lighting setup for formals

[william-porter]

<p>Thanks for the comments on the photo. Very helpful. Actually, I took another photo of a different group of a couple of dozen kids (there are about 60 being confirmed) and slowed the shutter down to 1/90th sec, and had better results. I didn't post that because it was a bit more embarrassing for reasons that had nothing to do with exposure.</p>

<p>I will do some more practice this afternoon and use my flash meter to test the results. I didn't do that last night.</p>

<p>The candidates tonight won't be wearing gowns. It'll be worse than that—more like a wedding formal. It's my understanding that the girls will be wearing dresses and the boys will be wearing suits.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I'd say--if you aren't setting up off camera flash, a bit more shutter drag, and get higher, so your flash is instantly that much higher, so it lights the back rows more. You might even use an off camera shoe cord and hold it up with your hand. A flash bracket at the highest position could also help. These are two things you can do to improve a shot without off camera flash helping. If you get higher, I wouldn't use a wider focal length, because then you'd be getting into body distortion.</p>

 

[william-porter]

<p>Nadine says: <br>

<em><strong>I'd say--if you aren't setting up off camera flash, a bit more shutter drag, and get higher, so your flash is instantly that much higher, so it lights the back rows more. You might even use an off camera shoe cord and hold it up with your hand. A flash bracket at the highest position could also help. These are two things you can do to improve a shot without off camera flash helping. If you get higher, I wouldn't use a wider focal length, because then you'd be getting into body distortion.</strong></em></p>

<p>Thanks, Nadine. This confirms something I'd already decided to do. I do have a good basic bracket that will allow me to raise the flash up almost 2 ft above the camera. Since the Metz 58 AF-1 is my best (strongest) flash, I think I'll use it. I have a cord for triggering my Pentax units but the Metz would have to be triggered via radio, which is fine.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Here is a shot I did with someone I grabbed to hold a reflector behind me and I shot the on camera flash into the reflector. I tried to pick a shot that showed the diffuse reflections I could get in the background when my spur of the moment assistant wasn't tilting the reflector down. This was ISO 800, f/6.3, 1/80th. Is it ideal, no. Is it relatively soft, yes. Is is fast, yes. If I had added forward fill, it would have been better. Hence my new, yet untried, approach!</p><div></div>

[william-porter]

<p>Thanks for that picture, John. I'm getting the idea.</p>

<p>I have just come back from the church, where I did some more practicing—and a little experimenting. I have decided to place a second flash behind the group.</p>

<p>Woops—posted that before I was ready. Here's my setup now:</p>

<p><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_E63StVg0FS8/S-MzMTfZ0pI/AAAAAAAAc_U/lBX2irwTkog/groupphotosetupatSBCCS.png" alt="" width="765" height="220" /></p>

<p>UUnfortunately, I didn't have a group of kids to practice with—just my daughter—so I am really not sure that tthe flash behind the group is doing anything at all. But with the main flash raised up on the bracket and bounced using the Demb flip-it card, I seem to be getting somewhat software results. Have to keep it simple for tonight. Can experiment more later.</p>

<p>Thanks again to everybody for your help!</p>

<p>Will</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I think you can afford to get physically higher yourself, plus the bracket reach. Just maybe a foot higher. Stepstool (?)--I just bought a folding one that folds flat.</p>

<p>Re the flash behind the group--for what purpose? If you drag the shutter more, the background should not be black, and you won't need back or rim light for separation. If you mean to point it at the background, you may get reflections since the background is a bit shiny.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Also, a Demb Diffuser doesn't go very wide. Don't know what focal length you have there, but you might want to attach a wider white card to the Demb.</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Nadine writes:<br>

<strong><em>I think you can afford to get physically higher yourself, plus the bracket reach. Just maybe a foot higher. Stepstool (?)--I just bought a folding one that folds flat. </em></strong></p>

<p>Got a folding one myself. I'll take it and use it. That's easy.</p>

<p><strong><em>Re the flash behind the group--for what purpose? If you drag the shutter more, the background should not be black, and you won't need back or rim light for separation. If you mean to point it at the background, you may get reflections since the background is a bit shiny.</em></strong></p>

<p>No, I'm not trying to illuminate the background, for the reason you suggest. That's why I didn't point the flash at the background. </p>

