I was at a wedding yesterday and while I was shooting outdoors I was trying to get the sun in the photo of the whole bridal party in the shot with the sun coming down from the top right hand conner. Problem is that everytime I tried to shoot with the sun, it just completely washed the sun out of the picture.

I love to look at Jessica Clair's blog to get inspired by her shots, and she does this a lot, Im just wondering how does she get the sun in the frame with the reflection and all. Any ideas, tips, or tricks that you mind sharing? Thanks for any input.

Examples would help to see what you're trying to accomplish.

I'ld love to hear the answer also please...

What was your lens and aperture? Any filters?

Looks like

http://www.jessicaclaire.net/

#5 and #7 on the front page?

What metering mode are you using ? Where are you metering from? Personally I'd stick it on either partial or spot, manual mode, meter on the couple, and fire away, probably using a prime (less prone to flare) and fill in flash, probably set to about -2/3 FEC. The pictures you've referenced obviously have the sky totally blown out, and the important thing is to make sure that the COUPLE are metered for properly, looks like she's done a fair bit of PP to them as well.

Good luck anyway.
Chris

i'ld love to hear from Ed on this issue, as he is the best in this class with his magic stick .....

I am a wide open shooter. For sun in the photos it's a little better to shoot with a smaller aperture, ie. 5.6 to 8. This will keep a little more detail in the sun. This is not saying you can't shoot wide open, it just works a little better for me stopped down some.

Now, spot meter on the couple allowing the sun in the upper corner of the frame. You can use a small amount of fill, but I personally don't care for it.

Now comes the post processing. One thing I like to do is open my color balance and choose highlights, then adjust for a warmer color just in highlights. Then, use your layer mask accordingly. You can also import to versions of the image. One exposed for the subjects and one for the background and paint for the effect you'd like.

Now, a curves layer will definitely help as will dodging and burning. There's a lot of trial and error involved, but it will eventually become easy. That's when you'll stop liking it!!

Good luck and have fun!

Jonathan Consiglio

I think I know what you are talking about with the completely washed out look. Sometimes that looks great if you keep the couple as a silhouette. Otherwise it just looks washed out -- like a mistake.

I've heard to f/16 is the way to go if you want the star effect for the sun. It helps if the sun is low in the sky. But anything around 5.6 to 8 will help. Notice that in Jessica Claire's photos, the sun is almost behind the trees. She's blowing the background, metering for the couple's skin, and isn't getting that entire-orange or white picture. I'm pretty sure having a bit of the sun blocked helps with this.

Thanks for the replys, I was shooting wide open at f/4.0 with spot metering. I'll try to lower my aperture down to f/8 or so and see if that will work.

Also Im talking about having that star effect for the sun, and when I tried that, I was shooting wide open, which there for blew out the detail in the sun and just washed it out completely, thanks for the tips, I'll give it a shot!

A few things will help

1) filter the sun through something, like a tree or the edge of a building...
2) shoot right before sunset or when the sun is low enough to be blocked by trees.
3) You can shoot at whatever f-stop you want. However, for the look she gets you have to shoot pretty low or you won't get the shallow depth of field. (I'm guessing the shots you mentioned are probably taken with a 50L at low f-stops)
4) If the sun is weak enough, just expose for their skin. If it's not, you can use a little bit of fill flash.
5) watch out for sun flares. Just take the pic from several angles so you don't get a big green sun flare right across someone's face...

ken

This has some pretty snazzy examples at the middle of the page: http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/skychart/skychart.htm

Like this?

How do you determine what power to set the 580EX in that situation?

Paul Prior wrote:
How do you determine what power to set the 580EX in that situation?

Trial and error.

My 2 cents would be go manual on your camera and flash then experiment! Take a friend, partner or spouse as a subject and mess about till you get it. It's a lot easier than it looks.

It helps a lot if you can shoot off camera flash, the 580 just does not have the juice unless your subject is pretty close. I use a system based off Ed's, 2x SB28's, pocket wizards and a stand... the cool thing about using the stand is it's easy to remove later.

The flair through her veil below was actually a flash, I took the stand out afterward.

