When shooting portraits, or models outdoors what have you found works best for fill? On camera flash (direct, or with one of those "softbox" attachments)? Umbrellas and a portable pack? Reflectors?
I often am working alone, so don't always have the convenience of an assistant - another consideration.
Go to the people forum and look at the work of Lisa Holloway. She doesn't use flash, any augmenting is done with reflectors.
When I was shooting Seniors I used either reflectors or a Lumedyne 200ws pack with head and a small or medium softbox. I regard any kind of on camera flash, no matter how modified, as the least attractive option.
I tend to use flash outside as a main light (one stop over ambient) rather than fill like onetrack, usually in a softbox. In a controlled situation like that I'd never ever have it on camera.
I'd definitely pass on reflectors working alone. Having then on a stand so they don't fly off and then tweeking it so the light is bouncing ok is a pain. On top of this it's easy to get squinting, flash is just more flexible.
In open shade you don't need flash. In sun it is needed because overall scene contrast exceeds the sensor's ability to cope with it. To address that problem the best strategy technically is:
1) Put sun directly at the back of the subject, keeping it entirely off the front and much as possible so the flash you add in front will not overlap.
2) Set overall exposure from the "Sunny 16" baseline. Set shutter to 1/250th (i.e., your sync limit) then close aperture until EVERYTHING other than specular reflections is under clipping in the camera warning. Do that in the camera's display JPG and the RAW and your Photoshop files in the middle of your workflow will look a bit underexposed but you will not have blown highlights in the JPGs at the end of your workflow.
3) For portraits pose the face into the skylight as you would if using only skylight. It has a downward "key" direction so you need to stand up 8-9 feet off the ground on a 3-step ladder, rock, or as in the shot above the river bank to get the subject looking up at you. That prevents the brow from shading the eyes. The skylight is your foundational fill outdoors and you need to get it in the eyes before adding any flash. If you want the results of natural light and flash to look natural you must first pose the face into the skylight to model it then add flash at the same angles as natural light.
In a full face view when back is to the sun an the subject looks up the face will have a natural "butterfly" pattern on it. All you need to do is add your flash, as key light not fill, that same angle to create the same "mask" pattern of highlights you see in this blurred version... http://super.nova.org/TP/BelenBacklitBlur.jpg
Holistically the white clothing on similar light background (selected intentionally) makes the dark hair contrast very strongly and create a "frame" for the face. Then within that frame the highlight pattern of the natural light and the flash hitting at the same angle create the mask pattern that creates the illusion of 3D shape on the face. Combined it creates a two-stage dynamic that pulls the viewer from the lighter edges of the frame to the darker center and holds attention on the face...
3) Now light the front side just as you would indoors with flash. In that shot I just used a single 580ex flash on a bracket with my small DIY diffuser, relying on the skylight for fill because that's all I had with me at the time. It wasn't a planned portrait session, the wife an I were visiting a park and I saw the opportunity to use the river like a non-distracting white seamless background to make the darker face contrast.
In terms of strategy it is no different than this studio shot: http://super.nova.org/TP/BurnsMM05.jpg
or this one with two speedights in a frontal "key" light centered on bracket with off camera slave creating shape defining rim light pattern, relying on ceiling bounce for the fill in the shadows: http://super.nova.org/TP/DogBackLeft.jpg
The sun provides "hair" and "background" components. The skylight before you add flash is both key light and wrap around fill. By adding a single flash at the same 45° downward angle the natural skylight hits the raised face you are adding a second, stronger "key" light when you add the flash from above.
The mistake many make using flash outdoors is: 1) not posing the face to the skylight first and getting it into the eye sockets and creating the "mask" highlight pattern, and; 2) placing the flash or reflector at chin level or below. Placed at chin level the reflector or flash will overpower and cancel the soft subtle modeling of the skylight you posed the face into.
Now consider this. When using flash indoors do you use one light without any fill source to raise the shadows? I don't because I know shadow tone sets the mood and tells the viewer about the environment the subject is in: light/ normal / safe / warm, or abnormally darker quiet or scary place. First decide on the mood you want the subject to project — happy, engaging or sad, reserved — then set the lighting ratio accordingly.
The problem outdoors with a single flash is you don't have any control over the ratio except overall exposure. For example in the shot above the shadows where the flash doesn't hit are illuminated only by skylight. To make them any lighter I would need to slow the shutter or open aperture which would blow the highlights. I don't like blown highlights so when more shadow detail is needed I add a second flash like this...
