Natural light, Flash, Reflector?

[rob_piontek]

<p>I'd like to know what you do with lighting for your couple shoots. Would be great to see some examples, too. I started learning using off camera flash, and still use it often. One umbrella off to the side. Here's an example....</p><div></div>

[rob_piontek]

<p>More and more though I look for good natural light. When you can find it, it's great. Here's another example of a natural light shot...</p><div></div>

[rob_piontek]

<p>What I don't like about flash is that it's kind of a pain. More gear, an assistant helps, sync speeds to worry about, flash power not enough, batteries dying. Natural light gets around all of these, but you are far more limited as to where you can shoot. Maybe if I was better with natural light I would be better at finding it.</p>

<p>As far as reflectors, I haven't really used them. I have one, but I found it to be not as useful as flash. But, I was at a seminar this past weekend where one of the big brands was promoted. I have to admit, they seem pretty nice. You don't have to worry about sync speeds or recycle times anymore, which is great. But, you must have an assistant.</p>

<p>What's your favorite? How about some examples?</p>

[c._f.]

<p>Rob,<br>

I use flash 99% of the time. It is my <em>natural light</em> that I manipulate to draw my image. I use reflectors to again, direct/manipulate LIGHT in the way I want to. I love catchlights. Thus if I can't get them outdoors or something close to it at that 1%, I go back to my 99% - using flash and umbrellas.<br>

Learning portrait lighting takes time but it is a skill that turns good photographers into great photographers. Learn it and use it - so you make few $ less but your images will be FAR better. Generally, outdoors lighting is pretty flat, by using your umbrellas, you can ACCENT your subject.<br>

Assistant:I think it is a bit foolish to shoot a wedding w/o an assistant. Then again, I come from film and back then besides lighting, my assistant was loading and unloading film backs. Can I shoot a wedding w/o an assistant?- YES; do I?- VERY rare if I know the people, and I know they are on a tight budget and I feel bad for them. I have shot for free before but charged for assistant. In my case, a <strong>good</strong> assistant is an asset thus I use one 99% :) of the time<br>

Sorry, got no examples. They are property of studios.</p>

<p>Adam</p>

[Spearhead]

<p><em>They are property of studios.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

Surely the studios have web sites you can point to.</p>

 

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd like to know what you do with lighting for your couple shoots.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There are times when external flash is of great benefit, even looks natural when used properly..and there are other times when it is not needed.</p>

<p>I'm in the camp with the poster above...I use additive flash quite often; not because there is a lack of light, but rather to control the light.<br>

I've found very few natural light settings I like unless some sort of modifier is used.<br>

It isn't the lack of light, but the quality of natural light.<br>

External flash more often than not will improve natural light.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>I use what I need to get the job done! A photograph is all about the light and how you make that light work to your advantage. Now the more people you have to work with, the easier that is! But understanding light is the key. My Photo.net gallery (http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=5233527) is all off-camera flash, no assistant. I do much prefer an assistant! The first image below is with a diffuser. My assistant got between the sun and the subject as best she could given our location. You can see in the lower right where the diffuser isn't covering our groom- thereby showing you the powerful effect a diffuser can have. This shot was even shot with fill flash but outside, competing with open sunlight, my shoe mount flash is barely adding anything, the catchlights are very small. </p><div></div>

[john_deerfield]

<p>In this shot, it's a QFlash on a stick shooting through an umbrella. In this shot I clipped the corner of the umbrella.</p><div></div>

[john_deerfield]

<p>And here is a shot where I got the angle wrong (don't worry I re-took it). But in this case, I have someone behind be holding a reflector and I bounce my shoe mount flash into that.... look at the reflections in the marble. This greatly increases the size of your light source thus softening shadows and giving me excellent catchlights! I could go on, but as already said, it's about modifying your light, whatever that is, to your advantage.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>I use natural light when it is beautiful. I don't get to use it as often as I like, because as I've said before, the sun shines a lot where I am, and many times, clients want a particular background. I use flash when I need to balance subject exposure with backgrounds, or vice versa. I also use flash at a very low power to help even out blotchy ambient light--hopefully very subtle fill (it also helps keep green casts from grass off skin and keeps color balance closer to daylight). Here are some examples.</p>

