Wedding Reception lighting room with dark ceiling

[eduardo_suastegui]

<p><em>One problem I've run into with VERY DARK venues (where they basically turn all the lights off for the first dance etc) is that throwing up a few lights in the corners creates some very harsh light.</em><br>

It's not an automatic recipe for success, but if you do it right, you can get some great lighting effects during the reception. Here's a post showing some examples (scroll down) of what even bare flash can do.<br>

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/997871">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/997871</a><br>

It does look like the main light is a roving "on-the-stick" setup at either side of the photographer.</p>

[picturesque]

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> Ian--I hesitate to say anything since you posted such good examples and information, but guidelines say that one should limit images posted. I'm not removing anything because I appreciate your efforts, but in the future, try to condense a few images together for your illustrations.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Eduardo--I don't see evidence of a 'light on a stick'. I see two off camera flashes on stands near the windows, which seem to have served for all the reception images with flash as main light.</p>

<p>As stated above, bare flash is better if it travels some. In smaller spaces, light fall off tends to emphasize harshness.</p>

[rippo]

<p>There's definitely a key light from near camera position. It's got a gel on it though (I"m guessing), which accounts for the warm look. You can see typical on-camera flash shadows in the largest dance shot near the bottom, as well as the series of four small ones above it. Either that or there's a third, stationary light on a pole behind camera position. It's dialed down lower than the strobes on poles that are visible in the shots.<br>

Not a bad idea, warm the on-camera strobe and keep the off-camera strobes at daylight. Your eye doesn't then go "on-camera flash!" because it blends with the tungsten more than the daylight ones. Might have to try that…</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>On camera, maybe. But the rest seem to be from the lights on stands--at least, to me. I also think the warm light is from light reflected off brick and wood. But it doesn't matter. No one can say except the photographer.</p>

[rippo]

<p>Ah, good point. The walls are pretty warm-toned in there. Could just be over-the-shoulder flash bouncing off the walls. Although the under-chin shadows look pretty hard, which has me thinking it's direct. There does seem to be flash fall off as well, when you look at long shots of the room. Hard to tell if that's just an area that isn't lit by the stand strobes.</p>

[rippo]

<p>Ah, I see the photographer has answered (somewhat obliquely) in the comments.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> <br /><br /><br /><br />fantastic series really like the high energy best man shots in the series, lots of freeze action going on there.<br /><br />I also like the lighting consistency at the reception, how did you light it? i have a similar location coming up, old barn with big tall ceilings and fairy lights too<br /><br />Guessing crosslight with diffused on camera fill?<br />But i notice a second stand and strobe, camera right on some shots that are not firing?<br /><br /><br /> <br /> <br /> <br />jprezant:<br /><br /><br />scott had lights up also. 1 clamped onto one of my stands, and one on an additional stand. thats why<br />you see speedlights that aren't firing.</p>

</blockquote>

[ianivey]

<p>Sorry, Nadine -- I tried to be sure every shot I posted related directly to a point, and to avoid posting a bunch of images just for the sake of doing so. I don't post images here very often, and I probably could have done it more efficiently. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Ian--don't apologize. I appreciate all you did. I want you to post again, as much as you want. Just--in the future, combine a few of the images...</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Julie all you need is this...<br>

I couldn't stop myself.</p>

<p> </p>

[ejder]

<p>With the image of a couple face to face and flare on left in the vertical frame, I can't really stand leaving subject exposure somewhere in the middle between correct and completely underexposed like you seemed to. I would either boost them to proper exposure or enhance the contrast so I could only see the important features. Otherwise, it isn't satisfying to my eyes and probably would not print well IMO.</p>

<p>Dark walls and ceiling usually = umbrellas/brollies/bare flash off camera for me, possibly with some underexposed on-camera fill bouncing to sides.</p>

[ianivey]

<p>Joey, good point. I should have fixed that. You're saying you'd do it more like this? (In Lightroom, I increased Exposure by 0.2, Fill, Blacks, and Contrast; dropped Saturation by -3; and added Noise Reduction.)</p>

<p>I agree, this is much better, and I'll replace this image with the corrected version in the clients' gallery.</p>

<div></div>

[ianivey]

<p>...though that exposure boost still made the image too yellow, which was more evident after seeing it here than in Lightroom, so I'll additionally send the white balance about 300 degrees toward blue.</p>

 

[ianivey]

<p>And looking at it again, I think I might do this in layers in photoshop or with the brush in LR, to drop the relative exposure on the bride's arm back down 2/3 of a stop or so.</p>

[ejder]

<p>Because the arm being brighter can distract from the faces.</p>

[ianivey]

<p>Exactly my point, and I think it does distract, here, so I've darkened it a bit in the shot I provided to the client. But still a great point about the faces being too dark in the version I originally posted. Thanks for the comment.</p>