So just as indoors I can keep detail in the highlights as I make the shadows as light or dark as I want them with the lighting ratio. This isn't rocket science. The flash works to light the front of the face the same outdoors as indoors. The only difference is that outdoors instead of getting a lot of fill light bounced off the ceiling and background...
http://super.nova.org/TP/070513_Setup.jpg
Same strategy outdoors with high/low centered speedlights: high to model the face and body, low to reveal the shadow detail, with sun behind and "hair" light kept just at or below clipping...
Outdoors you have the skylight doing more or less the same thing as bounced flash off the ceiling indoors: it models and fills at the same time. But outdoors after exposing to keep the sunlit highlights under clipping there isn't enough skylight to fill the shadow side to the point it looks "normal" as seen by eye.
So just as indoors you need to add a second fill flash near the camera to provide even shadowless as possible fill. Why centered? Try it and you'll see.
In a backlit full face shot you get by with one flash on a bracket if you don't mind the darker shadows the sky-only fill creates. Single flash shots indoors with a bracket can also look quite good without a second fill flash...
Why? Because the centered lighting keeps everything important in the light, highlighted. As the light intensity falls off the progressively darker shadows model and frame the face NATURALLY. There are NO DARK UNFILLED SHADOWS.
With any lighting pattern whether you use 1 light or 100 you should train your eye to look for and identify where there are any very dark unfilled and unflattering shadows. Again its the shadows that set the mood and it you have an overall bright face with dark smile lines the overall pattern looks "harder" than if the fill reaches into the smile lines and corners of the mouth. Look at all the photos I've posted. See any dark unfilled shadows on the front of the faces? You will under noses and chins where key and fill are shaded, but that's also true in natural lighting alone because both sun and skylight come from overhead. The shadow while dark are in places that seem natural.
Again none of this is particularly difficult to grasp if you work the problem logically and think about what the natural light and any flash you add is actually doing on the subject.
The sun can be key light, accent, or when a subject is facing directly into the sun it can even be used as fill with a flash overlapped on top of it.
The problem with sun as the key light in portraits is that it is uncomfortable for the subject to look into the sun to the point it gets into the eye sockets. But in wider shots and action like sports where you don't have as much of a squinting problem you can effectively use the sun as key light as in the shot below... http://super.nova.org/TP/BR_Golf_0383.jpg
There I also used the high/low butterfly pattern of key and fill flash rather than flat eye level fill.
Flash will act as even "fill" when placed near the lens (above it or at chin level with subject looks most natural) but when you raise it straight up or to the side you will see shadows it creates if you take a fill only shot You also see highlights. It's no longer fill it is a modeling "key" light. Flash placed behind indoors creates highlights and modeling like a "key" light, but the traditional vocabulary for lighting calls it "accent", "rim", "hair", "kicker", etc. so its secondary role to the key placed in front and modeling the front of the face is understood if you say "use key and rim light".
If you want total control of all aspects of the lighting outdoors try using the sun as "rim light", a flash over the lens on a bracket or chin level on a stand as even "fill" then use a second flash on a stand raised so it hits the face at a downward 45° angle as "key". But pose the face up into the natural light — getting it in the eyes – first.
For an oblique view with "short" lighting the key light needs to be 45° from the nose, not the camera, and 45° higher than the eye line as shown above. Stand behind the key light and walk it around about 90° from where you will shoot until all you see an oblique view of the face like this, obliquely in "broad" lighting.
Again not difficult once you understand where key light needs to be relative to the bridge of the nose to model the face. That's the same indoors or out when you use the sun as "rim" light instead of "key". Then as indoors adjust fill to make shadows "normal" looking, lighter and softer than "normal", or darker and harder than "normal".
Whether you use speedlights or studio lights the same strategies work. It's not the gear, its knowing how to use it and blend it seamlessly as possible with the natural lighting.
Natural light looks SO much prettier, IMO. Just a couple examples from my most recent session, but there was NO flash to be seen in these. I just use a 52" round, white reflector. Very easy to manage and the results are gorgeous, IMO.
This last one was just natural light...no reflector. I used the wall on the side of the stairs camera right to create soft shadowing on the left side of her face. You can use items in your environment (rows of trees or bushes, walls, hills, etc) to help create directional lighting. IMO, flash almost always LOOKS flashy. And I don't mean that in a good way.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
Natural light looks SO much prettier, IMO. Just a couple examples from my most recent session, but there was NO flash to be seen in these.
I rest my case!
