharing. The thread gives some nice insights. Thank you for sharing it. I have thought I could have done better on almost every picture I have ever taken. And, I probably could have. I found some of my early photos in the cellar this morning. All I can say is I have improved and digital has made me better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l_e Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 fairly well lit, well composed, a bit too bright for my tastes, and a rather boring image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 > I was looking at the picture like a bloody photographer would look at it. Too close. < and > I bet her mother likes it. < I totally understand those comments. Frankly, I did not what hat to put on, (to frame my answer), when I first read David`s question. Dick, I agree the thread has touched some (introspective) insights - good point. I did not apply those, initially, I have now. It is very interesting, what we each take away from the table. Cheers to all, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_hovland Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 If you want to smooth her skin consider Surface Blur in Photoshop. "Skin" by Lee Varis has a tutorial on how to use this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 Dick, I'm happy to have you look at the photo as a photographer and otherwise....I'm also happy with the comments and generally pleased with most of my coverage of the day. Granted, I can always see things that I could have done differently and always try to do better next time. I really wish I would have done more remote lighting at the reception for example. I've played with softening the skin using the dynamic skin softener in nik color effex Pro 2.0 and added a little bit of PS work....played with the crop. Most of the time I try to keep the PS work on the minimal side. I didn't see this portrait as an award winning image....just a nice portrait that was very low on the fuss factor. I could have setup studio lights but the goal was to celebrate the day, get some nice images with the bridemaids and family. The garter shot with the bridesmaids was pretty traditional but I thought it was an "oldie but a goodie" http://dwesleyportraits.smugmug.com/gallery/6630607_aXr2U#P-6-20 All in all, I considered the coverage "respectable" professional-level work.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_tatum Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 I can't look at her anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markonestudios Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 David, I won't even pretend to be half as experienced as you are in this fine craft, so I make my comments in all humility. I was thinking, the shadow under her chin catches my eye quite fast (whereas it shouldn't) and even though it adds a dimension (depth) to the photo, I reckon if you had used a bounce-card/diffuser combo you would have succeeded in toning down (pardon the pun) the conrast and by throwing more light forward, killed the shadow more effectively. By and large, in my rovings on this World Wide Web and on the numerous jobs where I have used it, I have found that the Demb Flash Diffuser excels in such conditions. Fast-n-dirty lighting instantly transformed using this simple but highly effective device. I find that the proximity of the omnibounce to the flash-head and it's geometry does not allow sufficient 'softening' of light. <p>Having said that from a photographer's perspective, I have no doubt that the bride will love this shot. Its seeming spontaneity, the bright and cheerful expression as well as the catchlights really do 'light up' this image... <p>Mark :] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonabunaphotography Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 David , I want to thank you to give your picture for critique, I learn from all the posts more then I learn in one month. Do it again and give us some mind work, I prefer real picture like this one then the usually pictures from peoples gallery here on photo.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think27 Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Also think the lighting is a bit harsh.. There are hot spots on her face and the hair does bother me as well... Shadow under her chin is fine and control of the light as far as shadows is pretty good... I might have diffused the light though to minimize the shadows of the bouquet, hair etc... My portraits tend to be a little more relaxed looking but I believe people hire David for his classic style of portraiture. So that is a personal taste thing for me.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted November 26, 2008 Author Share Posted November 26, 2008 Nice PS work Mary.....your PS skills have really grown over the past months. Simona, Thanks for your comment, it's one of the main reasons I contribute to the forum. And, again thanks to everyone that's contributed to the thread......perhaps it's time I consider more diffusion possibilities and multiple light setups for the home, the altar shots, and the reception hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think27 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Thanks David - I'm totally 100% self taught. Trial and error and practice.. Still have a way to go though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francie_baltazar Posted December 6, 2008 Share Posted December 6, 2008 <p>David I just love the tighter crop - really shows her beauty and a hint of the flowers... btw I was blown away by your photo with her in front of Mary... amazing and made me have goose bumps... really beautiful work...</p> 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