michaelmowery

<p>Kenneth can you please elaborate on your professional experience shooting weddings and Mitzvah's. There seems to be some confusion based on some advice given. Reading between the lines of what you have stated it sounds to me that you have offered to do this because your brother in law can not afford to hire a professional. </p>

<p>and just for arguments sake you took the reading right at the subjects face within an inch or so. </p>

<p>Ok you see I was not aware of this with your past posts. It sounds like a faulty meter but do check it against another meter to be sure.</p>

<p>Now is not the time to try something new. Use what you are comfortable with and familiar with. You don't need 5 lenses to shoot a job, keep it simple. You rented a 24-70 last time, I think that is a smart move. You can also rent a 70-200 and you are all set. Make sure you have a second camera and a second flash. Don't over think this just get the shots. Review what you did last time and make some adjustments if necessary. Lastly don't forget your flask. LOL</p>

<p>there is also no need to retract your dome to take a reading. It does really look like a reflected reading but you swear it is not. It is either user error or it is broken.</p>

<p>What I don't understand is why is your meter working for your other flash portraits? Maybe something happened between your last shoot. You won't know for sure unless you borrow another meter to check against. Most likely you will have to send in your meter for repair. That is not uncommon.</p>

<p>Bob hit it on the nose. I couldn't find the "like" button. We need to practice and experiment and learn from our mistakes. Keep doing it until you get it right. If you don't move anything, then your results will never change. Its only when you start to make changes, usually small ones, that you see a change in the result. If it starts to look bad then move it back the other way. The same goes for your camera settings.</p>

<p>for the same reason you don't see the catch light when the light is too high is the same reason you don't see it when your too close. As long as you see the catch light in half of the pupil then you know you are in the right area. For example if your light is 5 to four feet above the subject and the stand is around 2 to 3 feet from the subject you won't see the catch light. If you move the light back about 2 or 3 feet without lowering it you will indeed begin to see the catch light in the eye<br /> As the old rule of thumb goes for best soft light is closer the light the softer the light or the larger the light source the softer the light source. That is all true but they don't tell you about the placement of the light. If your too close and too high then the light is skimming over the face producing texture thus you see all the pronounced rolls of the checks and crevasses of the face. LOL.<br /> In Beauty lighting they light up the mask of the face, for the most part it is a direct light but very soft. I have never had one complaint when I have lit someone that way. I hear more complaints about ratio lighting and shadows that are too dark. All those lighting patterns are great for us photographers and for competitions but in the real world when you want to make your client happy all that goes out the window. <br /> I am not saying don't do it but just limit it to a couple pictures to show diversity but then focus on taking well lit soft flattering pictures that will sell over and over again.</p>

I never said use flat lighting. I said light the front of the face. Google lighting the mask of the face. Your problem is your light was too high and too close to the subject. Your lack of full light did not help. I also see a mix of artificial light mixed in your exposure. You have to be careful when balancing two light sources. if you can not see the catch light in the subjects eyes then your light is too high regardless of a text book telling u 45 degree angle. If the lighting is unflattering what difference does it make what type of lighting pattern you used. People are free to light however they want and there is no right and wrong for the most part. What matters is if the client likes the picture.

<p>I am a professional photographer with over 18 years experience I know bad lighting when i see it. That diagram shows nothing of what you actually did. Just take a picture of your set up is all I am asking. I see you are not ready to receive instruction with out getting defensive so good luck!!</p>

<p>What light modifier are you using? and what size is it? One note is that larger light sources is not better for creating light patterns. I would focus on using one light and trying to light the front of the face evenly first before getting too technical with ratios and lighting patterns. You are trying to put the cart before the horse. As you see when you try to get fancy with the lighting before you know what your doing you end up with a bad picture. (a handsome subject but bad lighting)</p>

<p>Looking at your results..Your main light is raised too high and is too much around to the left side of your subject. It is also too close to your subject as well. If you really want help, You should take a picture of your setup with the subject in the picture so we can see exactly what you are doing. Showing a generic diagram does not help.</p>

