wwYd Different?

William Michael · April 27, 2009

"at least it does with his pants/stripe." . . . Yes, that is exactly to what I was referring

wedding-photography-denver · April 27, 2009

Gel your flash with CTO.

JohnWebster · April 27, 2009

I determined the shot to be overexposed by saving the original shot to my hard-drive and opening it in photoshop. Puttingthe eyedropper tool on the dress showed a RGB reading of 255, 255, 255 and the tux numbers were high (I forget what they were--in the 40s or higher. I did not measue the bride's shoulder but I bet it would read in the 240s. By setting the white for 240 and the tux for 20 the dress would not blow out and te contrast is better. Granted once the dress is blown out nothing is going to re-establish detail even if I adjust it to read 240----but at least the contrast of the scene is improved.

William Michael · April 27, 2009

John, thanks for responding. I too opened the original in Photoshop.

Given that the "original" (i.e. the image Kay posted) has been processed, do you think my logic and therefore my conclusion of underexposure when taking, could also be an optional correct interpretation? Or is there something I am not seeing that kills my theory completely?

I based my comments heavily on the "washed out" look of the blacks - as if they were "brought up" in post production, rather than "overexposed" in the original exposure, if that makes sense.

I'd appreciate your views . . . TIA

WW

JohnWebster · April 27, 2009

Kay, would you post the original non-adjusted image so that we can see how we would handle it? William W, if the original image was under-exposed it was lightened to the point of appearing over-exposed. The time to quit adjusting is while there is detail in the whites, which is between 235-240. Often when the white level is around 240 the blacks with some detail will be around 20-30. It not, adjust the blacks to 20-30. Beyond those numbers and you are asking for a trouble. With film overexposure could be handled at the lab (expose for the shadows, print for the high-lights). Digital is the oposite----expose for the high-lights and bring up the shadows because a slightly underexposed image can be lightened quite successfully. It is critical to learn how to use levels and curves in photoshop and not just go with what looks good on your monitor. Other tools such as hue/saturation can selectively clean up magenta and blue areas of the dress when those issues are present (I did not test this image for that).

William Michael · April 28, 2009

"William W, if the original image was under-exposed it was lightened to the point of appearing over-exposed." Oh yes, that was agreed / understood by me all along: I was not / am not arguing the toss with you on that bit . . . the image posted is overexposed, in that the whites are well blown. My original comment was about the taking of the image and the camera's exposure for that taking. Also, to be clear, I was not on about if either of us had a "right" or "wrong" interpretation . . . I just wanted to know if you "saw anything" more than I did. Yes, I understand about film and digital exposure techniques / and the latitudes and the differences therein. And I think the numbers you posted are a great idea.

Thanks agian. I actually want to play with the unprocessed image now :) WW

JohnWebster · April 28, 2009

Kay, so much has been said about your image becasue it is a good learning image on many levels. Technically speaking this image is a fine starting point. Upon closer inspection there is detail in the bodice. If all your shots are this close don't stress out how to improve it. At weddings there is too much other important stuff to be attentive to than only camera settings. The bounce flash directed light down onto the lower part of the dress reflecting right back to the camera thus blowing out the lower part of the dress---but the bodice is fine because its' reflection is diffused with beading or whatever. Your histogram reading would tell you all is well, and it is, but minior adjustment in photoshop still improves the image. I found no flault with mixed light sourses---tungsten, window light, bounce flash all seem to mix well. If you ever use a device that promises perfect white balance be careful with it. If a person is standing in the shade and you remove all of the blue-green color cast you will have strage skin tones. Minor color casts help confim the natualness of an image as long as your first reaction is not---eew, that looks green, or blue, or punpkin. Set your camera for the dominate kelvin temp of the scene and make minor adjustments later in photoshop. If I was determined to "get it in the camera" I might have a few more technically superb images but fewer "precise moment" images and photos with real purpose. Good luck with your learing.

peter_wang6 · April 28, 2009

As others have noted the problem with the color is that you've got a flash imparting its own temperature on the foreground subject, and the background chandelier (and the reflected light off the walls) imparting another temperature everywhere else. The result is that you can't achieve a uniform color balance throughout the image without selectively doing so. After the fact, you have to mask it.

