ricardovaste Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 <p>Anyone use constant lighting for the first dance and similar? I've been contemplating it. A photographer I follow uses this with an assistant following him around during the first dance. I like the idea because it could be a lot less intrusive in some ways.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 <p>I can't think of anything that would be more intrusive..... If the videographer has a light you can tag along with him. Personally I prefer to use flash as needed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliff_nj Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 <p>yuk never</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricardovaste Posted March 22, 2012 Author Share Posted March 22, 2012 Moderator please delete this thread. It was a mistake coming here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LenMarriott Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 <p>Richard, At least one of the respondents, if you believe his bio and have viewed his whole portfolio, has walked the walk and, due to his experience doesn't like the idea. I would apply great weight to his opinion though his comment about following the videographer could seem a tad flip. Not to say it wouldn't work for you but your lighting man\woman had better be perfectly in tune with the results you are looking for so he can apply the right lighting pattern BEFORE you trip the shutter or you are likely to develop some strong evil thoughts about him\her. I tend to agree with David because I too have been there on the dance floor etc. and I wouldn't have appreciated having another person to orchestrate in my attempt to get a decent image. For me, it's been about 20 years since my last wedding and times\techniques change so I wouldn't rule this out too casually. Also you need to develop a thicker skin where internet replies are concerned. The bottom line is that most responders truly wish to be helpful but sometimes the words don't come to one's screen with the same intent with which they were sent. I recently congratulated two Iraqi internet acquaintances for Iran's winning of the Oscar for best Foreign Film. Didn't I feel a fool! They were very gracious in dissuading me from throwing myself under a bus. Best, LM.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 <p>My suggestion about following closely with the videographer was sincere....if you really desire a constant light source you can take advantage of his light. I do see a photographer with an assistant carrying a constant light source as intrusive and it could appear to be an artificial "spot-light dance". I have seen shooters use an assistant with a remote strobe produce some neat images....Parker Pfister immediately comes to mind. However this would not be a constant light source.</p> <p>My suggestion is to use flash as needed and if possible use the videographers light as an accent light or for some rim-lighting as in my image below.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 <p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> I don't see any reason to delete this thread. You haven't given the thread any time to pull in answers, and even if you don't like the answers already given, they not what I'd call extremely sarcastic or highly objectionable.</p> <p>When you ask questions, take what you will from the answers and leave the rest.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 <p>Since you want to hear from people who use constant lights, I won't write a long answer, because I don't. However, I also think that a constant light can be more intrusive, depending upon how it is used and how bright it is. An assistant with a constant light on a stick, if getting really close, can be more intrusive than a photographer using off camera flash placed at the edges of the venue. It depends. Also, these days, there are so many guest flashes that a few more from the pro aren't going to make much difference.</p> <p>To me, the only advantage to using constant light is the fact that you don't have to wait for recycling and you don't have the flattening effect if using on camera flash. Other than that, I don't see how you couldn't do the same thing using flash. That's just my opinion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelmowery Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 <p>I would have to disagree with the negative responses. Flash? yuck... LOL. just kidding.. I use the flash first and get my money shots then i use available light which would mean following the video light. Yes it brings about a different look and most times a better look than the flash because you are shooting with the white balance in tungstun which balances the background and gives a more natural appearance. The only thing is that the video light can be contrasty on the subjects face given your position relative to the video light. I still like it as a creative secondary shot. Always try different lighting and shooting techniques. Don't pay attention to negative comments they are probably burn out photographers. lol. good luck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markonestudios Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 <p>Constant light would be a no-no in my book too. And as David rightly said, piggy-backing on the videographer's lighting isn't a bad idea at all.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelmowery Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 <p>Sorry for the double responses I don't know what happened. I forgot to answer your question more directly. Yes a constant light like "the gunlight" or a tungsten flashlight or some lowel fresnel light is a very good supliment to your flash. It is not obtrusive and looks very cool. Again always use flash first before trying something different. The tungsten light can also be used off the dance floor in a more posed editorial feel portrait. Remember constant light means you have to be weary of your shutter speed as not to blur the image.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 <p>On the positive side, a constant light let's you see exactly what lighting effect you're getting, just like a modeling light (not that most wedding photographers can't already judge what they're getting from flash). And it can make focusing easier in an otherwise dimly lit reception. On the other hand, unless it's a monster unit a constant light is unlikely to be as powerful as flash and could require slow shutter speeds and wider apertures that could make it harder to get a sharp image. As far as coordinating with the person operating the light, as long as it's your light (not the video guy's light), that's no more difficult that coordinating an assistant who's doing second-light with a flash. Which is more distracting -- flash or constant? I shoot news-type events more than weddings and usually welcome a situation that's lit for TV since I'm not having to pop a flash everytime I shoot.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn_mertz Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 <p>I think there is greater potential for distraction having someone walking around with a constant light compared to a flash. With flash they are only noticed when they get in someone's way or if the light blinds someone. A constant light will be seen moving around and waving on the stick like a UFO. Constant spotlight mounted high on a stand at the edge of the room or with the dj's light rack would be less noticeable but less control too. <br> Much of this depends on your style and how you want to be perceived by the guests. Personally I think your idea will make it look like a photo shoot more than a wedding.