Outdoor photography...lighting techinques?

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>The sun has caused a harsh shadow on one of my subjects faces.(although photoshop does wonders...)I do not have an extra hand/assistant to hold a reflector...any tips for an extra hand?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure that it's fair to claim that the sun caused a shadow. The couple looks to be seated below some tree branches. Where there are branches, there are shadows. Where there are no branches, there are highlights. If you could have positioned them in a spot with more even lighting (i.e. ALL shadow), then you wouldn't have these differences in contrast.</p>

<p>Note 1: To be quite honest, in this case I don't find the contrast distracting. It's subtle and looks natural. I don't think you needed fill flash or diffusers for this shot. The exposure is very good, as well.</p>

<p>Note 2: IMHO, the tipping angle of the composition is more distracting than the shadows. I also don't like the fact that you clipped off the top of the structure in the background. The people themselves look fine.</p>

[aopstudio]

<p>Tim,<br>

I usually do not weigh in on these debates but I do find this interesting. Even as I read your comments I could almost guess your age. I too will be hitting 60 June of this year. Now perhaps is my lack of ability in selling my expertise as a photographer but things from a client standpoint seems to have changed dramatically in the last 5 years or so. I used to work with Mamiya RZ's. Working outdoors I would set up my composition, lighting and all, create a Polaroid for review by the client and then go on with several different poses from there. (The majority of my portraiture is high school seniors and families) I was pretty happy with the results and most of the clients were delighted. Along came the digital revolution which I never thought would be accepted by the professional photography community. I kind of ignored the medium which to me was a bit like working with 35mm film at the time. I kept working my way, I also insist on pre-bookings with all clients so I know what they have in mind. I watched my sales numbers decline in spite of what I thought was a more creative and soul capturing portrait. So I did a little checking with the students I was working with and found this out. I had become the one who did really nice work but was not cutting edge and I quote "I took like forever". I used to love it when I would here parents say "you did such a nice job of capturing my (son daughter, family) which is what I thought a Portrait is supposed to do, not make them look like something they saw on TV. I have since gone completely digital. Yes I can still do the same work I did with the Mamiya but I now have the option of going crazy with program and AF and all of that. Is that a good thing? Well the artist in me is not very happy but the accountant in me is much more pleased. Again, maybe I just bought into it but it seems things have to be done much faster to keep the clients happy. I look at prints from years ago and they are very different from what I am doing now but sales are slowly coming back from the brink. I realize I have rambled here but I guess where I am going is, I use fill flash and back lighting, kind of a quick and dirty setup and most everybody, but maybe me, seems very happy with it. Would I be criticized by another photographer? Maybe but they don't pay my bills. I have been doing this as my only source of income for the last 22 years for whatever that may be worth from a credability standpoint.</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Hi, Roland.</p>

<p>I would not disagree with anything you have written. I do think that it is still possible to make up to date stylistic work with the types of location lighting we are discussing. It just takes advance preparation to make it happen and happen quickly.</p>

<p>I started noticing the same kinds of changes in market requests about the time that MTV came to be back in the eighties (?). The kids back then were asking for the same kind of imagery that they were starting to see on music videos and in the teen magazines and it was very necessary to keep up with those trends and add those kinds of images as well as the tried and true standard things for mom and dad and grandparents. The most fun was when Madonna came out with "Vogue". I loved working with that kind of imagery.</p>

<p>Going digital (about which I was and still am uncomfortable but participating) is just part of that same move forward. Since every senior is getting tons of images from friend's cell phones and simple point and shoot cameras, and many of those images are superior to a lot of what passes for professional senior portraits nowadays; plus they can print them from their home computers or kiosk printers at Walmart, etc., we've gotta keep up and try to stay ahead. Most of my day by day work now has evolved toward architecture and product (mostly due to the fact that those are bid out and you can plan your accounting because you know ahead of the shoot what you will earn), but portraits are still on the menu and get a good response. <br>

Several of my local portrait photographer friends are moaning about the state of marketplace, but it does constantly evolve and we've got to be there with it or die.</p>

<p> </p>

[r_smith2]

<p>Wow!</p>

<p>Tim please do not take this personally but you are a curmudgeon and cantankerous on more levels than just the issue of fill flash. Those are your words to describe yourself and not mine but I couldn't agree with you more. I <strong>never, ever</strong> want to reduce myself to putting words into your mouth again! ;-)</p>