The gel solution is the only fully correct one before the shot. If you match the flash temperature with the background lighting, then white balance in camera, the shot will be uniform. Otherwise, the result is necessarily a compromise in choosing a point somewhere in between the warm and cool temperatures in the two lighting sources.

That brings me to my second point, which is the question of whether it is even appropriate from a representational standpoint to try to achieve a neutral background lighting situation. The fact of the matter is that to a fair degree the chandelier is yellow, the walls are yellow. They are what they are, especially relative to the flash. If you make them appear white, then the result is not very natural at all. You can see this in a few of the color "corrected" edits above. Some of them almost look completely desaturated. Color is perceptual and relative and when it comes to wedding photography, usually the client wants something fairly representational of what they perceived. And to that end, it's important to make notes of difficult color situations like this, so that you can perhaps more faithfully adjust the end result in post-processing. Some of the edits so far have been quite good--correction is subtle but discernible, and not too extreme.

The composition and exposure are in themselves separate issues. Goes to show how this stuff isn't exactly a no-brainer. As a guest, I have found it slightly amusing when some fellow attendee (sometimes a relative!) with a big lens swaggers into a reception and brags about his megapixel count. It's also why I don't shoot weddings, and have much respect for those who can stand the chaos and stay cool under pressure.

William Michael · April 28, 2009

"whether it is even appropriate from a representational standpoint to try to achieve a neutral background lighting situation." . . . or even necessary from any artistic standpoint: the dance they are doing has a "warm" feel to it, yes? WW

Aside: “some fellow attendee with a big lens swaggers into a reception and brags about his megapixel count” . . . fell off my chair, reading that sentence.

StuartMoxham · April 28, 2009

I would do something like this. But I would rather shoot it like this in the first place than edit after..<div>

00TC6v-129099584.jpg.f5869c82154931355eb4ba92d0e5d966.jpg

</div>

ceesmaas · April 28, 2009

Agree with Stuart. B&W and distortion of the main subject looks muuuch better. You get more dancing movement in the image and don't miss the feet that much. Another option is to apply the phi-ratio for more balance, straighten the upside of the window and apply a pinch of edgarian blur to the disturbing background. You get something like this. A quick edit.

ujwal · April 28, 2009

I did some very small changes, created a dup. layer. on top, i placed the original image, on lower layer i changed the tone to match skin tone the best i could ...then i erased the top layer so the people have good skin tone while rest of the image goes very warm.

I then applied some vignette, some decrese in ambient light levels so eyes would focus on couple, very little (abt 0.6pixel) gaussian blur on background and cropped the image. The chandelier though beautiful competes with the couple in that composition so i had to remove it.

Cheers!<div></div>

missy_kay · April 28, 2009

Wow! This post got ridiculously huge from the last time I saw it lol.

Here is the original photo and you will see who was correct: <a href="

I love the black and white and think I will definitely stick with that for now and next time not necessarily include the chandelier. Stuart- I love your edit! very cute! And Gord's too.

For the extra strobes, I only have 1 extra which is a 430ex. I was just a guest at the wedding like Peter so politely guessed lol.

JohnWebster · April 28, 2009

Thanks for the original, Kay. Your original was under exposed as William mentioned. Your treatment gave it a bit more open feel in the adjusted image you posted. My version will be warmer---but this is all a matter of personal taste--and of what makes your client happy. <div>

00TCK7-129191584.jpg.65e5ee497d7692b899f586f7fbc04a9d.jpg

</div>

William Michael · April 28, 2009

The reason I nailed the fact (and also that I was fairly certain), the original (in camera) was underexposed, is that I see so much of this particular issue which is later attempted to corrected in Photoshop or a similar PP programme. (I still teach some High School Photog. and V.Arts and also do weekend Pro Seminars).