For the star effect you've got to shoot at a very narrow aperture, closer to f22. Each different small aperture you choose will give a slightly different star. Also, the lens blade shapes play a role here, so experiment with different lenses. Meter to the sky near the sun, then fill flash for your subject. I don't like the look for a portrait shot, but it can work as a landscape technique. Here's one at f13:

Neat image Chris

paulhodson wrote:
Neat image Chris

Thanks Paul. It is from Keys View in Joshua Tree NP, looking down into the Palm Springs area, where I live.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

One warning about shooting high f-stops:

Because of diffraction, most lenses become less sharp at f-stops above f16 (my 16-35L begins losing sharpness at anything above f11) even while they are increasing in depth of field. If you want to shoot these underexposed shots during the day while still keeping your shutter speed below 1/250 (the sync speed of the flash), you are better off using a neutral density filter on the lens so you can keep you f-stop lower.

You can read more about diffraction here...

ken

Ken Vigil wrote:
One warning about shooting high f-stops:

Because of diffraction, most lenses become less sharp at f-stops above f16 (my 16-35L begins losing sharpness at anything above f11) even while they are increasing in depth of field. If you want to shoot these underexposed shots during the day while still keeping your shutter speed below 1/250 (the sync speed of the flash), you are better off using a neutral density filter on the lens so you can keep you f-stop lower.

You can read more about diffraction here...

ken

Technically true, but the point is that shooting at very narrow apertures creates the star effect he's after. And practically speaking, where does diffraction make a real difference? The answer is in very large prints, just as with every other sharpness issue. And while this is critical for landscape photography, we're talking about wedding photography here where 99% of prints will be 4x6 and a very select few may be 8x10s.

The point is to shoot at the setting that gives you the effect you're after. I've seen some photographers take this diffraction issue so far that they won't stop down their lenses to get the depth of field necessary to get the entire subject in focus. They were so concerned about critical sharpness that portions of their landscape images are out of focus!

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

The point is to shoot at the setting that gives you the effect you're after. I've seen some photographers take this diffraction issue so far that they won't stop down their lenses to get the depth of field necessary to get the entire subject in focus. They were so concerned about critical sharpness that portions of their landscape images are out of focus!


It comes down to an issue of balance for me. Just depends on what you really want and what you are willing to give up to get it. I love shooting high f-stop underexposed shots during weddings so the diffraction issue really causes a problem when we do the album layouts (those shots often end up as two page 12x24 prints in the album or 20x30 engagement prints - one of my favorite engagement shots from last year did end up getting printed large like that and didn't really hold up well in the full print because of the blurriness introduced by diffraction). If they are just for 4x6, it doesn't really matter.

ken

Ken Vigil wrote:

The point is to shoot at the setting that gives you the effect you're after. I've seen some photographers take this diffraction issue so far that they won't stop down their lenses to get the depth of field necessary to get the entire subject in focus. They were so concerned about critical sharpness that portions of their landscape images are out of focus!


It comes down to an issue of balance for me. Just depends on what you really want and what you are willing to give up to get it. I love shooting high f-stop underexposed shots during weddings so the diffraction issue really causes a problem when we do the album layouts (those shots often end up as two page 12x24 prints in the album or 20x30 engagement prints - one of my favorite engagement shots from last year did end up getting printed large like that and didn't really hold up well in the full print because of the blurriness introduced by diffraction). If they are just for 4x6, it doesn't really matter.

ken

The image I posted above (as well as a similar close-up of the bride where her face and arms fill the frame) have been blown up to 16x24 with no discernible issues.

unblinkable wrote:

The image I posted above (as well as a similar close-up of the bride where her face and arms fill the frame) have been blown up to 16x24 with no discernible issues.


Yes, diffraction is more an issue for critical landscape/commercial work, where a discerning editor/buyer may take note of such a technicality. But fortunately for wedding photography, the photo is 99.8% light and subject. Get that, and you've got it, no matter what fstop you are shooting at!

The image I posted above (as well as a similar close-up of the bride where her face and arms fill the frame) have been blown up to 16x24 with no discernible issues.


In my experience it depends on the lens you use... The copy of the 35L I've used seems to start having issues above f16. My 16-35L, however, seems to start having issues above f11. I'm really not a sharpness nazi, despite what it may look like I just got more than a few pics that ended up far more soft than I'd like due to diffraction.

ken