Metered group shot. Fill Needed? Opinions please

[timberwolf1]

Mr. Lambert's explaination that the sun is not the main light in an outdoor situation fails to recognize that the flash unit, when combined with sunlight hitting the faces of people who are not looking at the camera, certainly qualifies that strong light as "main" and the flash as fill. If these people were out of the shade, in sun, the flash would be fill, too and the sun would be the main with calculations for exposure fill dependent upon the sun, the main intensity. To ignore the sun is to darken the sky and grasses unnaturally! In the rare circumstance of high-saturation fashion, making the sky darker, otherworldly, the flash would be main. Mr. Lambert is a simplistic thinker here and it appears that if a light, any light is facing a person square-on, he loosely calls this a main---something to investigate if you care about Mr. Lambert's hostile organization of photographic insights ( or is that 'incites'? I care bout Mr. Benjamin, and he really isn't getting the focus on his problem by listening to Mr. Lambert's stream-of-conscius rantinngs. I have read some of Mr. Lambet's opinions, I have liked some of them, however his style seems to draw attention to himself when the person of focus is Benjamin.

[timberwolf1]

I gave an answer for both situations in side and out. Dragging the shutter is a no-no, unless the client specifies that she like her pure white dress to turn orangy brown. Otherwise, the expecttion is to have neutral skin tones and a white dress. The GAMPs will argue that it doesn't matter to them, because they don't care or have the equipment to make the result any other way. But hopefully, Benjamin will be able to have the right equipment.

[elliot_n]

Keep pedalling!

[timberwolf1]

Oh, I am! It's hot! The word "fill" is short for "fill in the shadows" which are created by one or more mains lights. It is intuitive, and it follows intuitively, that shadows can be created indoors or out. To reverse this intuitive relationship and to apply it with convulated thinking is the domain of, and caused by the GAMPs, (Gadgeteer auto mode photographer ) who are trying to reshape their under-equipt view of their work result: make excuses, in other words.

[larry_lambert1]

If your under a tree, the sun is no longer your main light, dummy. Skylight is, which is a much higher color temperature than the sunlight. Duh. Then you have to have the flash contibuting much more to the exposure of the people's faces under the tree than the skylight does. Which, incidentally, is mixing two different light colors (skylight and flash), just like in the church, only if the skylight is contributing more than the flash, your white dress will be blue. Pro since '73, huh?

[larry_lambert1]

My stream of conscious ranting's? Oxygen must be low in your gym.

[timberwolf1]

Mr. Lambert is demonstrating how his convoluted definitions work: he disregards good taste, client requests for natural color and the fact that shady areas have sunlight spots peeking through. To Mr. Lambert, shade is simply another main light that he mixes his main light flash. The sunlit golf course which may be 70% of his picture, is ignored and not compensated for with professional flash slaves. He lets it go frosty white with overexposure, or dark twi-light green as he looses control. Or, he can switch terms and mix colors to come up with bluish skin outdoors and orangy yellow skin and dress indoors. This is because his auto mode can't distinguish which is a main and fill light, and neither can Mr. Lambert. He has lost touch with the Sun's intensity as a main light exposure source. Mr. Lambert's motto is: "Well, the 'auto mode' works for me!"

[timberwolf1]

Benjamin, goid job on the Vivitar purchase. No, we don't want to use the light in the church to "help" with pumping up the light level. If you did this, you would really need an 1/8th or 1/15th second, roughly, and you will be colorizing the bride with an orangy color and creating another problem with recording blinking eyes. Depending uponn how the flood lights from the ceiling illuminate the bride, her forehead will be orangy, the tip of her nose will be "tipped" with floodlight illunination, and her eyes will look more hollow, possibly with a bluish tinge as the color lab struggles to get rid of the orangy tint and replace it with a bluer tone. Yes, you cold combine yur 50ws flah and the Vivitar for 150ws. You will need a hotshoe slave by Wein to do this. ---the more sensitive, the better--two choices.