The biggest "tell" was the washed out density and general "feel" to the Dress Uniform the Officer is wearing.

This thread essentially asked what could be done better / differently regarding camera setting and lighting: my primary response was: use more light - it was underexposed.

All the other bits and pieces I wrote were basically enhancements - the main problem as I saw it from the outset was the image was underexposed and by more than a stop.

The point is, if the initial flash exposure was correct, the effect of the ambient light on the Dress and on the skintones, would have been much less – and the Gent’s Uniform would have looked crisp and rich. Granted the room would have still been “warm”, but likely the Photographer / Client might have been happy with those warm contrasting tones within the image, if the B&G were “crisper”.

***

If I may, (with John's permission) take these two quotes, out of context, and place them head to head, to make another very important point:

"Personally I detest fiddling in Photoshop . . . I like to get it as close to perfect on the neg (sorry in the file)."

and

"If I was determined to "get it in the camera" I might have a few more technically superb images but fewer "precise moment" images and photos with real purpose."

Marry these two thoughts and, IMO, there are some really good maxims:

. it is critical to get some things perfect in the neg . . . and it is also just as critical to capture the moment.

I firmly believe correct exposure, (and correct focus), at the time of execution are the critical which require attention to perfection.

Subject Blur can be compromised to facilitate capturing the moment: and even even focus, in some extreme circumstances can be compromised to capture the moment (I think of some great wartime images) . . . but correct exposure is the paramount technical element..

With correct exposure in camera, Photoshop and similar Programmes become creative tools of enhancement . . . and not crutches the Photographer becomes dependent upon, simply to repair errors.

WW

missy_kay · April 28, 2009

William...

Is your last name Wallace? Sorry I had to ask.

Anywho, What camera settings would you have used in this shot? I'm just curious because no one has really discussed that. Would you have shot in M? Honestly, I don't shoot in M that much because it takes too long for me to meter because I'm not used to it yet. I usually shoot in AV or TV. Thanks for all of your help!

William Michael · April 29, 2009

“Is your last name Wallace?”

No, but I dig Mel Gibson and I really liked the movie, I can only claim English roots – and according to my Cousin’ s Genealogy studies, my guess my Ancestors on one side were the type who eventually hanged, drew and quartered him.

***

“What camera settings would you have used in this shot?”

Firstly, note it is really easy to be an expert after the fact; secondly IMO, diagnosis (critique) is a really important and useful learning tool; thirdly, there are many ways to liberate Scotland, and just as many ways to capture a “grab shot” which conveys the emotion of the moment . . . and many of those ways will be “correct” (whatever that means, in this context).

That stated:

I can answer your questions two ways, so I will.

***

For the first answer: “how would I have set the camera to take exactly that shot with exactly that gear” (5D; 24 to 70F2.8L; Portable Flash unit, FL= 67mm Shot Specs: F4 @ 1/60s @ ISO400)

Yes. I very likely would have used “M” Mode. 95% of the images taken at Event Engagements, I use “M” mode.

I would have used the portable Flash on a quick release bracket and an off camera lead. Most likely I would have used a Bounce Card or perhaps something like a Soften – but probably a bounce card. I would have known that the Subjects were 18ft from me – I would have kept that Subject Distance and I would have computed the Flash Output for that distance. I would have focused on the Subjects and then recomposed, and I would have selected F5.6, (not F4 which was used) – with that distance and a using a 5D with a 24 to 70 set at FL = 67mm, F5.6 gives about 2ft more DoF – I like that. (4ft goes to 6ft approx). I would have used 1/125s or 1/160s: 1/60s Hand Held at 67mm is too dangerous with that large Chandelier possibly illuminating the back of the Bride’s head - and I see no reason to drag the shutter in that particular scene – the object seems to draw the Subjects out of the warm background with a soft Flash exposure.