<p>Well, I'm not sure why I put it back there. Hair light? Seemed like a good idea? I think I was thinking that it would bounce off the ceiling from behind and add some light to the heads and faces. And where it's placed, it's not in anybody's way.</p>

<p><strong><em>Also, a Demb Diffuser doesn't go very wide. Don't know what focal length you have there, but you might want to attach a wider white card to the Demb.</em></strong></p>

<p>This I do know. I already have a 14" x 6" white cardboard card taped to the Demb card and angled slightly at the edges of the Demb, so it looks a bit like a radar dish. I think it will help a little.</p>

<p>I'll be shooting with a Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX DG Macro lens = 42mm FF FOV. I have an excellent Pentax 21 limited. Would that be better? </p>

<p>Is it safe to drag the shutter as slow as 1/45th sec?</p>

<p>Will</p>

[sfcole]

<p>William,<br>

How are you getting your Pentax Af540 to fire off-camera? I've played around with the wireless system, but found it to be a waste of time--it will just not fire if it's off to the side. Only PWs for me.<br>

Scott</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Scott, I'm using radio triggers (FlashWave II's).</p>

<p>The Pentax optical wireless system works pretty well—but it's reliability decreases as the lighting environment gets more complicated, either by the size of the room or the reflectivity of surfaces or other things, or distance of the slaves from the controller/master.</p>

<p>Before I got radio triggers I used the built-in wireless system at a number of weddings and it worked okay. Allowed me to start getting a feel for using more than 1 flash. IN a way, the flexibility of radio triggers has (I fear) confused me by giving me lots of options I never had before. Step forward, half a step back. </p>

<p>Will</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>I am not sure why the light behind either? I don't know much about the Pentax camera, but if it can do ISO 800 well, I would use that instead of 400. How big of a print do you think anyone will want? I agree that the Flip-It won't be of much use. If using a flash on the camera, a Sto-fen style diffuser is your best bet. Since you must be able to operate the 2nd flash wirelessly, I would put that on a light stand, as high as you can and point it down towards the group from, from camera right (or left I suppose), no diffuser. Use the on-camera flash for fill to help soften any shadows. Flash should freeze any movement @ 1/45th, but a tripod never hurts. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>I'm thinking the flash behind won't act the way you are hoping. No, I don't think the 21mm is better--since you are getting higer, the tendency to distort is more with a wider focal length. It is safe to drag the shutter at 1/45th if your flash is correctly exposing people. The problem would be for the kids in the back row. If you shake or move, you'll see blur if they are underexposed. Just be ON your exposure--maybe even a bit overexposed, for the sake of the back row. You can pull the highlights back in post processing without much ill effect. In fact, you can even out the lighting in post as well.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Many formal images that get posted here look underexposed, or unevenly lit to my eye. There are often cast shadows from front people thrown on people behind them because the lights are to low ... or people hidden behind others because the photographer/camera are to low in relation to the group.</p>

<p><strong>I think William brings up a really big challenge ... time verses getting it right. This is a challenge I am still struggling with myself. </strong>However, it is a challenge worth undertaking if a wedding photographer wants to separate themselves from the growing pack of less experienced shooters flooding the market ... whom, with a little input, can drag the shutter and use an on-camera flash just as well as anyone else ... thus producing that flat-on lighting look. Getting the lights off camera is the challenge ... followed by what lights to use ... followed by how to set them up and tear them down quickly.</p>

<p>Here is my ramblings on the subject.</p>

<p>In my experience, when shooting formal group portraits in relatively dark and unevenly lit venues, dragging the shutter to much can introduce a whole other set of odd cast shadows on faces and other parts of the image that are often a different color temperature. While one can gel the flash, getting the right color temperature can be hit or miss depending on how intense the ambient is, or if they are even a tungsten light source. Then there are the backgrounds ... some can have adequate ambient lighting and some not ... some are far away, and some are close to the subjects.</p>

<p>To counter this requires more powerful lights with a consistent color temp output. IMO, today's on-camera speed-lights just do not pack the punch to enable true control of most any lighting condition we may face. Even doubling up two shoe-mount speed-lights on a stand is still relatively wimpy light. I tried this recently, and it was a complete failure. Just not enough light to take "command and control" of the ambient situation. Plus, when you use some of the more recent speed lights at full manual power and shoot rapidly, they shut down when hot due to a capacitor limiter. One can over-ride this on some flashes but at your own risk. These flashes were simply not made to replace studio strobes.</p>