These are gorgeous images but I wouldn't be so quick to write off flash outdoors. Most of the "flashy" images I have seen are taken with smaller modifers. Your 52" round reflector can produce a light as soft as a 36"x48" softbox. Larger modifiers and the flash power to utilize them are more versatile outdoors IMHO and can produce very natural looking light in a wider variety of lighting conditions.
The images you posted here speak more to your obvious talent as a photographer and your ability to use the tools you perfer.
Any of those shots could have been done with flash and would look just the same, there is nothing innately special about ambient light coming off a reflector. The problem with flash is that often people overdo it and end up with a 'green screened' result.
Mark_L wrote:
Any of those shots could have been done with flash and would look just the same, there is nothing innately special about ambient light coming off a reflector
for the sake of argument, I'll agree with this.
It got me thinking, but if the results are the same, why would I use flash instead of a reflector? I've done outdoor portraits both as a professional and as an amateur.
Reflectors have the WYSIWYG advantage. I think it takes a little more skill to use flash to get as natural look as reflectors. You have to see the light in your mind. Reflectors might also have a slight edge in working quickly, but if you know what you're doing, it takes just a few seconds to set up the flash and get a reading. If you're working alone and have a reflector on a stand, it's about a wash time wise.
When I shot Seniors outdoors, I felt a flash/softbox combination gave me an edge when shooting at sub-optimal times of the day. We had over 1,000 Seniors a year and I would often shoot four or five in a day, working straight through the "ugly light" time of day. BTW, I had locations scouted for every time of day - early morning, mid morning, noon, early afternoon, mid afternoon, late afternoon. Now that I'm an amateur, I only shoot when during the time of day when the light is right.
It's a personal preference, but I like shooting with reflectors, including negative fill.
dmacmillan wrote:
for the sake of argument, I'll agree with this.
I will *mostly* agree with this
The examples have shallow DOF, implying a wide aperture, and probably high shutter speeds. So if by "flash," you mean an array of speedlights with HSS, or big lights with the latest fancy Pocketwizard hypersync tricks, sure. Or perhaps a stack of ND filters. But to dmacmillan's point, if the results are the same, then why not just use a reflector? No better way to mimic natural light than to actually use natural light.
On the other hand, if these aren't the results that *you* are going for, then by all means... flash away. You mentioned "fill flash" and "on camera flash," so are you restricting yourself to speedlights? If so, you have to be careful with your modifier choice. There aren't really any "bad" modifiers, but you have to consider that anything will rob you of what little sun-fighting power you have. You'll either have to work really close, framing tightly or using compositions with subjects near the edges of your frame.... or use modifiers that don't have many layers of diffusion. Or work at dimmer times of day.
I guess most of the photos I've seen that incorporated flash outdoors were just done poorly. I'm sure there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. This is just an option that works for me, so I thought I would bring it up. My reflector is cheap, lightweight and very easy to bring along and use. I shoot a limited number of sessions a month so I have complete control over the time of the day I choose to shoot, though I can say pretty confidently that I could get these same results at any time of the day. I know what to look for in my locations.
For the shots above if I had an assistant I probably would have preferred a reflector too. With wedding work I try and use the minimum amount of flash because it's faster using locations where the natural light works ok.
With flash you have a greater setup time with stands and triggers, you are limited with your sync speed and often need ND filters and you need to meter. These things can be a pain but not too bad since once setup you can carry a speedlight in a softbox around from one area to another. The extra setup and gear is traded off against control and flexibility.
Wow, there's a lot to chew on. Even brought up the zone system! I generally prefer natural light, and use a 32" reflector when I can (sometimes a challenge to clamp on a stand correctly, plus I live where the wind blows hard about half the year). I have portable lights, but again, there's that wind to deal with often. I was hoping for that magic bullet, that still doesn't exist! I've not been happy with on-camera flash (harsh, and too direct), and even indoors haven't liked what I get by bouncing it. From your comments I figure that a diffuser with the on-camera flash cuts the light back too much for any but the closest distances, even if it does soften the harsh edges. Thanks for the comments so far.
I don't think anyone is contending that flash or not is absolutely better than the other; certainly you can make successful pictures with any kind of light. But flash definitely looks *different*.
Take the very first picture in the gallery... the girl with the purple shirt and scarf in the field. The highlights in her hair, the sky, and the field are all much warmer than the light on her face. You can just tell. Does it look bad? Not to me; but it is certainly a different result than if the photographer went with reflectors, or maybe no added light at all. She has a lot of "pop" and I'm sure that's what the photographer wanted. Some folks might like it a little more subdued.
