Church formals - how do you eliminate or reduce strobe reflection in eyeglasses?

[steve_c.5]

<p>Just wondering if anyone has some tricks to prevent strobe reflections when shooting formals using stand-mounted strobes (with shoot-thru umbrellas in my case). I spend too much time with the healing brush removing these distracting white spots from eyeglasses.</p>

<p>It's difficult, because when you're pressed for time and have to pose strangers attractively and quickly, you don't have time to work with them on head/eyeglasses tilt to mitigate the reflections, you have to get it done fast and deal with it in post, or so I've been doing. And some people simply don't want to remove their eyewear, because they are used to being seen with them on.</p>

<p>A polarizer would reduce glare, but you'd lose a stop or two. If you move the strobes farther apart, you get too much angle on them and mess up your lighting pattern. Bring them closer, and there's no improvement.</p>

<p>In the subject image attached, there is not only the strobe reflections, but also a bluish glare from the stained glass windows at the front of the church. The subjects are 3 steps above me on the altar, and I'm at aisle level. I did not have a stepladder at the time to raise my own height, which might have helped.</p><div></div>

[mcmanamey]

<p>Frankly, for us it comes down to getting people to tilt their frames if I don't want the chins ducked too much.<br>

Perhaps it helps that there's 2 of us, so tilting glasses is a little faster, as I'm right there & matt doesn't have to run back n forth - just holler at me about whose glasses need moved.</p>

[errol young]

<p>Those reflections are not all that bad and PS could easily deal with most of it. I had an experence in the 70s when a family objected to a shot of the family where grama's eyes were whited out behind her glasses. She was one of 12 in the pic. Two large gransons sat watching me use photo dye and a brush to darken the lenses. Frankly, I did not know what I was doing but dabed away until it looked different. There was sort of a darker dot in the middle of the stain. The boys looked at it and said, "that's her eyes." photography is all an illusion.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Not too bad as reflections go.</p>

<p>I have them either:</p>

<p>a) get anti reflective lenses for their wedding day or<br>

b) have all who wear them set the arm about an inch above their ear, but keep the glasses on their face/nose as normal. Feel odd to them, but works well.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>True, PS or other post solutions can deal with this, but when you've got 50 formal shots of various family combinations, it becomes time consuming. I'd like to give the glasses tilt a try, or convince folks to remove them altogether.</p>

[ejder]

<p>99% of the time I do "b" on the above list. Alternately, setting the lights high enough and keeping yourself on a good high level should make the incidence of the reflection not fall on the axis of your lens.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Besides the above suggestions, you can raise the key light and/or don't use an umbrella. The smaller reflections are less distracting, and you avoid the white out effect (you still have to advise people to drop their chins and/or tilt glasses or turn heads, etc.). Umbrellas don't soften all that much anyway, at that kind of subject distance, unless you are talking BIG. Or, use the key more frontal and don't use a fill--gets rid of the second reflection in glasses (drag shutter so ambient is filling).</p>

<p>Or have everyone remove glasses. Not what I'd do, but that certainly gets rid of the problem.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>So you cant ask them to take off their glasses. Can't move the flash. Can't go up. Can't go down, can't ask them to tilt their heads. can't use a polarizer... wait, why not? so you loose a couple stops, you're using two strobes which is way more power than you need. Set your exposure compensation at -1 to -1.5, use your AEB, and fire away, you've got time (once a pose is set), so bracket, and shoot every scene 2-3 times (6-9 RAW exposures per pose, yes, I know it's overkill, but it's better safe than sorry, and memory's cheap) Sure, when you convert the RAWs you'll have to bump back up the exposure, but it's a helluva lot quicker than trying to fix the stupid reflections...</p>

<p>This is just my opinion, but, it sounds to me as if you've already answered your own question in your post, and next time you'll be better prepared mentally and physically! And that, my friend, is what it comes down to. Live and learn!</p>

[picturesque]

<p>For the above, could you have put them on ground level instead of three steps up?</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Another possibility is suggesting the participants see if they have an extra set of frames (older glasses, etc.) that they can have the glass removed from or can borrow frames. Not something everyone would be able to do but my wife was able to do that and most of the others in the wedding party didn't wear glasses.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>Bonus disk 3 (I think) of the "Strobist" DVD set goes over this very thing and he purposefully set up his lights so that the reflections off of the people wearing the glasses would bounce to camera right and not directly into the lens. Next he made sure the people wearing glasses were closest to the lights just for added insurance. I've always just put my light up high pointing down so the reflection would bounce under the camera but that didn't always work so now I'm setting up like Mr. Hobby and it works every time. Plus the group shots look a bit more dramatic now which my clients seem to respond better to as they are ordering more of them.</p>

[rayt]

<p>Use a ladder and get even with the people or slightly above.</p>

<p>You could also not have the people facing straight on to the camera and instead use a 30 to 45 degree angle of shoulder to the camera. Then have the people turn their heads towards you but not quite all the way. Then have them look down a little bit without suffering from double chins.</p>

<p>Understand that it is impossible to completely eliminate all reflections in all glasses. Different lens curvature, frame positioning, etc. will affect the reflections</p>

<p>Or just don't worry about it. The people will probably not notice or even really care.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>Asking them to lift the back end of the glasses about 1/2" above the ears usually works for me.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Nadine, in this particular church, the front pews are very close to the steps, so there's not really enough room to pose them on the bottom level without "pew intrusion" (I've coined a new photography term). I'll try the Hobby approach and widen the stands, tilt the glasses, and pehaps use a ladder next time. Good points, all.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>Given the example, I'd say you are letting a lot of ambient in. You can reduce the appearance of reflections from windows, doors, and ambient light sources by over-powering them with your strobes.</p>