<p>The next step up is a bare bulb unit like the 120Js that Nadine uses, or the Quantum flash others here use ... usually these are a bit more powerful at full manual out-put ... but more importantly they are bare bulbs with round parabolic reflectors that make more efficient use of that extra output when shooting with round umbrellas. While more than suitable for small groups and individual portraits, even this solution is relatively under-powered for really large groups ... forcing you to drag the shutter and lose control of the ambient mix in order to get enough light to into the camera ... the more you drag the shutter the less "clean and pristine" the light quality. Life sucks : -)</p>

<p><em>In a perfect world, the real solution is the use of two or three 500 w/s or 600 w/s mono strobes and 60" ribless umbrellas ... There is a reason that you NEVER see a fashion shooter or commercial shooter using speed-lights or even bare bulb units: Light quality and fast recycle. Add stands that can go high enough to fire down on the groups and you have that control with "clean and pristine light that you can place for effect. Unfortunately, a perfect world is hard to come by ... and is an almost impossible solution without an assistant. Everything is bigger, heavier, and the Monos require a mains outlet and usually some long extension cords. Alternative use of batteries for these monos make the over-all kit even more unwieldily.</em></p>

<p>Here's a simple example of two bare bulb units on stands fired into white ribless umbrellas that produce a touch of specular light but soft enough for people shooting. The lighting ratio was at one-to-one, but I moved the right light a bit closer and behind the subject and feathered it to add a touch of dimensional rim lighting on the subject while lighting some of the background. Sony A900 @ 1/80th, 85/1.4 @ f/5.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>Here's another in B&W where I moved the left light closer and the right light further away to create a more dramatic lighting effect.</p>

<div></div>

[william-porter]

<p>OK, post mortem. Here's the real photo.</p>

<p><img src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_E63StVg0FS8/S-OSH51ZclI/AAAAAAAAdAQ/9wliTABXtpQ/20100506-204237-0748-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Settings:</p>

<ul>

<li>ISO 400, 1/45th sec, f/4.5. I did double-check with my depth of field calculator beforehand to confirm that this would give me enough depth of field.</li>

<li>Used the 21mm lens.</li>

<li>Main flash (the Metz) was on the bracket, extended about 1 1/2 ft above the camera. This flash was angled forward toward the group about 45°, with Demb card and my extra-long extender card. Flash was in M mode, power 1/1. </li>

<li>Second flash (the Pentax 540) was slightly off to the side, on a light stand about 8 ft high, with its three-legged base partly in the aisle and partly in a pew. This flash was in M at 1/1, as well, although the Pentax's full power is lower than the Metz's. This flash was pointed slightly forward but basically aimed up at the ceiling. No card or other modifier.</li>

</ul>

<p>I took Nadine's suggestion and stood on a short stool. You can kind of see that I'm shooting down at the group. </p>

<p>I think the lighting is definitely better than in my earlier shot. My practice yesterday and today helped. So did all the excellent suggestions I got in this thread.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>Unfortunately, it's not all good news. I didn't get a chance to hear Nadine's opinion that the 21 wasn't a good idea before I had to leave for the church. Knowing the 21 would give me a little more depth of field, and get me a little closer to the group and THEREBY give me a little more light, I decided to go with the 21. I'm glad that the distortion isn't too significant a problem. (If you think I'm wrong about that, don't tell me. )</p>

<p>There was a problem, though. The Pentax 21 limited is a wonderful lens—but it's one of Pentax's pancakes. I won't explain why but I decided at the start of the event to manual focus everything, which is what I did throughout the ceremony. I was shooting the Mass with a Sigma 105 on my main camera, which has a Katz-Eye screen; focusing was easy and effective. The other camera was using the Sigma 28 for most of the Mass. I didn't switch to the 21 until just before the formals. And I didn't have time to ask myself if I should stick with manual focus. Bottom line: it's hard to focus the 21 manually, at least in these circumstances. I took my several shots, then announced to the parents that they could take their shots. While they did, I chimped my photos and saw that they weren't well focused. So I apologized to the bishop and asked for another shot. Used auto-focus. Shot was acceptably focused. I feel really bad about the girl scratching her nose in the front row. </p>