The subjects are camera right – I do not like that – The Bride is facing away from the lens’s axis – I like that even less - but if forced to take that shot as is, then I would have to use my left hand to hold the camera and control the AF and Shutter Release, (I have AF selected to “*”) thus the 5D would be being used upside down. The flash bracket would be held out to camera right, with my right arm outstretched, and the bounce head pointed toward the subjects – my wrists are fairly well trained to aim and to be on target within Subject Distances, 12ft to 20 ft.

I find the effort is worth it, to get the Bounced Flash more perpendicular to the Subjects – especially as the key subject is facing away from the lens’s axis.

** Pls see below this post

***

On the second question: “What camera settings would you have used in this shot?”

I would have used “M” mode. I would have used a Prime Lens – on my 5D, most likely I would have chosen the EF35F/1.4L. But if you want a similar Perspective then the EF50F/1.4 would scrape in, just – but I would not like using it. I would have been mobile. I would have used an higher camera angle.

With a quick calculation from the original image (from the link) the room ambient is about 4 ½ stops down, on your exposure of F4 @ 1/60s @ ISO400, so that means, as I would be shooting Available Light, I would need about F1.4 @ 1/100s @ ISO1600, I would pull that easily with the 35F/1.4 on my 5D. For the same framing, I would be at about a Subject Distance = 9ft – which gives a very tight DoF, but it is doable.

But, I most likely would have taken out insurance and made one step backwards, to 12 ft., with the view to crop later. I know that the one step backwards with a 35mm on a 5D just about doubles the DoF at F/1.4.

I likely would have made the shot with the view to it being a B&W print.

***

Other bits and pieces:

On the FL of the lens which was used for the image in question, please note, in my first response on this thread I miscalculated, I wrote: “. re framing – if the wide FL is to be kept, then the Verticals need to be plumb – also because of the viewpoint relative to the corner of the room, the ceiling cornice needs to be better addressed”.

On first glance I thought the image was captured with about a 35mm lens, (relative to a 5D), in fact is seems that a 24 to 70 was used on a 5D, and it was set at 67mm.

What confused my first analysis was my addiction to the out of plumb windows and the ceiling cornice’s convergence – that lead me to think a wide lens was used . . . but I did not look at the compression in the image – it is obvious to me now, a wide lens was not used.

***

The data suggests that your Flash ETTL metering mode was set to “Evaluative”.

Please note that ETTL has two metering modes: “Evaluative” and “Averaging”.

“Evaluative” uses an automatic flash reduction, but “Averaging” does not. The choice between the two, is set by Custom Function 14 (CF-14) on the EOS5D

I mention this as I return to what I believe is the key the original problem: the shot in question is underexposed.

I suggest that:

the combination of “Evaluative” and the fact that likely the flash used was on camera, (thus not directly addressing the subjects at centre frame) contributed to the image being underexposed.

This assumes correct technical etiquette elsewhere.

As one might glean from my second response to “how would I shot this”: I am not married to a Flash Unit . . . nor am expert on the detailed workings of the EOS Flash Units, one of which I extrapolate was used for this particular shot.

I would therefore value opinions, on my theory specific to the initial problem with this particular image, from those who use these units and are knowledgeable of their intricacies and exploit all their little functions.

Thanks in advance.

***

Below are extracts from a recent coverage that is close to my hand, as I write. It is from a 50th Birthday. Perhaps these few images will illustrate and assist to understand my answer as to how I would have taken the shot in question.

Obviously the way we go about our Photography dictates the methods we use – if one wants, then term this: “Style”.

I like covering happy events. I want each of my images to convey that happiness. I endeavour to do that by me either capturing a moment of happiness between the subjects within the scene – or alternatively, capturing happiness conveyed from the subject, straight down the lens barrel to be recorded forever.

This second “style” of mine (point blank communication of joy, down the barrel of the lens), has sometimes been criticised as “snapshot-like”, when I capture on the hop: and when I use this technique for more formal portrait capture, it has been referred to as “too traditional”.