<p>My comment about you being an "Old Dog" was ment in respect not as a personal issue or attack and I appologize if you took it as such. I stand by my comment though about your "<strong>narrow minded</strong> attitude towards "On Camera" flash and those individuals who choose to use it" especially since it seems so contradictory to several comments you make in your posts as I will point out below. I think any one reading your comments in your posts <strong>might</strong> come to the same conclusion. If you took that as being a personal attack you are a lot more thin skinned than a curmudgeon or contankerous person should be. ;-)</p>

<p>My comment <em>"All the Wedding, Runway, Swimsuit and Porn photographers, who use "On Camera" flash must be doing something right because according to your philosophy they should be shot and quartered or at the least be broke with no job prospects. The fact that so many people make money and create great photographs with "on camera" flash proves that someone likes the look and is buying it."</em> is my sarcastic sense of humor comming out and I appologize again that you took this so personally that you felt compelled to issue this statement to me <em>"It is sad if my beliefs and practices seem to rattle your perceptions so badly that you must now get personal, but please do not let what is a great and highly constructive debate degenerate into personality issues and <strong>never, ever</strong> reduce yourself into putting words into my mouth again."</em></p>

<p>So as not to reduce myself by putting words into your mouth I will use your comments to point out your contradictive statements from here on: <br /><em></em><br /><em>"I will state my opinion categorically, <strong>that the worst invention in the history of photographic lighting, is the on-camera flash</strong>. It is the ultimate destruction of creative lighting. (<strong>Yes , it is needed in candid situations like weddings</strong>, but off camera at an angle to the subject is better even if it is still lacking in delicacy.)"</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"Eventually for weddings,<strong> I used</strong> two of the 283's for all posed groups, <strong>one on camera as fill</strong> and the other on a tall stand off to the bride's side for the main. <strong>Worked well then and still did a year ago</strong> (after 20 years without doing any weddings) for my step sister's wedding. Nice clean light, perfect 3-1 ratio, but not creative lighting as we are really discussing."</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"You strongly accuse me of be close minded <strong>regarding on camera flash</strong> and yet I have stated very clearly that I not only respect your choice to use it, <strong>but also practice it myself when it is appropriate</strong>."</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"Okay, time for the other side to weigh in."</em></p>

<p>I'm the sucker who bit. I <strong>weighed in</strong>.</p>

<p>This was never a "<strong><em>highly constructive debate" </em></strong>as you contended because I agreed with you on 99% of what you said about light and lighting (and still do) except that 1% that "On Camera" flash could not produce quality or creative lighting. I just <strong>weighed in</strong> on your comments about "On Camera" flash because you seemed so contradictory on this issue your self. The real debate seems to be with yourself. All one has to do is read your comments above.</p>

<p>If you thought this: ( "<em><strong>the worst invention in the history of photographic lighting, is the on-camera flash</strong>. <strong>It is the ultimate destruction of creative lighting"</strong></em> ) then why on earth do you use it? I know I am confused by these contridictions.</p>

<p>I am also confused as to why you can you reduce yourself to put words in my mouth but I can <strong>never, ever</strong> reduce myself to put words in yours! I said you were "Narrow Minded" not "Close Minded".</p>

<p>My comment: <em>"What I disagree with you about is your <strong>narrow minded</strong> attitude towards "On Camera" flash and those individuals who choose to use it"</em></p>

<p>Your Comment: <em>"You strongly accuse me of be <strong>close minded</strong> regarding on camera flash and yet I have stated very clearly that I not only respect your choice to use it, but also practice it myself when it is appropriate."</em></p>

<p>I also did not realize that I stated this <strong>strongly</strong> as I thought I just made a simple observation.</p>

<p>I am also confused about where you mentioned <strong>respect</strong> about <strong>my choice to use "On Camera" flash.</strong> Could you point me to that quote. All I keep coming up with is the following quote in regards to "On Camera" flash.</p>

<p>Your comment: <em>"Thanks for the back up on this issue. I can't agree more with your last sentence."</em> (Kevin D's last sentence:<em> "I will even go a point further in saying, the on cam flash was intended for those who do not have the time, patience nor inclination to work with what they have..some call this laziness. ;)"</em>)</p>

<p>As I stated earlier I am sure there are alot of really great Wedding Photographers, who use "On Camera" flash competently and professionally, who have taken that comment personally and did not appreciate literally being called lazy. This seemed to me to show a lack of respect to anyone who uses "On Camera" flash, both correctly and in the appropriate situations, and although you did not make the comment you agreed with it.</p>