<p><br />In the first one, I've actually used a directional key light and fill light, although the latter is dialed way back. It was getting to be dusk and the location was ringed by tall trees, so mainly, I was getting 'down light'. My key light is a Sunpak 120J, which has a parabolic reflector. It was bare here, and pulled quite a bit back, and while there isn't a huge difference, there is a difference in the quality of light from a bare shoemount flash. I generally find that an umbrella outside does not make much difference unless you can get it pretty close to your subjects--something that is harder to do for group shots.</p>

<p>The second one is flash all the way, when it comes to exposure on the subjects. Do I like the cast shadows on the lawn--no way! But the view through the trees is the focal point for this location, and the view is lit by bright sun. I also would not have gotten the slight hint of pink or glow in the sky if I didn't expose for the sky. Now, you could avoid shooting this kind of scene entirely and shoot all of the images (once the sun went down behind the trees) with very slight fill flash or no flash, with higher ISO, but you would not be getting that focal point at all. At times, one needs to put aside aversion to flash to fulfill the client's probable desire to be photographed with the location's focal point, or desired background.</p>

<p>The third is ambient light with a tiny bit of flash. I was careful to face them toward what remained of light reflected from the sky nearest where the sun went down.</p><div></div>

[missy_kay]

<p>99.99983% natural light with couple shots</p>

[c._f.]

<blockquote>

<p>I use flash when I need to balance subject exposure with backgrounds, or vice versa. I also use flash at a very low power to help even out blotchy ambient light--hopefully very subtle fill (it also helps keep green casts from grass off skin and keeps color balance closer to daylight)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Plus you get to accent the couple and separate THEM from gorgeous natural light that is <strong>FLAT</strong><br>

<strong><br /> </strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>99.99983% natural light with couple shots</p>

</blockquote>

<p>so your lighting is flat as a board? Where is the glamor in that? :)</p>

<p>Adam</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><strong>CF</strong> aka Adam, Take a moment and google: short light, broad light, and flat light and you'll find the answer to "Where is the glamour in that". Flat lighting is frequently a good thing and is often used in glamour photography.......for specific reasons.</p>

<p>Rob, in your first image above using an umbrella at the side of the couple you've blown out the sky.....why? Seems like many people claim it's a matter of personal taste or "style", but honestly, I just don't get it.</p>

<p>In answer to the question: Natural light, flash, reflector? The answer is "yes" but you also need to add diffusion, scrims, and flags. In the engagement images below, the first is natural light, notice that the sky and the water both contain color. The bottom image is from the same area but underneath the bridge which now served as a flag/scrim and I've added fill flash on the subjects.</p><div></div>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Actually that first image is something different from me, but they wanted pictures by the water and I was happy to do them. I always try to avoid the sky. I feel that if you try to bring the sky down too far you need a main and a fill, which I feel is not worth the time (with me working alone on wedding day), and the foreground/background tend to be too dark overall if you balance with the sky. So I look for shade, add the umbrella, and I generally get good ratio of ambient fill with the umbrella as main. But I am not an expert and don't claim to be, just my personal take on it.</p>

<p>I love that first picture. And I know the couple do to. How many non-photographers look at an image of themselves and say, oh, nice, but you blew out the sky? Not very many. You're taking pictures of people, not the sky.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"I love that first picture. And I know the couple do to. How many non-photographers look at an image of themselves and say, oh, nice, but you blew out the sky? Not very many. You're taking pictures of people, not the sky."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Then tell me what's the point of posting the image to a forum which caters specifically to photographers? What's the point of off-camera flash? If you think the problem is working alone and being pressed for time, the above images were done alone and the time it takes to get the exposure settings right is about the same time it takes to set them improperly. If you want some serious instruction in location lighting you might want to try this: <a href="http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/shop.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Product_Code=LLT028&Category_Code=DVD">http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/shop.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Product_Code=LLT028&Category_Code=DVD</a></p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>I'm not impressed with your samples, to tell you the truth. You didn't need to tell me how you lit either of them, it's obvious and I don't care for either.</p>

