I have an outdoor ceremony next week at 2pm, most likely in direct sunlight. I was wondering if anyone had any tips or examples on how to deal with this type of lighting situation?

I do have two 42" 5-in-1 reflectors, but is it realistic to use these during a ceremony? I also have a "lightstick" with two Nikon SB's (three if I really need the extra 1/2 stop).

Underexpose like a madman, then blast them away with a ridiculously powerful flash.

Jeremy Clay style.

If you don't want to resort to flash (I usually don't) go with a MUCH longer lens. Get a teleconverter if you have to. With a longer lens, you are minimizing the amount of background in the image. That way, since you are outdoors you can typical position yourself a little more freely and get a perspective that allows you to pin the couple against a shaded background. If you are around trees or buildings typically there will be one side that's in shadow - try to use that as the background, expose for the couple.

If you have any choice or influence (you might!) try to keep the couple between you and the sun.

- trr

I'm also really interested in this post!

What direction will the sun be hitting them from during the processional/ceremony/recessional? This is direct sun at about that time of day from this past Sunday:

fill flash is your friend, I go manual flash for full control and power, long lens isolate the subject as said above but don't work if there is Strong side or Above lighting on the subject, again fill flash will be your saviour.

I argued myself out of using flash only to spend longer in PP correcting what fill would have done in capture.
In Bright/Strong light fill flash is king, unless of course you want silhouettes and dark eye sockets

Joe

jofoto photo wrote: fill flash is your friend

The problem with "fill" flash, in harsh light, is that when you add light to the shadows you also usually add light to the highlights, so you gain nothing.

As was said earlier: under expose the ambient, and then use flash as the "main" light, with the ambient as fill.

Thats why I use Manual flash, full control.

BrianO wrote:
jofoto photo wrote: fill flash is your friend

The problem with "fill" flash, in harsh light, is that when you add light to the shadows you also usually add light to the highlights, so you gain nothing.

As was said earlier: under expose the ambient, and then use flash as the "main" light, with the ambient as fill.

Fill flash is going to eliminate some of those harsh shadows that occur around the nose, eyes, etc. from full on sunlight.
Get that light stick out.

What's the look you are going for? Some people like the flashy look (like Jeremy, Ed Pignol, etc.). Others like a more natural look (which is actually less natural in a way) - blown skies, correct skin tones, etc. I go for the latter, which means I'd rather blow out the sky and use no fill if I have to. I just like that look. So think hard about what you are going for and follow advice accordingly.


Do you have any control over where the B&G stand? Like, can you keep them between you and the sun? If you follow TRReichman's advice, you can get some wonderfully backlit shots that look really nice. These were shot at noon at a workshop on using harsh light:

DB wrote:
What's the look you are going for? Some people like the flashy look (like Jeremy, Ed Pignol, etc.). Others like a more natural look (which is actually less natural in a way) - blown skies, correct skin tones, etc. I go for the latter, which means I'd rather blow out the sky and use no fill if I have to. I just like that look. So think hard about what you are going for and follow advice accordingly.


Do you have any control over where the B&G stand? Like, can you keep them between you and the sun? If you follow TRReichman's advice, you can get some wonderfully backlit shots that look really nice. These were shot at noon at a workshop on using harsh light:

DB wrote:
What's the look you are going for? Some people like the flashy look (like Jeremy, Ed Pignol, etc.). Others like a more natural look (which is actually less natural in a way) - blown skies, correct skin tones, etc. I go for the latter, which means I'd rather blow out the sky and use no fill if I have to. I just like that look. So think hard about what you are going for and follow advice accordingly.


Do you have any control over where the B&G stand? Like, can you keep them between you and the sun? If you follow TRReichman's advice, you can get some wonderfully backlit shots that look really nice. These were shot at noon at a workshop on using harsh light:

so does everyone use manual flash? or do any use ettl? I took a friend out about noon to practice harsh light with ettl at various settings and just could not get it

That was the Susan Stripling workshop. It was very helpful. Somewhat elementary for many shooters, but very helpful for me.

DmaalaM wrote:
so does everyone use manual flash? or do any use ettl? I took a friend out about noon to practice harsh light with ettl at various settings and just could not get it

Learn to use manual, that way you'll understand what your TTL is doing and when to use it. TTL is doing some work so you don't have to think about it. However, if its not doing what you want then its not too useful at all, is it? Might as well learn to do it the old fashioned way.

Granted, I don't really use fill flash at all, but in harsh sunlight I think you're much better off going manual as TTL is likely going to be changing all the time and the meter is going to have a real hard time understanding what you want.

- trr

Thanks for all the input. I am gonna head out to the location this week and see what I can do. I'm not sure of how everything will be set-up, but the sun is pretty much directly overhead at 2pm this time of year in Calgary.

I seem to be trending towards a "natural" look, so I may just expose for skin and not worry about blown out highlights. Not sure how much power I can get out of 3 SB's, but I'll give it a shot and see what I can create.

I'll try to remember to post a couple of the test pics here.

Go manual. It's the only way to achieve what you want.

In situations like that, I have always set my exposure for the bright background, and set my flash with the same f-stop. For example, the bg is 1/500 @ f11 with ISO 100, my flash would be at ISO 100 and f11 also. Easy enough with a Metz 60 series.

BrianO said : "The problem with "fill" flash, in harsh light, is that when you add light to the shadows you also usually add light to the highlights, so you gain nothing." I disagree with that statement. The highlights are still quite a bit brighter than the measured bg. It has been my experience that when full sun hits a veil, a flash is NOT going to make it brighter than it already is.

dpun wrote:
Go manual. It's the only way to achieve what you want.

I shoot manual 99% of the time.

Marcel VanEerd wrote: ...It has been my experience that when full sun hits a veil, a flash is NOT going to make it brighter than it already is.


Unless the veil is already blown out, adding flash to an exisiting light exposure must make it brighter; it's simple physics.

Marcel VanEerd wrote: In situations like that, I have always set my exposure for the bright background, and set my flash with the same f-stop.

Your proceedure for metering for the bright background (taking the "bright" down to "normal") -- and then adding flash metered for the same level -- is exactly what I was talking about in the next part of my post where I wrote "under expose the ambient, and then use flash as the "main" light, with the ambient as fill."

We're saying the same thing, just in different words.