<p>Like I said I am the sucker who <strong>weighed in</strong> on your invitation to comment on your remarks about "On Camera" flash. I personally found nothing constructive about our posts and I am sure there are others who feel the same way. There was no <em><strong>"healthy</strong> <strong>debate"</strong></em> nor can anything constructive come from any future posts on this issue.</p>

<p>I have stated my last thoughts above and have said all that I am going to say on this matter. Hopefully I have not made any more sarcastic comments that could be construed as personal attacks or reduced myself to putting words into anyones mouth. If I have I appologize.</p>

<p>By the way Tim my first name is Randy.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>I use on-camera flash only as a last resort. I doubt if it is used much in studio or in the movie industry. The reason, the quality of the light. Any strobists want to chime in on the merits of on-camera flash? Nope, they are off camera junkies. If I have the time and gear to have precise control of one of lights qualities, direction, I use it. Also, diffusion is a light characteristic and how much softness can you get from a 6 square inch flash. Compare it with say my 6'3" diameter parabolic, 4,415 square inches. A difference in softness? Another characteristic of light is intensity. That little bugger is puny with limited control. Not a 1600 that turns day to night. I will praise the speedlight for the inexpensive sample gels for the color characteristic of light. Beats $5 a sheet for my studio gear. Cassandra, as one becoming follically challenged, I prefer no highlights to pull attention to my dome and no glare either. There is a highlight on the top of the mans head. Lean them back so top of head is in shade portion of this dappled light as well. Or, I see other folks in the bg, grab a passerby and hand them a 42 inch diffuser. If the gazebo structure is integral to the image, I would move the camera position right to get it off the top of their heads and possible get a less cluttered bg without all those street lamps. I would use a gold reflector to take up the exposure on them and fill the shadows allowing you to take the bg darker. If I Was taking this shot from scratch, I'd erect 4 light stands holding 3 scrims or black panels(to make Tim smile). then shoot in a studio strobe in soft box set to take up their exposure a stop or two over the bg taking down the bg and place an off camera flash snooted on the other side of them rimming only the kiss-not the whole head. I dont know if that is all, I start getting creative once the first set up is in place. A far cry from on camera flash and running to the next shot. But my time and goal may be different than Randys. I have great respect for pj's and wedding folks. Runnin and gunnin. Tims work is gorgeous, a master at his craft. Heres an example using the 60 year old canvas top on this WWII jeep in place of the scrims. (Im listening, Tim and as Clint said, adapting) Same idea with the gelled, snooted speedlight. Softbox front kicked up enough to overpower the sickly green museum lights and throw the surrounding clutter into inky shadow. Here, rather than emphasizing the kiss with the back light, was emphasizing the 50's hair and wardrobe with rim and separating from the dark bg. What would this have looked like with fill flash only? Cluttered vehicles all around in typical museum light, and flat boring front light on the subject. </p><div></div>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>"R",</p>

<p>My Daddy taught me a very long time ago that getting into a pissing contest with someone just gets you both wet, so this ends here and now....with great disappointment on my part!</p>

<p>If anyone else wishes me to address any part of R's last response, please re-post the part or parts you want to see a response to under your own heading, and I will be glad to do so, but I will not participate in someone else's anger like this. As I said in my last post, when it gets personal, nobody wins and I don't go there. </p>

<p>So, Randy, It was nice to meet you through this thread, I wish we could have had a constructive debate face to face and become friends over our obvious mutual love of photography, but it is time to turn you loose to your own thoughts. And, I would still love to see your site and your work. I am always happy to learn from any source.</p>

<p>God Bless and good luck.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

[r_smith2]

<p>Tim</p>

<p>I do not know why you feel I am angry. I am not now nor was I ever angry but I was very confused as to the contridictions in your statements as I pointed out. I have also been very puzzled at your interpretations of what you thought were such strong personal attacks on you by me. You also leveled a very strong admonishment towards me as well so in my last post I responded to your post to explain myself and address each position the best I could. It seems that you are the one who has gotten angry with me. We just have different ways of expressing ourselves and how we interpret the intent of what the other is saying.</p>

<p>Like most things we agreed on 99% it was just that 1% that "On Camera" flash could not be used creatively, artistically or could be used to produce quality light (what ever was that original argument I have since forgotten) is what this is all about. Neil Van Neikerk as well as so many other great wedding photographers have proven that "On Camera" flash can be used creatively, artistically and can produce quality light.</p>