<p>We just have different styles and care about different things. It's art, after all. If you think my shot sucks because the sky is blown out, fine. I appreciate hearing your opinion, whether I agree or not. It makes me think about it again.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>To be fair, flat light is not limited to ambient or natural light--in fact, one of the big criticisms of on camera flash is the resulting flat light. Personally, I look at the contrast range between background and subjects when evaluating a scene, and the pattern of light on faces. If the contrast range between background and subjects is too great--so that one blows out or there is no detail at all, I will most often use fill flash to balance. The fill flash does not have to be flat--in fact, you can create directional fill or create directional key, which is why I made my lightstick, mentioned in a previous thread, as mobile as I did.</p>

<p>When the contrast range is not so great that one end of the scale or the other blows out, I will go with no flash or very subtle flash. In fact, when the contrast range is narrow, fill flash looks pretty bad, as it flattens out the light and destroys the beauty of the ambient light. Below, I show such a scene with flash and then without any flash. The first, flashed example looks pretty bad to me.</p>

<p>The second row of images of the bride shows two images shot without flash. I wouldn't call the lighting flat. Again--fairly narrow contrast range. There are spots of sun, and where they show, the dress is blown, but they don't bother me in this case.</p>

<p>I realize I didn't really answer the question re reflectors--I don't use them, because I work alone, plus in brighter light, they make subjects squint.</p>

<p>One should know when to add light or leave it alone. If you say that you use ambient light or flash all of the time--that is troubling. Even more troubling is if the reason is that one doesn't know how to use ambient light or flash to the fullest.</p><div></div>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>We just have different styles and care about different things. It's art, after all.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>OK...deep breath here...settle down...take it easy and CHILL!</p>

<p>Rob,<br>

We photographers are a peculiar breed. Many photogs feel threatened when another photog is shooting nearby or covering a event or whatever. Pretty normal stuff. We wonder how <strong>THEY</strong> are shooting it, what f/stop, what lens etc...<br>

If someone's comments upset you concerning your photography, you've chosen the wrong hobby/career.</p>

<p>Constructive criticism is not always constructive when coming from other photogs. As soon as you realize this and discern the difference, you will do better as a shooter. Example: I participated in a discussion here a while back. Someone was bemoaning the rating system here.<br>

This amused me for (2) reasons.<br>

1) "One man's trash is another man's treasure"<br>

2) I received a VERY low rating on one of my photos. The same photo took a 2nd place in a juried pro exhibition.</p>

<p>Photography IS <em>subjective</em>..not <em>objective</em>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>and care about different things. It's art, after all</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em></em><br>

True & true Rob.</p>

<p>I care about earning a living from photography; therefor I also care about the biz aspect of photography which has ZERO to do with photography.<br>

If I cared about being artistic, I'd probably starve.<br>

You need to learn what <strong>you</strong> care about.</p>

<p>Your initial question is a fair one if your intent was to learn.<br>

Producing quality photography in the wedding arena really isn't all that difficult, but does take some time in and out of the studio.<br>

If we are fair & honest, I see little difference between the work of one shooter Vs the other if both have been at it a while when it comes to wedding shoots..after a while they all seem to plateau where good enough is good enough. Where this point occurs, only you can know...it's different for each of us.<br>

I'm not speaking about the VERY few shooters who work in the rarfied air with gigantic budgets to buy props, hit the top exotic locations etc...</p>

<p>It's all art in one way or another.<br>

I see three motivations in art.</p>

<p>1) Do you like it?<br>

2) Do others like it?<br>

3) Can I sell it?</p>

<p>One & two often go together.<br>

Number three is a whole new animal.<br>

If I've said this once I've said it a million times.</p>

<p><em>I've seen technically excellent shooters who can't earn a dime in photography.</em><br>

<em>I've seen mediocre shooters who earn great money.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

So relax, settle down..have fun shooting.<br>

Improve when you can and take criticism as though you were eating chicken,<em> "Enjoy the meat and spit out the bones."</em></p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>BTW, the argument that you need to have an assistant in order to use a reflector is simply not accurate. I've always got a small reflector in my bag that I can use in several images with one hand while I hold the camera and get the shot in the other.. Often I'll use a mom or a bridesmaid as an extra hand when I'm using window lighting for a bridal portrait. I have a larger flex-out reflector in my portable lighting supply bag that can be handheld by an assistant or a handy bystander but also can be attached to a light stand.....similar to: <a href="http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/HL7010/?t=GB01&a=CA01&CAWELAID=264895950">http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/HL7010/?t=GB01&a=CA01&CAWELAID=264895950</a></p>