<p>*</p>

<p>Final note about timing and the light stand. </p>

<p>As the Mass was drawing to a close, I took the 105 off my main camera and replaced it with the 21. I attached the bracket and main flash to the main camera. I attached the other flash to the stand. I was ready to go before the end of the Mass. EVEN SO, I kept everybody waiting. I don't really know how this happened. The woman who was shepherding the children apparently had them turn around at the back of the church after the recessional and march right back in. I thought I was in great shape and looked over and noticed that the children and the bishop were in place waiting for me.</p>

<p>Getting the stand from my position at the front of the church (off to the left of the group photo), through the crowds of parents, to the main aisle, was, well, difficult, bordering on downright dangerous. I should NOT have opened the stand before positioning it. I should also have had an assistant to carry the stand, because carrying it AND carrying the camera with bracket was extraordinarily awkward.</p>

<p>The stand, once placed, did not get knocked over, but it's only because my guardian angel took pity on me. There were parents all over the place. I practically got knocked off my little stool. </p>

<p>Still, I DID IT. Badly, and at risk of injury to myself, the equipment, and possibly somebody else, but thank goodness, nothing bad happened, and I'll be smarter next time. I think an assistant is probably essential here. I would need to know beforehand which pew to place the stand in, and have the assistant move the stand there and set it up IMMEDIATELY after the service is concluded. And then stay with the light stand to keep people from trying to walk through the pew and climb around it.</p>

<p>Thanks again to everybody. I haven't had a chance to digest Marc Williams' thoughtful post and will reply to it later, perhaps tomorrow.</p>

<p>Live and learn.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Aside from the focusing issues you encountered forcing you to rush to correct that ... the final image is <strong>underexposed</strong>. The darks are not separated, and the last row of people is underexposed even a little more, and underexposure creates a muddy over-all color especially for skin tones which is difficult to fix in post. This reinforces my assertion that with inaquate light output you end up fighting one problem after another. A bit more shutter drag would have helped here, but I don't know what the ambient was like so that's pure speculation.</p>

<p>Here's an old old example of a big group shot in a cave of a venue ... literally no decent level of light because this is a historic landmark church and lighting is kept to a minimum. Not only that ... the front pews are very close to the altar. So I had to use a 16mm to get everyone in ... which introduces a whole other set of issues in terms of distortion ... especially with the poorer quality 16-35/2.8 zoom I was using then.</p>

<p>Canon 1Ds @ ISO 400 using 1/100th shutter, 16-35/2.8 @ f/20 (to get the background in focus ... at 16mm, should have been f/8 with a lower ISO) ... and two 500 w/s Photogenic monos with 60" umbrellas. The right strobe was set a 1/2 stop or so hotter because on the men's side there is always more darks.</p>

<p>BTW, with more light you can stop down more and being able to stop down more mitigates any focus errors when in a rush. Can't tell you how many times f/8 or 11 saved the day with big group : -)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[william-porter]

<p>Marc Williams writes: <em><strong>"Aside from the focusing issues you encountered forcing you to rush to correct that ... the final image is underexposed. ...</strong></em></p>

<p>Agreed.</p>

<p><em><strong>"...This reinforces my assertion that with inaquate light output you end up fighting one problem after another. A bit more shutter drag would have helped here, but I don't know what the ambient was like so that's pure speculation."</strong></em></p>

<p>Ambient light was lousy, but c'est la guerre. It's not quite that the church is dark, it's that the light is coming from unhelpful locations. Not being able to use flash during the Mass, I shot entirely between ISO 1600 and 3200. The ceiling of the church is white wood, but pretty high. </p>

<p>*</p>

<p>I understand that I need more light.</p>

<p>But I am also certain that I'm not deploying the equipment I have as effectively as it could be deployed, in this situation. I say "in this situation," because in a more controlled environment where I have more time—for example, in my home studio—I do a much better job. I'd even say that, sometimes, I've actually had pretty good results with the formal group photos: the problem there is, I'm not sure what I did to get better results.</p>