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelmowery Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 <p>I don't think the question is how long or how much you should use the light during the party. It is just another tool in the bag.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 <p>There is a difference between piggybacking on the videographer's light and adding an assistant with a constant light on a stick. I can see doing the former, but since I have my own agenda involving my flashes (on and off camera), I don't usually try to piggyback on the videographer's light.</p> <p>Sometimes there isn't a videographer, sometimes they use LED panels which barely raise the light level, much less create a spotlight effect, sometimes they have their own assistant, so you are dealing with 2 videographers with lights, and then you add your own assistant and you are beginning to have a media circus going on.</p> <p>Then, the couple may dance for a minute, not leaving you time to do money shots plus extras. Sometimes, their dance is choreographed. Sometimes their dance is light and airy where they talk and laugh a lot, meaning the moody, feeling drenched, spotlit shot you anticipated is out of reach. If I took advantage of a videographer's light, it would be totally 'if it happens to work'.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagesax Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 People may get pretty upset. I'd never do it and I never have done this. You are not the center of attention so kill the lights.The lights are dimmed for a reason - a romantic moment. Same with the father daughter dance. During that dance brides often get emotional and thats also a special moment with dimmed lights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelmowery Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 <p>Well until you have actually used a constant light at a wedding your only giving your opinion and assumption. I have used this type of light many times at very high end weddings and have never gotten any negative feedback. I of course don't leave the light on longer than it takes me to take a few pictures. If you think about it the flash is brighter than a constant light that is typically used which is much like a flash light. If one left the flashlight on for 1 minute and that is a long time.. then i would say it would be in sensitive. Common sense here is what is important. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rt_jones Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 <p>I don't know people... with some photographer's remote flashes firing I've seen first dances lit up like the mother of all thunderstorms. Hard to say which is more distracting and "intrusive".</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studio460 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 <p>A popular technique employed by lighting directors and gaffers of "dating-style" reality television shows (e.g., <em>The Bachelor</em>) is to have assistants hold 1' x 1' LED LitePanels on 40" extension arms, powered by on-board, Anton-Bauer Dionic 90s. Alternatively, you could use a standard KinoFlo 2x2 (two-foot, two-bank) powered by a Vagabond Mini Lithium inverter/battery (I've tried it--it works!). You could also use a KinoFlo Kameo 6E fluorescent ringlight, in addition to assistant-held LitePanels or other KinoFlo instruments, as a soft frontal key/fill. All of these instruments are inherently soft, and are fairly low-output anyway, so they can often be matched nearer to ambient light-levels while still providing useful subject illumination.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 <p>Obviously, both flashes and constant light can be intrusive and distracting, depending upon how they are implemented. The point is, the OP is apparently considering constant light for its ability to be less intrusive.</p> <p>If being intrusive was the overriding factor for choosing a method to light the first dance, then one would not be using any kind of external light. Never mind the fact that most of the time, there are many other guest flashes going off, and at least one or two guests running right up to the couple during the dance. Not to mention videographer lights.</p> <p>Anyway, the great high ISO performance of today's cameras almost makes using no light for any of the first dance photos possible. My point is--base your choice of lighting or no lighting...on the effect you want. Be as unobtrusive as possible by choice of implementation method.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studio460 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 <p>As an experiment, I tried shooting some snapshots at our company Xmas party a couple years ago with a Litepanel Micro LED, mounted in the hotshoe of my Nikon D7000:</p> <p><img src="http://nikoncinematographer.com/images/nbcparty1.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D7000; AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D; ISO: 2000; f/2.2 @ 1/125th.</p> <p>I've also been considering other continuous lighting tools for still photography applications, including LED ringlights, and the Kamio 6E fluorescent ringlight made by KinoFlo. Since the Litepanel Micro (above) was introduced, a number of competing LED units have since arrived on the market, at more competitive prices. I just saw a crew shooting this evening with an on-board light made by a company called Prolight. They appear to make less expensive versions of both Litepanel and KinoFlo type lighting products, and may be worth checking out. Their "Microbeam 256" is larger than the Lightpanel Micro, and is priced about the same ($399).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studio460 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 <p>I said:</p> <blockquote> <p>I just saw a crew shooting this evening with an on-board light made by a company called Prolight . . .</p> </blockquote> <p>I misspoke--the company's name is "FloLight."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studio460 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 <p>Not sure how well this budget-brand, on-board LED light works, but it's the only one I've found under $2,000 which offers electronically variable color temperature control: 2,800-6,500 degrees Kelvin. Plus, it's only $249.</p> <p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/833445-REG/Stellar_Lighting_Systems_STL_VARICOLOR320_STL_VariColor_320_On_Camera_LED.html</p> <p>STL-VariColor 320 from Stellar Lighting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studio460 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 <p>That said, for the topic under discussion, I would recommend assistant-held, 1' x 1' Litepanels (or equivalent, FloLight models) on short boom-poles, for the OP's application, both for their slim profile, and compact form-factor. Ideally, two panels, with two assistants (one as a backlight, and one as an off-center key). I believe a 1' x 1' Litepanel runs about 90 minutes from an on-board Anton-Bauer Dionic 90.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now