Fill flash on a bright day making it look like cardboard cut outs

[fuccisphotos]

<p>So this past weekend both of my shoots involved shots outside. I'm finding it hard to find the happy medium of fill flash that totally eliminates under eye shadows but that also doesn't make people look like they are cardboard cut outs. Does this happy medium exist, or do you just underpower the flash and then add additional exposure in lightroom or photoshop? I just want to make sure I'm not searching for something that doesn't exist ;)<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>-Vail</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Vail,</p>

<p>This is a pretty standard problem using fill flash. I think there are some smart flash systems that actually sort this out for you automatically; alas I don't have one of these. My solution—and I think this is the standard recommendation—is to reduce the flash output manually. How much to reduce it, depends on the difference you perceive between the backlighting and the lighting on your subjects, but to take a sort of average case, what I would probably do, if I were using my camera's TTL flash metering, would be to dial down the flash output by 2 stops.</p>

<p>If you're doing a portrait and have time to fiddle with reflectors and such, then you have many more options that may produce a more natural looking shot.</p>

<p>The final alternative is, either spot meter or (as I do) use a handheld incident meter to expose the subjects correctly, take a test shot, and if the background isn't COMPLETELY blown, then just live with it. If the dynamic range of the shot isn't TOO great, you might get away with this.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[william-porter]

<p>I was just thinking about my quick response, and I'm not sure that's entirely right. Upon sober reflection, I think what I do varies. SOMETIMES, I use high-speed sync, so I can shoot with a shutter speed faster than my camera's flash sync speed (1/180th sec—most other cameras now are 1/250th sec, I believe). And now that I think about it, I'm not sure that I always dial the flash DOWN. If there's a huge difference between the subject's proper exposure and the backlighting—in other words if the backlighting is really strong, I think I might actually push the flash power UP. But I think in such a situation I would probably prefer not to shoot the photo there and would try instead to move the subjects a bit so that the sun was coming at an angle.</p>

<p>Sorry about my over-hasty response. It's not the easiest problem. But I can assure you that I've taken my share of those cardboard cutout photos that you mentioned.</p>

<p>Will </p>

[picturesque]

<p>As in your previous thread about this issue, there aren't any solutions, just things you can do to lessen the overall impact of the lighting looking unnatural.</p>

<p>1. You cannot eliminate shadows, only fill them so they aren't black and unreadable--they will still be there. When you have control, pick your subject positions so you aren't having to fill black eye sockets--as much as one <strong>can</strong> control these things. If you are filling the shadows in an effort to eliminate them, you are using way too much flash, and you will get the cardboard cut out effect.</p>

<p>2. Overexpose the backgrounds slightly for a more natural look.</p>

<p>3. You can rely on digital fill, but only up to a point, before you get magenta skin and washed out images. As pointed out before, a well known wedding photographer uses this technique, combined with sun placement, to shoot in bright sun with no fill flash. Whether you like this effect over carboard cut outs is up to you. I don't.</p>

<p>As in your previous thread, you really need to post some examples for specific help.</p>

<p><a href="00WnHM">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00WnHM</a></p>

[fotografz]

<p>Suggestion: Find shade, and as William W mentioned in your other thread, get the flash off the camera.</p>

<p>Here's an example of a very bright background using the artificial light held camera-right to balance with the background and fill the shadows, while giving some shape to the subjects rather than flat, head-on lighting.</p>

<p>To keep the effect somewhat more natural looking, pay attention to which way the natural light is falling. In this case look at the shadows cast by the trees ... so I did the same with the flash (note the shadow on the camera-left side of the faces, and the cast shadow from the Bride's flowers).</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

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

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>Great lighting Marc, but they still look like cardboard pop-outs to me ;) I too, have this same problem....A LOT :)</p>

[iraellis]

<p>Melissa, I couldn't disagree with you more. Marc Williams has presented an absolutely perfect example of sun synch or fill flash. The shadows that he created are perfectly aligned for the subject and background. The whites in the photograph are perfectly exposed showing all the detail anyone could expect. His exposure is spot on.</p>

<p>You may think that the subjects look like "cardboard pop-outs" but I guarantee that Marc's clients were ecstatic with the above image. </p>

<p>Here's a tip from one of photography's gurus, Scott Kelby:<br>

"Here's another tip that will make your flash less "flashy"when shooting outdoors: use your camera's flash exposure compensation button and change the flash exposure compensation to -1, (it works the same way regular exposure compensation works, but for flash exposures). Your flash will still help lift out the shadows, but now without being so obvious."<br>