<p>I have more lights than I used last night. I could have deployed three, even four flash units, if I'd known what to do with them and had time to set them up. I could have used reflectors (I have 'em) and/or umbrellas (have a number of those, too). I'm inspired by the work of folks like y'all who have helped me in this thread. (Truly, I am.) But I am also, well, not so much inspired, but motivated by, on the one hand, the excellent work of other photographers who I know are not using equipment better than my own, and also by stuff I read like Joe McNally's Hot-Shoe Diaries, where he seems to be able to light anything (including a jet plane) using speedlights. </p>

<p>Anyway, it's clear to me that, to continue to get better with wedding and event photography, I need to be able (a) to analyze the challenge in front of me more accurately and (b) more quickly, and © use the equipment I have to its best effect. When I feel I've reached THAT point, then it will be time for me to consider stepping up to bigger, better lights. (Although I don't rule out buying another Metz sooner rather than later.)</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>Now that I've had a chance to sleep on it, and to come back this morning and look at the photos with coffee in hand, here's my take.</p>

<p>Don't laugh but the first thought that occurs to me is that a third light would have been a good idea—at least it could not have hurt. I could have placed it behind the group or off to the side or even behind me, on a tall stand. Bounced off ceiling if close enough, or pointed towards the group. With the help of an assistant I could have that up quickly.</p>

<p>The next thing that occurs to me is that, if I'm shooting a portrait, I never use direct flash the way I used it for this group. I'm always bouncing, or placing the flash at an angle. It's not the diffusion that I'm thinking of, it's more the contrast. Having my main flash on the camera pointed right at the group, definitely produces a flat look. Actually I didn't have it pointed RIGHT at them: I had the flash head angled, and was using my Demb + cardboard reflector to push some of the light forward. Only a small difference. Anyway, what I would do next time (and this is inline with John Deerfield's suggestion) is have the main, more powerful light off-axis; and use the weaker flash on the bracket as fill or secondary light.</p>

<p>I could also have shot at ISO 560 or even 800 and wish I had done so.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>After I get through the next couple of weeks I'll have the time to go back into a church, perhaps with the help of some of my daughter's friends, and do some more practicing. If there's a simple formula for easy excellence here, it's eluded me. It seems that practice (and experience) are necessary.</p>

<p>A THOUSAND THANKS again to everybody, especially Nadine, John and Marc.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[william-porter]

<p>John Deerfield writes:<br>

<strong><em> I don't know much about the Pentax camera, but if it can do ISO 800 well, I would use that instead of 400. How big of a print do you think anyone will want?</em></strong></p>

<p>Yes, I could have gone to 800. Perhaps should have. </p>

<p>Nobody will order a print of the group shot larger than 8"x 10" (I'm pretty sure). I have had orders for 20"x30" in the past and have printed a number of my own shots at that size with very satisfying results, but those were natural-light photos, I think, without exception. <br>

*</p>

<p><em><strong>"I agree that the Flip-It won't be of much use. If using a flash on the camera, a Sto-fen style diffuser is your best bet."</strong></em></p>

<p>Ah, well, next time. I'm always worried about the light loss with the Sto-Fen Omnibounce. Upon reflection (no pun intended) I think I see—at least I can imagine—that pointing a Sto-Fen'd flash more or less directly at the subjects might do a better job than trying to bounce of the ceiling and in the process losing a lot of power.</p>

<p>For your amusement, here's a photo of my camera rig, showing the Demb + taped on cardboard reflector-extender.<br>

<img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_E63StVg0FS8/S-QwsHFo6AI/AAAAAAAAdAw/ZrI20_ATlAM/20100507-101004-0364.jpg" alt="" width="402" height="600" /></p>

<p>I put it on a tripod here just so I could take the photo. Remember, I was standing on a footstool while using this, with an angry mob of parents seething right behind me. Okay there wasn't a lot of anger. But there was some seething, I'm sure of it.<br>

*</p>

<p><strong><em>"Since you must be able to operate the 2nd flash wirelessly, I would put that on a light stand, as high as you can and point it down towards the group from, from camera right (or left I suppose), no diffuser. Use the on-camera flash for fill to help soften any shadows."<br /></em></strong></p>

<p>Yep, that's what I will do next time.<br>

*</p>

<p><strong>"Flash should freeze any movement @ 1/45th, but a tripod never hurts."</strong></p>