The subject of the thread is "outdoor fill flash for models" and the OP mentions working alone and wanting convenience. That's exactly why I use a pair of speedlights. But I have the luxury of using the most convenient approach because I don't choose to do photography for hire. I volunteer for my church and if a friend asks I'll shoot their kids for holiday card, confirmation, birth announcements, baptisms. I was shooting for hire I'd use different tools, reflectors, scrims, hauling the Bees out of the basement, etc.
Everyone interested in lighting should own, use and master as many lighting tools as possible: natural light, reflectors, speedlights, etc. I all you have is a hammer every task looks like a nail. When you have 2, 3, 4 or more tools in the box you can pick the one that is the best balance of results and convenience.
I've used both reflector and flash approaches over the years, sometimes using both at the same time. My mentor Monte Zucker who I apprenticed with and assisted for a couple years in the early 70s did all his formal portraits like this shot I did for a class I held in 2001 with my 2.1MP Kodak DC290 camera. http://super.nova.org/TP/WindowDC290C.jpg
here's another window lit shot with the same camera.. http://super.nova.org/TP/WindowDC290_Belen.jpg
I used window light over speed lights then because I didn't have studio lights at the time and window light and a Larsen reflector was more convenient and produced more pleasing light.
Most outdoor portraits I do now are spur of the moment captures on vacations and day trips where all I bring is my shoulder bag with a couple of speed lights and a small light stand I can attach to the bag. I've used reflectors outdoors in the past and if there is any wind at all they are far more difficult to wrangle unless someone is available to hold them. i've also found that when using reflectors in backlight the large surface bouncing light back onto the front of the face can bother the subject just as direct sun on the face does. That's not a problem with flash in front.
Mr Kris wrote:
I don't think anyone is contending that flash or not is absolutely better than the other; certainly you can make successful pictures with any kind of light. But flash definitely looks *different*.
Take the very first picture in the gallery... the girl with the purple shirt and scarf in the field. The highlights in her hair, the sky, and the field are all much warmer than the light on her face. You can just tell. Does it look bad? Not to me; but it is certainly a different result than if the photographer went with reflectors, or maybe no added light at all. She has a lot of "pop" and I'm sure that's what the photographer wanted. Some folks might like it a little more subdued.
It was just the categorical statement that photos without flash are "prettier".
Of course, the first shot was with flash. Yes, I could have put a gel on the flash to warm her skin and turn the sky towards blue. Or, I could have adjusted the temperature of the shot to warmer. Lots of options. That one was shot at 200 mm. I possibly could have had a 4x8' silver reflector but it would have been pretty far away, and would be difficult to get light in her eyes without squinting, etc. And, wind, of course.
The problem inherent with flash is that small sources create distinct specular highlights. The source must get very big to start "wrapping" around 3D shape, and it never wraps completely around angular shapes like the shaded side of short lit nose. But you'll see and react to the changes in the highlights and think the light softer.
Reflectors create specular highlights also, within the shadow they fill. For example you'll often see specular reflections from a reflector on the high points of the ear of a short lit oblique pose. Silver reflectors cause more specular refections that more than white ones, and using a big reflector further away will produce less specularity than a small one used close. In some situations, such as pets where specularity is needed to render 3D texture in fur the best reflector is a mirror. I have white, matte silver and shiny silver Larsen Reflectasol panels...
For portraits consider that the front panel of a SB the same size as the reflector used without a light in it as a reflector would produce similar results. In this shot take back in 2002 before I got studio lights I used two of the Larsen reflectors as umbrellas on the lights and a third behind to bounce them as rim light...
The physics of size/distance and parallel rays vs. scattered are similar regardless of the source. The difference outdoors with reflectors is that the light hitting and bouncing off the reflector usually comes from 360° to varying degrees and it is simply enhancing the overall wrap around fill effect of the skylight. If you understand the physics you also understand which is the best tool for different jobs. But sometimes you use the more convenient one, not the best
Using external lighting you have far more control than using a reflector, you can control where your fill is coming from, which angle, height, etc. You also have more control over fill ratio. Reflectors of course are useless if you are short on time, are shooting mutiple people, etc. It's a good solution for a certain specific look with slow moving one on one portraiture. For anything else it becomes problematic, not impossible but hardly the ideal solution. Unless you have a production team of course, seen some incredible stuff done with multiple huge reflectors. All in all, external lighting while harder to master, is far more versatile. Personally I love shooting without fill using external elements as Lisa has mentioned but a reflector is not my preferred poison for fill.