[timberwolf1]

The shady blue light that ( GAMP ) Mr. Lambert uses to "pump up" his weak little amateur flash connected to his auto mode throws his exposure of the scene at the golf course out of all reality: The people become a tiny bit bluish, and the golf course becomes over exposed 4 stops to give the golf course that look of just fallen snow during a 90 degree Summer wedding reception. The lab filters out the bluishness as they cuss under their lab coats about the "pro" photographer who needs a lesson in exposure craftsmenship. And as they filter out blue, they add yellowishness to the "snow".

[timberwolf1]

Benjamin, There re several slaves to choose from. For now, A Ein w940030 #wehs hotshoe slavefrom www.bhphoto.com will do it. So will a PN-xl peanut slave. Both are $35. Later, you want a "flash foot one" hotshoe replacement and a Household connection SSL or SSR. More sensitivity is not always better; it can get in the way! With this slave, you can fire both flashes at the same time toup power or to give alittle modeling to the subject. Using two flashes in a group shot will make it look more 3-d , reduce the numbers of oily faces and give you another 1/2 stop of depth of field capability! No bad effects!

[larry_lambert1]

Weak flash, huh?<div></div>

[larry_lambert1]

Outside in the shade, balancing with background?<div></div>

[larry_lambert1]

Balancing inside tungsten, where's this orangy dress?<div></div>

[larry_lambert1]

Need more proof?<div></div>

[larry_lambert1]

All of the above use a single on camera flash, either a 285 HV or a Quantum. UNDER TYPICAL WEDDING PRESSURE. If you think you can lug a plugged in light around the church, run outside with it, have coverage anyplace around the grounds and still get about 300 or so perfectly exposed pictures VERY QUICKLY, all while balancing ambient to flash, SHOW ME THE GREAT PICTURES FROM YOUR ILLUSTRIOUS 30 YEAR CAREER! :-( AND YOUR STILL BORING.

[timberwolf1]

Mr.Lambert doesn't want me to do this, but I must: Notice how the bride's dress is bluish in the folds of the dress? This is a sign that the lab attempted a rescue of his bad habits. They added blue to counter act the yellowishness from the ambient mixture. He also may have failed to put a UV color printing filter over his fash to take out flouresence of the whiteners in the dress. He also photographed them down the altar too high so that the verticals in the background make these nice folks look like they are unbalanced or falling over alittle. Mr. Lambert also only gave us examples of tungsen illumination where this light is dimist: end of an aisle rather than the altar; oh, you are sneaky, Mr. Lambert. The couple outside, handsome couple, are unevenly lit. Mr. Lambert chose a photograph wherein the sunlit background does't hardly show, sneaky! Why the man so dark? Auto mode. No additinal lights to illuminate the rear area. The bride near the dining room is not in tungsen or incandescent, notice the lights in the dining room are off? You are a wily fox Mr. Lambert, but we are not fooled. You are, by yur auto mode.

[larry_lambert1]

What lab was that? You sure make alot of assumptions, Mr. Borcherding. Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up, show you're better than me or go home.

[larry_lambert1]

You wouldn't last five minutes at any wedding, your techniques work in a studio, but not in the field. Prove yourself, or else we'll know you're all type. Give a single picture from a pressure situation, blowhard.

[timberwolf1]

The couple cutting thee cake... notice the blue dress...like the blue tinged dress of the bride down the aisle...caused by lack of UV filtration over his flash. This costs $5 to fix with a CP filter. All of the examples don't show that the indoor lighting, or outdoir sky was actually mixed..why? Easy, the exposure of these light sources were too low. To show the effects, you need a 50-50% mix or 25-75% mix. What we have here is a weak 3-97% mix with this colored light the 3%. The lab can filter this out easily leaving only tiny telltale signs in the sunlit areas---but Mr. Lambert carefully chose pictures without sunlight.! Sneaky. The groom in the background is too dark=no sky exposure. The bride in the dining room---notice how the side of her body is in darkness? No mix from the dining room lights! The cake shot shows the UV problem of a blue bride's dress. Mr. Lambert likes to use wide angle lenses because they make it unnecessary to bend down during the aisle shot and the outdoor portait is "affected". This is wide angle distortion. Mr. Lambert doesn't care.... Now what he could have done was to simply bounce 100ws of off those rear walls, the dining room, and the outdoor scene. with foamcore. By putting the outdoor couple near the sunlight, he would have had a colorful background, but no, Mr. Lambert only likes to make the bride's dress colorful blue. I have to stop pedaling now, my butt hurts, Mr. Lambert has been here with his portfolio.