<p>Motion, thank goodness, doesn't seem to have been one of my problems. The church was dark enough that any minor fidgeting outside the flash's duration was lost. As for camera shake, that's not much of a problem, either. I normally DO use a tripod at weddings and in other circumstances where I have the time to work properly. But one strength of the Pentax cameras is in-body shake reduction that is quite effective. And of course, the shorter the focal length the less likely shake is to be a problem. I don't much like to go below 1/30th sec even with a wide-angle lens but I have occasionally shot handheld at weddings (without flash, when I really had to) down to 1/8th sec and gotten nice sharp photos. So I could almost certainly have gone to 1/30th sec here.</p>

<p>I use a tripod when I can not so much to stabilize the camera (as that isn't a large problem for me) as for two other reasons: so I can LOOK at the group while I shoot; and so I can compose the shot carefully and then have it stay put. One problem I do have when I shoot handheld is that I myself may, without realizing it, move slightly from one shot to the next. Last night, in one of the group shots, I cut off the toes of the kids in the front row.<br>

*</p>

<p>Thanks again, John. I'm still intrigued by your two-flashes-on-one-bracket idea. Have not yet figured out how to make that work. Do you put one flash in the hot shoe and the other on the bracket arm, and connect them via a cable?</p>

<p>Will</p>

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>William- you could make that shot look a bit better in post. Don't be afraid of the Fill Light & Blacks sliders (in Cam. RAW) to bring some detail in the shadows back. It'll definitely help the bricks too. I'd bring down those prayer shawls too- either with the Exposure slider, Recovery slider, or Parametric curve. It's not great, but this took about 2 secs. I think if you work with it some more, you could get a more acceptable result.</p>

<p>I think the biggest problem with this shot is the frontal light. It just blasts everything. Those prayer shawls and the stairs reflect everything they get hit with right back into the camera with the way it's set up.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[william-porter]

<p>Señor: Thanks for the note. Yeah, I will work on the photo for a minute or two today in Lightroom 3 and I expect I'll do it a bit of good. I posted it last night after getting home, and without a lot of thought about post-processing. </p>

<p>But more and more, my goal really is to TRY to get things as close to right as possible at the time of capture. Because as I get more work, I find myself hating the time I spend in front of the computer more and more.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Sounds like the root of your problem is that you're shooting formals in the church right after the ceremony, where there is going to be pressure to move on to the reception on the part of bride and groom and guests, and maybe from the minister either to clear the church for the next wedding or because he doesn't like his church being used as a photo set. Others have suggested doing some of the formals ahead of time. You could also do the formals afterward at the reception location. Depending on the venue, you might be able to grab a separate room where you can set up your lights and even backdrops and make sure everything is all set before you drag anybody in. Or the same out in the venue's garden, etc. I don't do weddings any more but at most weddings I've been to recently, doing formals at the reception seems to be more common than at the church.</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Craig S. writes:</p>

<p><strong><em>Sounds like the root of your problem is that you're shooting formals in the church right after the ceremony.... [A]t most weddings I've been to recently, doing formals at the reception seems to be more common than at the church.</em></strong></p>

<p>Well, I would like to be able to say that my only problem is that I'm being pressured. But as I said earlier, I feel like I need (a) to be able to analyze the lighting problems better and (b) analyze them and respond more quickly. The pressure issue only comes in with (b), but dealing with (b) comes only after I've licked (a).</p>

<p>I do in fact do much better in smaller rooms. Actually, at my own home, where I practice a lot, in my own large living room, I AM AN AMAZING PHOTOGRAPHER! <g> I have bright windows with oblique sun, a beautiful sky light, and the rest is white walls and ceiling to bounce light around. If only I could get all my clients to come over to my house for the formals, I could be a contender.</p>

<p>And I would like to do more group shots at the reception. I have done this a little already, sort of by accident, and the results were better than I expected, so I'm now suggesting this to brides. </p>

<p>However, there's no getting around the church formals in every case. Everybody's there. Corralling everybody later at the reception sounds like it presents a different set of logistical problems. The priest or minister is often not at the reception. </p>