I quoted from <em>The Digital Photography Book Volume 1</em> by Scott Kelby, page 41.</p>

<p>Shooting RAW will also help you by giving you the added latitude that the RAW format offers.</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>Ira I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Melissa - the subjects in the photo do look like cardboard cutouts, albeit good ones (I've seen worse). And Scott's suggestion refers to using TTL for your flash and metering off the whole scene - not something that's possible or desirable in all situations.</p>

<p>Personally what I do is switch to completely manual settings, meter off my background and then set my flash on TTL and underexpose that by more than one stop. If that does not work from the get go, I switch to full manual (for the flash) and try settings there. Naturally, the flash is off camera, usually held underneath the lens (pointed slightly upwards) or even shooting into a reflector resting at my feet (and facing the subjects).</p>

<p>Vail, you could also try using one of the many flash modifiers (such as, for example, the Lightsphere or that small, inflatable softbox that's making the rounds these days) as this will help cut down on the sharpness of the light on your subjects.</p>

[markonestudios]

Melissa, I could be wrong, but perhaps what you perceive to be the issue is that there are shadows all around them (tree shade) but none *on* them, so your brain is processing it and raising queries as to the realism :)

<p>I think the lighting in Marc's shot is very well crafted. I would do a bit of selective burning (example available).

<p>Back to the original post, I prefer to shoot manual flash where I have full control. TTL in outdoor situations can get 'fooled' by any number of variables. Do you use the TTL modes, Vail?

[tom_mann1]

<p>To minimize the "cardboard cutout" look, you not only need to get the direction, fill ratio, softness and shadowing correct, but you also have to be reasonably accurate about how you gel your flash. The color temperature of flash is never quite the same as the ambient color temperature at a particular time of day, cloud cover, etc.</p>

<p>In addition, shadows are always a lot cooler than than surfaces facing the sun, so if your fill flash is gelled too warm, and especially if it is simultaneously too bright, it can make the subjects look like they are facing a setting sun (or hot lights), but the color temp of the background contradicts this visual illusion. This can also contribute to a "cardboard cutout look". For example, I agree with Melissa that Marc W's example image is nice and will almost certainly please the clients, but to me, the fill seems just a tiny bit too warm and too bright compared to the background.</p>

<p>Gelling a flash for an outdoors shot is a lot like gelling a flash to match ambient tungsten or fluorescent lights indoors. Fortunately, the differences in color between flash and ambient are usually much less outdoors, so the effect of improper gelling is much less noticeable outdoors.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[fotografz]

<p><em>Well, my posted image did flatten out and the skin color intensified a bit with the compressed jpeg up-load, so I'd have agree with some of the comments. The final printed piece is less graphic. So, one thing to do is check what the reflected light printed version looks like rather than a rear lit screen version.</em></p>

<p><em>This was an extreme example, where exposing for the subject totally blew out the ambient background with zero sky and bright neon yellow background. A portrait photographer would never shoot in lighting like this would they? I know I wouldn't. But we are often the victims of wedding schedules that care little about lighting conditions.</em></p>

<p><strong>Further thoughts:</strong></p>

<p>To me, a cardboard cut-out look tends to have a very hard edge where the back light edges the subject equally everywhere and looks to fake ... as opposed to directional rim lighting.</p>

<p>What this thread has made me re-aware of is the difference between subject separation from the background (3D Look) and the cut-out look. It's a fine line.</p>

<p>When we shoot available light, or with very minimum fill, and use wider apertures that dissolve the background ... the focus fall off is more like what the eye/brain perceives. Conversely, when we have everything relatively in focus, or close to in-focus, it tends to be <em>less natural</em> to the eye/brain, since in real life the eye cannot focus on the foreground and background at the same time. Interesting.</p>

<p>The problem arises when the background is so many stops difference than the foreground subject that you have to stop down to avoid totally blowing the background, and then supplement the foreground lighting more than normal ... added to that is the limited shutter speed that cameras will sync to which also forces lowering the ISO to minimums and stopping down the aperture.</p>

<p><strong>For comparison</strong> (hopefully the jpg will show it), <strong>here's the same place and time ... but with this shot I let the ambient play a bit more of a role </strong>... which could have been more problematic as there was muted dappled light falling on the subjects ... this was the only shade available at this location given the time constraints.</p>

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

[fuccisphotos]

<p>I put the clarity back to zero so you can see what I was working with. I found setting the clarity to a number that was less than zero was helpful.</p><div></div>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Marc, that second sample is WAY better. People overdo fill. That is why you get this 2D cardboard cutout effect. Back off on the fill. Lower the exposure enough that the background is slightly hot....with the lower fill the subject will appear slightly dark. Bring that up in post. The background will be bright, but not blow, while the subject will appear to be very natural.</p>