<p>For placement, I usually put the light about 12 feet up at 45 degrees, and try to bounce wherever possible. I use one light usually, and if the surroundings are dark enough to absorb all of the light, I'll set up a smaller strobe for the shadow side, or a reflector. My light is probably 15-20 feet from the subjects usually.</p>

<p>As mentioned, avoid umbrellas and soft boxes. It reduces power, makes for larger reflections, and doesn't soften that much when so far away from the subjects.</p>

<p>I try to keep the angle of the light such that the reflection is not coming back at the camera. It's hard to get a reflection when the light source is bounced, or up high.</p>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>Easiest solution.. don't shoot with a flash. :-D <br>

Other solution.. shoot portraits outside with a reflector or in some nice open shade.<br>

Harder solution... Try bouncing the flash more.. and have the subject tilt their heads down slightly. My suggestion to you is practice. Get a friend with glasses and try out stuff at home and see what works. :)</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Yes, Ed, I like to use the ambient lighting as much as possible, because it preserves the natural appearance and colors in the church. I'm not a fan of blowing all that away, but more of using the strobes to brighten the subjects and make them stand out against the background. My stands don't go 12' high, but if they did, it might help.</p>

<p>Cathy/David: of course, shooting without a flash isn't an option in a church like this (I know you were tongue-in-cheek there), and I use outdoor locations whenever possible. For this particular event, the client and family wanted to do the formals in the church, and for good reason. They had some elderly folks who could not make the trek to stand around outside on hilly ground, plus this church has almost no suitable locations like that around it. Also, the bride's parents got married in the same church by the same priest 30 years ago, and we wanted to contrast their wedding photos (albiet with the father and groomsmen in powder-blue tuxes 30 years ago) with the photos today.</p>

<p>Bouncing flash is also difficult in this church, because of the high ceiling and earth/wood tones on the walls and ceiling. And, shooting at home is nothing like shooting in the church, unfortunately.</p>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>Hmm.. that is tough. What we like to do is get out our light difuser that we use out doors and put a flash behind it, or use the reflector to bounce. That might help. :) And then get a fill flash somewhere.</p>

[aimee_pieters]

<p>Steve,<br>

You need to get yourself higher. If you don't have enough time to work with the ladder and get up and down, you need help on the job. Either get a shooter to stay on the ladder or have someone else pose while you shoot.<br>

By the way, either show the entire cross or avoid it or get it out of there with photoshop....-Aimee</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Aimee, that image is a crop, just to show the glasses reflections. The full image shows the cross. Sorry I did not make that clear.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>You could try pointing your strobes to bounce off of nearby walls. You'd have to adjust your exposure for the reduced light.</p>

[jim kerr]

<p>Many years ago, when I was considering doing weddings as a serious buisiness. The thought occurred to me that I could get a collection of several dozen frames without the glass to have people wear during the photographing......no glass...no glare......Jim</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Steve, just use that lovely zoom of yours at FL = 12mm and stand way back . . .<br>

<br>

You know I rarely comment on lighting stuff . . . but given all the constraints you provided in the question I can not resist the challenge. <br>

<br>

Given your "rules", I would have killed the Fill altogether and moved the Key almost front-on and made it as high as possible (noted you only have about 8ft, I guess, and you were using all of it). I reckon that would have sufficed for most of the groups and greatly lessened the amount of Post Production time required.<br>

<br>

On another matter: the main reflection issue (in the sample provided) is the Male Subject, Camera left. <br>

<br>

I would not have necessarily asked him to drop his head: however I most likely would have distracted his attention. I think he most likely is a “Stiff-starch Photo-customer" (another highly technical Photographic term for your collection), he immediately becomes more upright for the photo, a distraction conversation usually makes this personality relax. I have found asking this type of person to "change their pose" does not often work as effectively or, more importantly, as quickly. <br>

<br>

And lastly I think the main moral to story - always carry small ladder, in boot of car. <br>

<br>

Cheers,<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

[steve_c.5]

<p>WW, all comments duely noted, fairly accurate, and greatly appreciated. Actually they were a pretty easy bunch of folks. I did have a 4' ladder, but as you note, it was in the boot of the car, and not where I needed it...underneath me. Much thanks!</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I should explain (but not to Steve) that my comment about using a very wide FL was referencing Steve's capacity to make really nice sweeping WA environmental Bridal Portraiture, some of which he has shared here. <br>

<br>

<br />***<br>

<br>

The main reason I commented, was I perceived that <em>time</em> was a big factor (i.e. lack of time - lot of arrangements - limited time). This was why I mentioned picking the personality type, and having a fix in place for such. <br>

<br>

Flow in managing the people for their photos and having predetermined arrangements and shot types, is important, too and I expect that was all under control in this case.<br>

<br>

In regard to the ladder, specifically its location and the inability to get to it because of the time constraints: have you thought of an Assistant perhaps for two or thee hours? <br>

<br>

The Bride's home and then the Church & Location Formals with an extra pair of hands is really helpful. Photography Students are ideal - I know it depends on what the local set up is, but I have had great success with Students - it is a bit of pocket money for them, they understand the technical vocabulary, it is a new experience, and 2 or 3 hours does not really eat into their social time on the weekend.<br>

<br>

To be clear, I mean a <em>Photographer's Assistant: </em>I.E. they are an helper who does the running and fetching and holding and . . . stuff. Such was common with film, they also loaded the cameras and filed the exposed rolls . . . <br>

<br>

I acknowledge that employment regulations and insurances and liabilities differ from country to country, but there is usually a suitable work around which can be found.<br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p > </p>