Both these criticisms are fine by me. The point is, this is the type capture I am paid to provide; it is what my customers like; and that is what, I believe I am good at, and I enjoy – so every one is happy.

I work quite close, most of the time. I use Prime lenses most of the time. I am not married to a Flash unit. For digital work I shot RAW + JPEG (L). I mainly run two cameras (dual format) and four lenses, on my person at all times. This describes, in simple terms, my way of working - just my way – neither right nor wrong.

I provide these pretty much random sample mages, to illustrate the how I would have shot the Wedding Dance: firstly with a Card Bounce Flash (but I could not find a really wide ¾ shot – as I stated I usually work close); and secondly, using Available Light.

All these samples are taken with my 5D.

All are shot on “M”, set to “Spot”. Manually computation of exposure, usually from two readings.

All are Full Frame Crop to 7x5.

All, (except #6 – slight soft focus added at edge) are JPEGS (L) straight out of the box, no PP, save for the B&W conversions, so yes, the shine on the forehead needs to be corrected – but I’ll bet my half day fee, it is not so completely blown in the RAW file that I cannot refine an acceptable image – ref: that I am so anal, about correct exposure.

The top five images are a 50F/1.4 at F8 through F11, ISO 100 and ISO 200 Bounce card on a Quick Release Bracket.

The middle two images are with a 70 to 200F/2.8L at F6.3 and F7.1 ISO 200 – with Flash and bounce card used.

Note: concerning these first seven images, (using my Bounce Flash Card), my previous comment about wanting my Subjects looking inward toward the lens’s axis. That means I had to move to get the shooting angle I wanted.

The last four images are with the 85F1.8 all are shot at F/1.8 in Available Light – the 5D was working ISO3200 – I am confident they all will hold to 11 x14 at arms length with a little dedicated Sharpening and minor PP Enhancement – though likely that enlargement will not be necessary – they were shot for inclusion in a 7x5 album.

WW <div></div>

William Michael · April 29, 2009

** Pls see below this post:

stsva · April 29, 2009

Kay, William W., and all other participants-

I'm neither a wedding shooter nor a professional photographer, but threads like this are why I check out the Wedding forum frequently - there's so much great information to be found here. Thanks!

savagesax · April 29, 2009

Sam, I think Kay got a whole book wealth of info on this one question! Most or all of them were in line of perfect answers. It just show you how many ways you can do the same thing!

fotografz · April 30, 2009

Right Bob, there is no right answer, only opinions.

Here's mine:

IMO, the human interest story lies with the expressions on the dancer's faces ... not necessarily in their feet or the empty floor which will comes along with showing the feet. I would not have shot this with the ambient light source so far away from the subject (which forces a wider view and less of the expression of love on their faces), but instead position myself to get the light source closer to the dancers so the overall warm coloration has a "source meaning" ... if it's warm we know why it is ... like including the sun in a sunset : -) OR ... not included it at all, and overpowering the ambient to achieve a proper color balance for flesh tone.

Here's a quick run at what I mean ... (note how the attentive girl in the background adds to the story ... not as apparent at 700 pixels wide, but would be in an 8X10). First one is just using basics in Photoshop (I moved the light source to demonstrate the compositional idea). Second one is just a one button action from Jeff Ascough's collection called "Dream" which crushes the blacks some, and adds a dream like diffusion while jacking up the vividness of the warm ambient coloration ... side benefit is that it eliminates any noise from lifting an underexposed shot like this. The last one is a B&W PS conversion for comparison.

-Marc

mark_tran · May 1, 2009

Here's my take. Tell me what you think.<div>

</div>

mark_tran · May 1, 2009

One more try. Didn't realize it was so big.<div>

00TEAV-130355684.jpg.6285ca95ff0b2f36d52c2728a01ccccb.jpg

</div>

Sign In

wwYd Different?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in