[larry_lambert1]

I thought not. I used to deal with your type at my store all the time. Goodbye Mr. Borcherding, this is my last post on this thread.

[nabman - montreal, canada]

Timber obviously knows his craft. He's not obliged to provide his answers in text-book prose; overall, his answers are of good quality and reflect applied techniques and experience.

[40mm]

I've often wondered why the vast majority of wedding photography looks so clinically sterile and, frankly, meticulously boring. If the thinking in this thread is representative, I'm begining to understand why.

 

My assumption is that the market demands this form of formulaic approach, but I find myself wondering if that's simply because the market has been educated in its expectations by technical fundamentalist photographers. The implication of many of the comments here is that there is One True Path to Correct Wedding Photography. I find this notion absurd, but, if representative, does go some way to explain why the vast majority of wedding photography I see is technically highly proficient whilst being symultaneously coma-inducingly dull, production-line stuff.

 

Probably needless to say, I'm not a wedding photographer and this is all just my opinion, so feel free to consider me an ignorant dofus.

[timberwolf1]

Norm,

 

The question you've just asked really belongs under its own question and answer under "weddings". But to give you alittle preview: Wedding photographers do not have much flexibility when they work. They are usually given only 5-30 SECONDS to do a portrait, or to complete some other idea. This is the time it takes a fine art photographer just to attach his tripod to his camera!

 

The Bride will never hire a fashion photographer to maximize her look on her most important day. Yet, she will compare her looks to pages of fashion models, in make-up use, dress and posturing. This is a tremendous load for a wedding photographer. Many wedding photographers "smell a bad situation" when they realize the bride may become very, very demanding because she has high expectations. Now, if you are in the country where people wear jeans and a t-shirt to work, the overall expectations may be lower in this area. But in the cities, the expectation can soar of this "fashion look".

 

As far as formulas, well, there are calculations to be made in exposure to make skin tones look good. Secondarily, there are backgrounds to be exposed for, as a start on this road to complication and calculation. Good photographers hide all of the mathematics from their clients. They do not talk in "formulas" but in feelings and expression of visual concepts. For example, although a fashion photographer will make a model into a "symbol of excess", the photographer relates to the model in very normal and personal ways. This takes alot of experience!

 

Using "formulas" is like using a recipe, it is a "found treasure" which goes into a book, or on the pages of photo.net to be shared by later generations. It does not create a limitation; the choosing of the recipe is a freedom. There are many good taste ways to do it.

 

But like playing tennis in a competition; you can create new ways to hit that ball; but, in the end there will be a judgement by the audience, judge or the mother of the bride. Professionals operate in a world where the end product is not simply a statement of self-expression; it must be acceptable to others and their predjudices. Professional work, photographing for strangers, is not for everyone. It is stressful and challenging. Many drop back to become fine artists instead. But if you put your toe to the line and start serving those strangers, it is wise that you go to a school to learn how to make a basic bread, a basic sauce, like a chef's school. You learn the basics, the styles, then down the road you may know with experience when you should break those rules and still satisfy your clients. Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

[benjamin_cromwell]

Ok I am posting a few results of my own expermentation in reguards to all of the bickering that is going on in this thred. The Ambient Reading in this church at F8 is 1/8. Here they are.

 

This first one was shot at 1/15 F8 50ws flash at 1/4 power.

 

PLEASE keep in mind I did not compose this photo, I was shooting only to test different exposures.<div></div>

[benjamin_cromwell]

Here is #2

 

Shot at 1/60 f8 flash as full power . .. Oh yeah my scanner is dirty too.<div></div>