<p>I try to avoid the issue altogether by not using a fill flash at all. It's very easy to expose for the shadows using the film I use...more difficult to work with using a DSLR.....but it an be done.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>I agree Dave. It's a really fine balance and depends on how horrible and/or constant the ambient is ... which isn't easy when working while someone is tapping their watch and you have 5 more shots to do ... LOL! </p>

<p>Like you, I actually try to shoot available light when I can ... but you really have to have an eye for the quality of light and where it's coming from. If it's 2PM on a bright hazy day, and there's no shade and no time to go elsewhere, then you had better be adept at using flash ... or be prepared to shoot it arty with blown backgrounds and accept that.</p>

<p>Here's an example where the ambient wasn't so atrocious ... and was easier to let the background go OOF, and to use less fill for a more natural 3D feel as opposed to the cut out look:</p>

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

[fotografz]

<p>Oh, regarding ambient only ... I use that almost all of the time when doing environmental portrait type shots ... often just walking around with the couple and shooting where the light presents itself. I prefer this to the mannequin shots by 1 billion percent :-)</p>

<p>An example of ambient only ... a non traditional sort of environmental portrait candid ... but clients love seeing the back of their dress in some shots, and love it more when it's in context to where they were.</p><div></div>

[frank uhlig]

<p>Marc, your two earlier photos (in the gate) look like cardboard cutout people, the third on the street looks nice.</p>

<p>Is it just me who dials down fill flash by 1-2 stops (Nikon) for natural results such as the street pic?</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Nice bridal shot with ambient. The issue I have is the green cast on her skin...especially the face. That is where the bride needs to be selected out in photoshop, and the skin corrected to remove the green.</p>

<p>On one shot, it's no big deal.....on a 100 it becomes a PITA. I use a mix of film and digital. The shots I get back from Richard Photo Lab from the film are corrected out an perfect. Unfortunately, sometimes I have quite a few on the DSLRs and it increases my post time. Nature of the beast I guess as I am not willing to go 100% film.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Yeah Dave, the more you use ambient the more the surrounding dominate color cast will affect the subject ... I just picked up that shot and should have eye-dropper WB the dress before uploading. My printer's process adjusts for that just like with film, do I just get it close rather than laboring over 100 images to perfection. </p>

<p>Yes Frank, that's why I prefer using all ambient whenever possible ... I manually white balance in that case. But you don't always have the luxury of searching out the best light for formal portraits ... at least with my client's schedules I don't. </p>

<p>BTW, rather than saying what you do ... which is easy ... show us please. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Marc's examples are fantastic, of course, but let's get back to Vail's specific question and example. I was curious to see what the actual image was like, because I find there is a range of what people call 'cardboard cutouts'.</p>

<p>In my opinion, the reason Vail's image might bother her is because the fill is strong and it flattens out the subjects. This issue has been explained above by several people and illustrated by Marc's examples. I do not think overexposing the background--in this case--would have helped. I do think dropping the level of fill a little would have helped. Directional light, in this case, would not necessarily have helped, since there is a sun pattern on the subjects already, which cannot be eliminated without underexposing the background (and then it will really look unnatural).</p>

<p>I also find the cardboard cutout effect in Vail's image is not so bothersome, IMHO.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Based on my own experiences at the NJ beaches/jettys and near nightmare lighting often in mid-day sun, Tom Mann is very on the money and would get my chips in Vegas. I no longer do any of these, but my methods were to use powerful 400ws Lumedyne flashes, anywhere from 1 on camera, to three. The on camera was usually bare bulb no reflector, the second was with either a plastic cover, sometimes gelled warm later in the day, cooler in the fog stuff, or a Norman white glass custom reflector only made by them. The other problem is every day, every half hour the variables change so always hit the liquor store on the way home. </p>

[fotografz]

<p>That's why I've recently moved to a 400 w/s Quatra Dave. If I'm forced to do these to get enough business, and do formals in cave like churches, I decided to up the game. I'm now experimenting with Gels and white domes in a 7" grid reflector ... but as you say the lighting temp changes so rapidly that it can drive you batty trying to get it perfect ... and half the time the client couldn't care less ... LOL!</p>

<p>Odd that all the effort it takes to do these right accounts for a fraction of the shots ... and as far as my clients are concerned, they want them for Mom, but hire me and buy prints based on the candid B&W work and environmental portraits done in available light. Go figure. </p>