<p>Yes Tim I wish we could have sat down face to face because one reads too much between the lines as to what the other is saying. I felt like through out our "debate" you took alot of what I said out of context plus ripped it to shreds but I never took it personally even though there were a few of your statements that I felt were little jabs intended by you to be personal.</p>

<p>Yes Tim I am tired of getting wet and you can rest assured than in the future I will never respond to another of your posts.</p>

<p>Yes Tim you are a very good photographer and I which in my 30 years as an avid amateur photographer I had a portfolio 1/4 as good as yours. This never was about comparing portfolios but one simple little premice that has gotten way more attention than it deserved.</p>

<p>I felt you baited a debate and I was the sucker who <strong>weighed in</strong>. You threw out some pretty flamatory remarks prefaced by the type of personality one would be dealing with if one responded to those remarks. I should have sat back and let you have your day in the sun along with all the other Sunpack and Vivitar stomping individuals but I stood up and voiced an opinion. It was an opinion that was never given respect by you because you had already formed an opinion to the contrary and was just looking for someone to challenge it.</p>

<p>I have tried to appologize to you as well as defend my position in my last post but it seems you took that personally as well so I will not try and do so again. I will let others read our exchanges and judge for themselves. I do appologize to Cassandra and all the others who have witnessed this.</p>

<p>"R"</p>

[anthony_bridges]

<p>Wow. Didn't realize this was such a hot topic. I shoot strobist and love it. I try not to shoot bare flash for fill but I have to sometimes. </p>

<p>Cassandra,<br>

An umbrella stand, shoe mounted flash and transmitter is really light weight. It would've filled out your couple's kiss and provided some good pop. Also, you can place a reflector on a stand and weigh it down with a sand bag if windy. Easy stuff. Visit <a href="http://www.strobist.com">www.strobist.com</a>. They have a plethora of information to get you started.</p>

<p>Also, I have to agree about recomposition. There kiss should be the world and everything else should compliment it. Shooting lower would make them grander in the frame although you have to be cognizant of double chins, etc.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>It's clear, to me anyway, that it is possible to create great images with on camera flash. For example the image on the cover of the on camera flash book linked above. What do you think of it? Certainly there are many more like this one. On camera flash is just a tool like any other that we can choose to use or not depending on the situation.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>An illuminating discussion. I detect some strong opinions you have unleashed here, Cassandra. You have no assistant to hold a reflector? Poor baby, me neither. If you can move your subjects to open shade, you got natural reflector or the sun to where it comes in at an angle and not up where it is a spot source throwing big shadows. I see no problem with using fill flash, as long as the picture does not reveal that the flash was the primary source ( of course there are exceptions to that too) . There is something about under tree canopies that is appealing. Trees are friendly, and if the person or persons are not looking into the sun or a bright object the squint is less. Late day or god forbid early in the AM are good times to pick. But you knew that already. We are all dogmatic, so why not a little dogma now and then, if it comes with the territory. Good luck, Cassandra. aloha, gs</p>

[andresa]

<p>Each year I cover about 30 weddings, and maybe another 8 or 12 magazine layouts. All of them are unassisted. I work with the light I find. Sometimes that happens to be the light on my camera. I have no doubt that flash, especially on camera, is one of the most misunderstood and abused tools ever to have left the workshop. I would guess over 90% of people using flash today have no idea how to get the most from it.</p>

<p>Good light depends on four things. Direction, diffusion, intensity and shadow. All of these can be produced with on camera flash, but not by aiming it at the subject. Reflection from other surfaces gives direction and diffusion. Controlling the power ratio and focusing the light gives intensity. Aiming the light source and adjusting its direction in relation to the lens gives the shadow. The expert uses the flash with another light source - either the sun, or ambient light - so they get a good light ratio in the picture.</p>

<p>All tools have potential. Frequently it is the user of the tool who does not.</p>

<p> </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>When the sun is high, and the occasion does not even permit fooling around and you don't want to use flash, one can still get an acceptavble shot. I took this one of my neighbor with his new car using a new to me camera that my wife bought, the Lumix G-1. Frankly, I hadn't learned how to set it for fill flash. I only had to tinker with the curves just a little bit in PS, but very little. What saved the day was the carport roof,which blocked that direct sun even high in the sky. It took only a minute to move to that location. Sometimes it works sometimes not. I think I caught the personality of a really great fellow and friend.</p><div></div>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Beautiful, Gerry. Subtractive lighting at its very best.</p>