Problem with Wedding Photograph Fill-Flash

[timberwolf1]

Let me say this to the readers: If you use this tried and true method, you will not be

underexposing your flash any 1.5 f stops when you fill. Don't use this number posted

above as any reference that you can mindlessly use in real practice with all flash units.

This is something that only applies to his post, his refererence to a particular TTL flash.

 

Standard flash ratios apply with my manual control methods. If you like a 2:1 or 1:1 flash

fill, you can produce it. You can also produce a 1.5:1 if you like. You have the control to

make any ratio you like. There is no guessing, only reading numbers when you focus.

[timberwolf1]

Adding as a footnote:

 

This manual mode control does not put Minolta Flash Meters out of business! If you want

to go an additional step to really perfect your flash fill, you would use your manual control

steps of reading numbers off of a lens, and then take a reading to determine your % of

ambient vs. flash fill. But you know, photojournalists cannot treat every picture as a

portrait! Time is of the essence! The manual mode control system will bring you close,

but you need to watch what the ambient light power is! So this is why a flash meter with

1/10th f stop accuracy is very nice to have available! And it is nice to have the time to use

it! (...here...here!)

[._._z]

How about some post-work?<div></div>

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

When you overexpose digital, or slides, your shot is down the toilet. You've clipped the light end and lost your tonal gradation. Faces get blotchy blobs. You can't blow faces on wedding pictures. Post processing can't bring back what isn't there.

[ShunCheung]

Who says there is absolutely no way to fix the problem? :-)<div></div>

[todd frederick]

Shun...That is a really great Fix! How did you do it or is there a fee!? (^0^) You may have my first born!

[todd frederick]

OK...I am attaching a wedding day portrait of the groom. This uses the same camera system and fill-flash (Olympus E-10 and FL-40 flash) with no minus flash compensation.

 

I must say that I personally prefer a sharp, snappy photo to those old Vericolor mushy images we saw in the 1980's!

 

Any thoughts on this image? Filtration needed?, reduction in flash output?, camera exposure?, etc. Remember, this is digital with very little latitude, taken in JPEG.

 

I am open to all suggestions. I want to learn! I'm not sensitive to positive suggestions.<div></div>

[todd frederick]

As a clarification, for anyone who is still reading this, the photo above was taken by my frend Shun (who was a co-photographer on that day) with his Nikon D100 and flash combo at a -2 flash setting.

 

I used my flash with no compensations! That seems to resolve the problem. Shun and I worked on this wedding together.

 

I have concluded that for fill flash, the photographer must adjust the flash output down to -2 when using digital to produce a properly exposed image in outdoor ambient light on overcast days.

 

Fortunately, digital allows us to review the results before the next exposure, which I did NOT do! My error totally.

[wedding-photography-denver]

I seem to find that a -1/3 on the flash works well for most fill. I try not to complicate the issue by relearning all photography basics for each new body. I simply try a few ideas and lighting situations and settle on what seemed best. This is not a big deal with digital and really helps speed the learning curve on any new digi body.

[todd frederick]

Correction...the photograph of the two men was taken by Shun. The solo photo of the groom was taken by me.

[fotografz]

"Who says there is absolutely no way to fix the problem? :-)"

 

Both the attempted fixes says so.

 

Not even PS can fix this one folks. When a digital shot is so overexposed it's a lost cause.

You can't restore what isn't there.

[bruce_rubenstein]

"I have concluded that for fill flash, the photographer must adjust the flash output down to -2 when using digital to produce a properly exposed image in outdoor ambient light on overcast days."

 

Todd - There is no universal rule, because each camera/flash system can be different. The flash systems of the Nikon film cameras, from the N90 on, are pretty similar, but the digital cameras do TTL flash differently. Nikon has also made a number of changes from model to model. I wouldn't begin to guess what works best for different brands and models of cameras.