<p> </p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>I shoot a lot of casual family pics in the sun with flash, and dont get this issue. I can go back and look for it, but I am pretty sure it would have caught my attention, if it were as obvious as in Marc's shot. Anyways, I shoot mostly negative film - could this somehow soften the contrasts to minimize this affect?</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Show us Randall ... show us a really bright hazy day shot done at 12 to 3PM with high contrast backgrounds in open sun ... which is what was being discussed. I have a thousand shots in good light which show none of the issues myself. We're talking extremes here.</p>

<p>Again, the difference between a printed piece and compressed Jpeg on a computer screen are entirely different matters. Personally, I process for prints because that is what clients buy ... prints aren't nearly as "edge" contrasty.</p>

<p> </p>

[clintdunn]

<p>Vail, from looking at your one sample photo in front of the church I would be more concerned with other aspects of the photo than just the so called 'cardboard cutout' look. The subjects are all slightly tilted to the left as your horizon was off, and the composition could be greatly improved by shooting elsewhere other than that church parking lot. The tree to the right of the frame is also distracting...In my opinion these factors do far more harm to the asthetics of your photo than the fill flash. <br>

Personally I like shooting in bright sun as I like the dynamic lighting you can get using strobes and keeping the sun in the frame...but if you want even, natural lighting hunt for shade...</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Vail – thanks for posting the image – I was waiting for it. Flash Fill scenarios are so dependent upon the specific situation.</p>

<p>I disagree with Nadine’s technical interpretation in regard to the comment – <em>“because the fill is strong and it flattens out the subjects.” </em>I think Nadine’s interpretation is based upon <strong><em>the appearance</em></strong> of what is happening but not <strong><em>the reason</em></strong> for what is happening.<em></em></p>

<p>Step by step – The EXIF tells me that you pulled the shot with your zoom set at 24mm on an APS-C camera. The fact that the image is 5 x 7.5 ratio implies you have shown a full frame crop. I assume the Military Man is about 6ft – if not close to it, so I disregard the EXIF telling me the subjects are at 3.2mtrs – more like 4.3mtrs (about 14ft).<br>

Now you pulled F/18 at ISO400 (1/160s) – just taking into account the FLASH exposure and guessing you had (standard) On Camera Flash Fill (I did not do the maths so if some wants to, I might be proved wrong) my gut feel is your Flash was at about the limit using it at 14ft at F/18 – perhaps even beyond its limit.<br>

I think if we closely look at the faces – there is not that much fill in there at all (as a comparative to the side lit sun).</p>

<ul>

<li>What I think happened was the main impact of the Flash was on the Bride’s Gown, mostly because of the fabric. The illusion of the “cardboard cut out” is much more a result of the choice of background - the background colour and texture and the choice of 24mm at F/18.</li>

<li>Furthermore: at F/18 @ 1/160s @ ISO400 you were about 1, maybe 1⅓ stops over for the sun’s exposure - so I assume you pulled that back in post production – it is likely that “cardboard cut out” was made more noticeable in that Post Processing.</li>

<li>Assuming the aim was to have the Church in the background of the shot – then we must recognize that the grey colour and flat texture of the Church AND the Asphalt (both in reasonably sharp focus) will paint a cine-like Green Screen backdrop, with no illusion of depth.</li>

</ul>

<p>So I argue that this issue is more one of: Framing, Focal Length Choice and the initial Positioning of the Subjects.</p>

<p>Arguably you could use a <em>powerful</em> Off Camera Flash to Balance (Hard) from Camera Left and also use an on camera flash to fill the eyes – that scenario could give good modelling – but you would still be battling the IN FOCUS Asphalt and Grey Church.<br>

The <strong><em>illusion</em></strong> of perspective and subject separation can be created by light and by DoF – but in both cases <strong><em>the Background’s physical material and colour and the lighting of the background must be considered.</em></strong></p>

<p>So to this image – what options?</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Lower camera angle - less asphalt</li>

<li>New subject location and Camera viewpoint – in the shade camera right – on the grass.</li>

<li>Roll the wedding car in frame, from camera left obscuring a large portion of Asphalt – the Church would certainly appear “beyond the car”.</li>

<li>Re arrange the group – shoot it “rock band style” i.e. together as a group, but each with more space – or perhaps the B&G together and the Children together – slightly behind and to the side – again covering more of the expanse of Asphalt.</li>

</ul>

<p>There are other options those are a few I see from the picture.<br>

But the point that I am making is – I do not think it is a Flash Fill Problem, and if anything you needed a touch more fill: especially for his eyes and the Bride’s eyes a bit more fill, also.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>