<p>Proper placement of your lights can make it or break it. </p>

<p>This one I used an umbrella instead of soft box just because it was a wedding and you know it takes too much time to fiddle with a soft box.</p><div></div>

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

<p>Here are some examples of the same overhead butterfly lighting with 4x6 soft box. Two of them have a reflector underneath which you can see in the eyes.</p><div></div>

<p>I just ball parked $50K just on the basic scope and logistics of the job. The buyout rates are not even factored into this guesstimate. It sounds like your dealing with a billion dollar company. </p>

<p>correct exposure is not going to help bad lighting. For those who can see the light placement lets look at the first shot. the main light is too low on the right giving an upward light that is un attractive. It is also to much around to the side of the subject. Next time pull the light back and raise it at least head level and light more the front or mask of the face.<br> The second shot lighting would still look bad even if it was exposed correctly. The main light is too much over the top of her head. Next time just move that light back from the subject another foot or two and we would be looking at a lighting pattern similar to Marcin's first example.<br> Notice in Marcin's photo the catch light in the eye appears lower than the OP's example. That tells me it was not in the same position as the OP's. As a light is further away and I am speaking small movements of 1 foot or so, you will begin to see more of the catchlight reflection appear lower into the pupils. A good rule of thumb is the more of the catch light you see the more light hits the front of the face. Most non model people look better with more forward light hitting the face. When you add a reflector under the face you can leverage the main light placement a bit more and shape the light more. The upward fill creates a soft pleasing glow and fills in the shadow.</p>

<p>Preteesh, You first need to learn where to place your soft. As you see in the first shot it is too much to the right side. You are lighting her cheek and ear. The second shot is the same except it is over the top of the head. You are lighting the fore head and hair. It is basically a reverse hair light. It both cases the extreme angles that you chose it what is causing your problems, NOT the distance of the light to subject. Your exposure is also a little hot. I am not going to go into fill light or reflector because you first need to light properly with one light before you introduce a second light.</p>

<p>Sounds good. Now all you need to do is come up with a price. I would tread lightly here with your limited experience. </p>

<p> The father daughter dance usually is just the two of them on the dance floor so a long lens can work. Why a person feels the need to hide the background at a wedding venue is not clear. Most Weddings I have shot have a beautiful location. My answer to this was merely technical to the lens characteristics. I was not saying what one should do in a wedding scenario.</p>

<p>Ok you didn't really answer my question. Are you charging her or not? Its Thursday night and the baptism is Sunday. Are waiting to see what people advise you on this forum or are you asking for future reference? Anyways, Pricing is something you will have to explore based on your location and your clients. As long as you are making a profit then you are good. It won't take long to figure out whether you should raise your prices or not. One person may charge $150 while someone else may charge $350 and yet others may charge $500 to $1,000. My guess you will fall somewhere in the $150 to $350. Only you can make that decision. I wish I could tell you what to charge but it doesn't work like that.</p>

<p>Using a telephoto lens would in fact magnify and compress the background making it more prominent. The wide angle would make the background much smaller in comparison and less noticeable but on the other hand it would be more in focus as there is more depth of field in a wide angle. My approach would be longer lens shot at very shallow depth of field and completely blur the background</p>

<p>So you friend asked you to be the photographer and you said? Ok... but I will get back to you with a price? To answer your question, the subject or event that you shoot should not make a difference in your pricing. You should already have a minimum amount you are willing to work in order to stay in business and then your hourly rate from there. As far as what to give that depends on what your client wants. Maybe they don't want prints. Remember you are providing a service. The camera settings should be set to achieve the correct exposure. The shutter speed should not be too slow as to cause blur.</p>

<p>Matt, I totally agree and understand your point. I am just keeping to the discussion of Ethan who refers to Key light and fill ratio and where he talks about the terms of high and low key somehow switching meaning over the years. This last point he made I am still confused about what he is talking about.</p>