[think27]

Since cameras, flashes, personal techniques and tastes are all so different, I'm afraid this thread could go on forever. ;-) <p>Just to respond to Timber..... I can't make head nor tails of your numbers and technique. I'm a trail and error shooter. Actually, like you, I have my way of shooting that works for me. The only difference is that you approach it scientifically and I do it by measuring/analyzing results and keep doing what works. There is no wrong answer here.. Just different approaches. <p>First of all, no - I was not shooting with a Mamiya.. I sold that camera because it didn't suit my purposes for weddings. I shot with a Canon F1N and a Sunpak for 10 years. I was very happy with my results and not only shot weddings but shot with the same camera for outdoor fashion shoots for publication, events, tourist shots for Vermont Travel Mags and Inns and food for brochures etc. Because Vermont didn't have many large indoor facilities - I shot outdoors constantly and found the method that worked - for me. There is no need to argue with my technique, Timber. Just recognize that your way works for you and may work for some others but doesn't work for "everyone" and is not "bible". Furthermore, my math challenged mind can not even begin to understand what you are talking about. Oh - and please - don't try to explain it because it won't work. <p> As to the question Scott asks about my particular technique with fill flash. Yes, it is the 550EX. Also I'm shooting with Reala 100. As I mentioned before - everyone should experiment and find what works best for them. Each camera/flash is different as well as taste. What I will explain is this... I do overexpose in the shade - usually with some filtered light coming through trees in the background. I go for that background whenever I can find it. I happen to like green/yellowish backgrounds. I think they are flattering to skin tones. So - I find I shoot so quickly that sometimes my flash does not go off. I look at the results and see that in "some" ways, my preference goes toward the no flash image which is perfectly exposed BUT it is a little dull and sometimes slightly green or blue. Then I look at the fill flash that the Canon 1V/550EX gives me and I "personally" (just my taste) think it is too much flash. To "me" it looks a tad artificial. That is when I decided to dial down the flash. I liked the results much better. <p>Why I like this forum so much is that we can take the help/advice we like and leave the rest... I'm always learning new things and never believe I have all the answers or THE right answer. Please always remember that this is what works for me and may not work for you. I've learned quite a bit in this past month and thank everyone for their time and contributions.

[ShunCheung]

Folks, the "fix" I posted was meant to be a joke; I think the exposure of that image I posted was not bad. However, it is not a fix of Todd's original image, which unfortunately is of course beyond repair. That day I was helping Todd to shoot the wedding as a second camera. It was an overcast day and fill flash wasn't that necessary. I was using a Nikon D100 shooting all RAW format. I set my SB-80DX flash to -2 just to give a hint of flash. RAW also provides more room for post-processing/PhotoShop adjustments.

 

If you look at them carefully, my image is slightly different from Todd's. In his image, you can see part of the left hand of the taller person. In my image, you cannot see the left hand at all. However, they are so similar that it fools some people, for a little while. :-)

[todd frederick]

I agree with Mary that this could go on forever, and it may be best to call it quits.

 

Shun even fooled me with his photo. I did not look at his photo carefully and thought he found the miracle cure for overexposure.

 

Also, in my opinion, there is not just one way to photograph weddings (unless you belong to PPA or are a Monte Zucker fan!). I like a bit more snap in my photos, Shun's are more subdued and smooth, I don't do anything like Marc's beautiful PJ photos, and on and on. That's OK. I have my fan club and get many referrals from happy customers.

 

I too am math challenged, and the coming of automated systems was a true blessing to me.

 

Shun and I both live in the south San Francisco Bay Area, and we've been doing a few weddings together. I want to learn digital technique from him, and he wants the chance to photograph some weddings to build a portfolio. We look like a firing squad, I fear!

 

The one thing I have learned from this question and responses (and it is a very important lesson) is that TTL flash for film cameras is very different from digital.

 

Over the weekend, which should be overcast, I am going to take my coat rack outside and put my tux coat and a straw hat (face) on it and practice with the digital TTL flash in as many ways as I can. I will then drape a white sheet over it (the bride) and do the same thing. I'm not sure how I'll put them together! How does that sound for a basic flash test?

 

Thanks for all the suggestions and blessing to you. I did learn a lot from this. Todd