<p>Use of reflectors, speedlites, scrims, flags, gobos, diffuser panels, etc... are tools of the trade. The real question is not "if" but "how & when".</p>

[silverdae]

<p>On the blown out sky issue... if someone <em>chose </em> to blow out the sky, fine. If someone says they blew out the sky because they don't know how to <em>not </em> blow out the sky, not fine. I get tired of people trying to cover up lack of technical knowledge with the "its art" line. Seriously. Style is one thing, but lack of ability is another. <br>

I'm not saying the OP lacks the technical knowledge, nothing of the sort. I know nothing of the OP's ability and skill. I have been around the block enough times, though, to have met plenty of people who use the "art" line as a cover. I hope the OP is not one of them. </p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Ok, here is another example from me. Here the all white umbrella is between the couple and the sun. It would be better if the umbrella was bigger, you can see where it wasn't big enough. The great thing about the umbrella in this way is you can use the sun to light the background, which gets you great color, it keeps your couple from squinting, and you can bring up the exposure on the couple from what you would get with just a diffusor. Of course you could use a building or bridge or whatever instead of the umbrella to block the sun, but sometimes you don't have one of those.</p>

<p>Actually I got the idea to do this from here on photo.net some time back. Saw a really nice portrait by somebody in one of the threads I posted, I think. Thank you!</p><div></div>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Actually though I started the post because I want to get better at finding good natural light (no flash). Here is a shot from this weekend, complete with blown out sky. It's my wife, so of course I love it! Anyway I like the light in this shot. It's flat on her face, but I like it. The thing is I have a hard time knowing where the light will be good. In principle I should be able to look around and see where the light is coming from, but I don't find it so easy. Probably it just takes practice.</p><div></div>

[rob_piontek]

<p>And here's another of my wife where I find the light is amazing. The thing is I didn't know it until I looked at the image on the screen.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>Rob--the bottom image looks nicer because there is soft, directional light on the subject. The reason there is directional light on the subject is because she is against a wall, and there is possibly an overhang over the wall. The overhang would cut out overhead light from hitting the subject, cutting out the possibility of racoon eye shadows, which is what is usually wrong with overcast sky images or images taken out in the open. The wall acts as both a 'cutter' and a reflector in this case. With all that 'cutting', what remains is directional light coming in from the right of the subject's face, which forms a pattern close to the classic short lighting.</p>

<p>I'd recommend that you look up 'subtractive lighting' and also study classic portrait lighting patterns. Here is a book that covers some of that.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lighting-Outdoor-Location-Portrait-Photography/dp/1584282096/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259633504&sr=1-27#noop">http://www.amazon.com/Lighting-Outdoor-Location-Portrait-Photography/dp/1584282096/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259633504&sr=1-27#noop</a></p>

<p>It will also help you to take your wife out again and photograph her in various lighting situations, noting the results. It can help, when looking at a scene to determine it's suitability, to make a fist with one hand and hold it up in front of you so that the light striking it is the same as how you'd put the subject's face. Note where the shadows fall, and the contrast.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"Actually though I started the post because I want to get better at finding good natural light (no flash)..........The thing is I have a hard time knowing where the light will be good. In principle I should be able to look around and see where the light is coming from, but I don't find it so easy. Probably it just takes practice." -RP</em><br>

<em></em><br>

No, it doesn't take practice, it takes an understanding of light. Photography is all about the light, capturing it and modifying it which starts with three basic light modifiers, aperture, shutter speed and ISO. When the quality of the available light is good enough for these alone you'll have a nice natural light image. Then, there are additional tools in the form of reflectors, speedlites, diffuser panels, scrims, etc.... to compensate for those times when you need to do more to modify (add/subtract) the light. The key is to understand all the tools and not limit yourself to just a few. A good cabinet maker can likely do a nice job with just hand tools but a master craftsman can appreciate a good set of power tools and put them to good use.</p>

<p>Nadine's book recommendation above looks like a good one. The DVD I recommended above provides several hours of solid outdoor location lighting information. If you can find some of Dean Collin's lighting VHS tapes, those are quite good as well.</p><div></div>