<p>And I have always shot a lot of church and school events that aren't weddings and don't have receptions afterwards. Last night's was a Confirmation. The kids were were there, the bishop was there, and that was where the shot was, so I had no choice in the matter. I want to be able to get better at that kind of shot even if I figure out a way to take it less often.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Will </p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>William--considering everything, I think your final image looks pretty good. I think it is a bit underexposed, but you can work with it in post and even out the back row lighting. I also think you could drag the shutter more. But you got the job done. Besides the girl touching her nose, what about the boy in the back row whose face is hidden, though? Maybe you have another one that you can use to graft him in? Or of her (without the nose touch), to graft her in?</p>

<p>I am not sure what to make of your grappling with group photo issues. I am wondering why you didn't just bring an umbrella, or two units and used either the key/fill or one on each side set up. Either one, with lights set high to try to offset the difference in back row/front row exposure, would be 'nicer' than just frontal light, or at least, more even. I don't see too much evidence of the off camera flash.</p>

<p>Maybe there are two other parts you may want to think about that don't have a lot to do with gear or lighting. First would be people management, which involves anticipating and planning to make your job easier, and second would be standardizing on gear, with several choices of options in lighting, and having everything worked out for efficiency and fast set up and breakdown.</p>

<p>For instance, you mention parents swarming around you--why? If this happenend I would make them all sit down or at least clear the aisle until I got my shots and then I'd turn them loose with their cameras. I would also tell the guy in the background to move (nicely of course). I understand you had to shoot twice, for the focus issue. I would not have decided to manual focus, or at least, if I did, I would have reverted to my old ways with wide angle lenses, which is to double check myself with the distance scale. In any case, this brings me to my next point, which is having an efficient plan that works (isn't an experiment or untried).</p>

<p>As stated above, it would have taken me maybe 5 minutes to set up my key light in my big umbrella (set up in the back during the ceremony, but everything closed for transport to the front after). Then open up my stool or ladder and tripod, take one test shot. Without posing time, I would have been ready in maybe 8-10 minutes. I would not be rattled by seeing the kids ready. Standardize on one or two methods that you know will work quickly.</p>

[william-porter]

<p><em><strong>"I would not have decided to manual focus, or at least, if I did, I would have reverted to my old ways with wide angle lenses, which is to double check myself with the distance scale. In any case, this brings me to my next point, which is having an efficient plan that works (isn't an experiment or untried)." </strong></em></p>

<p>Oh, I agree absolutely with that. It was precisely in service to this goal that I was up at the church the two previous afternoons trying to come up with a better approach. This also explains why I didn't use an umbrella this time. I simply have not had an opportunity to practice with them in this setting. I will be practicing with at least one umbrella in the next couple of weeks.</p>

<p>Using the 21 was simply a mistake—a violation of the rule of doing what I've planned and practiced. Should have stuck with the 28, which is easier to focus manually.</p>

<p>Thanks again,</p>

<p>Will</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>I use a RRS Wedding Pro bracket, though I am sure many other brackets will do just fine. Below is a picture of my proposed set up. The shot I showed earlier was from a <em>single</em> flash point behind me (essentially the smaller DB800 in this shot) into a large reflector held by a on-the-spot assistant. You can certainly see some shadows (and proper holding of the reflector would have helped) but the shadows are pretty soft. I am thinking by adding the flash forward as fill, I can soften them even further as well as give me a little extra pop. And, this isn't my preferred set up. Not yet anyway! Just my really fast set up/tear down. BTW, the 2nd flash is simply controlled via the built in wireless system. Which again, I do not like, but it works well enough right beside the commander!</p>

<p>In your image, I don't think the flash off to the side is doing much. I would have pointed it <em>down</em> on the group instead of the ceiling. Kind of "aiming for just off center, middle row. By aiming down, I am not so much worried about fall off. Now this light will be hard, but guess what, a group this size with shoe mount flashes is going to be hard lit! Then use the Metz forward, but again, I would have just used a Sto-fen diffuser, for ease of use if nothing else. I know I would <em>NOT</em> have shot with the modified Demb in the orientation you show. I have never liked that, I really think it affects the spread and throw of light. In any event, even modified, it isn't going to be all that soft. Hence my use of the quick and simple dome!</p>

<p>What I love about your description is what is so hard about <em>teaching </em>photography, it often has nothing to do with photography! At some point you just set up as best you can to get any shot. </p>

<p>Finally, when you do touch it up, I might clone out the guy in the back on the left. No need for that butt to be there!</p><div></div>