Dawei Ye wrote:
I think some of us were calling for bounce because from the looks of one of your photos (the one with the man with glasses) the ceiling was at most 4.5 metres high...apologies, I didn't read it was sloped, must have been higher towards your position
Yea, sorry, that was a small overhang, up there is where the organist sat. Then it was all air up to the ceiling way up about 60 feet. It was also exposed timber, which does great at soaking up light like a sponge at anything over ~10' away.
Hi all,
What a great thread with some of the best, quick, info I've seen on ETTL metering. I appreciate Will posting this and taking the heat graciously, it's a real learning experience for me. I too have rarely been happy with digital flash, but thanks to some of the very helpful reponses, and good tutorials by folks like cgardner, I'm starting to understand the logic used by the engineers. Once I understand that then I can figure out how to use that to create the image I want. Thanks for shortening the learning curve.
Will Patterson wrote:
99% of my shots come out great. I'm the 2nd shooter and 70-80% of the final album photos are taken by me. Once again, I'm wondering why the camera does this without warning.
If70-80% of the album are by you then why are you the 2nd shooter?
tandlh wrote:
I too have rarely been happy with digital flash, but thanks to some of the very helpful reponses, and good tutorials by folks like cgardner,
Yes, Chuck Gardner sheds very good light on the subject.
Can't beat extensive experience when it comes to anything.
Chuck, I'm grateful for your explanations as usual, but I've had an image or two like this in the past where I couldn't figure out where the heck the camera thought it was detecting highlights. Would it be the bottom part of the flowers (sorry, don't know the right word in English), the part which the bride is holding in her hands? If so, you can hardly correct for this in advance. Wouldn't average flash metering have greatly improved this shot? Or manual flash, for that matter?
BTW, Will, indeed: bouncing is out here
It was just a general advice anyway - one to adapt to the situation you find yourself in.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
If70-80% of the album are by you then why are you the 2nd shooter?
Haha, great question. He will be handing the the business off to me at the end of this year. He's going back to school to get his masters in teaching, and he wants to spend more time with his kids. He's a great guy, has taught me a lot and given me the confidence I need to do this on my own and with a new assistant/2nd shooter. I'm in the middle of going crazy with marketing and such and getting ready for a bridal show coming up.
More often than not when odd random underexposure occurs its a result of shooting before the flash is sufficiently recycled.
Canon flash has a two stage recycle process. When it reaches 1/6th or greater capacity it will allow another flash in what Canon calls "quick flash" mode but at reduced intensity. That works great if you are up close to the target and the power level needed for correct exposure is low relative to full power. But in a situation like a dark church shooting with bounce at near full power with every shot quick flash will bite you in the backside if you don't pace your shooting and pay attention to the flash ready and confirmation signals in the viewfinder.
One of the pitfalls of ETTL is never actually knowing what % of total capacity is being used by the flash. But if you get random or progressively underexposed frames take it as a sign you need to slow your shooting pace. That's one of the reason monitoring the playback of every shot is a critical part of shooting with flash.
brainiac states that Canon's pro flash units are a total waste of money in my opinion. You will get a better result from the pop-up flash on a 450D in green square mode.
If like Chuck explains, you bother to learn how the Canon flashes work in either ETTL or Manual you will have very little problems. I also am old school, and when I started in the early seventies as a press photographer we also tried whenever we could to use two flashes, one off camera on a stand or someone holding it, and the other in our left hand angled for fill light, this is because the picture editor would need a photograph with good contrast and shadows for cheap newspaper printing, and we also had 6 grades of paper to print on. We also only used 35mm for sports and only had manual focus and a light meter to do the job, and if you did not come back with the pictures you would have been looking for a job. I have been a Canon man since 1968, and have in all that time used every pro camera Canon made since EOS came out in the late eighties. I have had my 5Dmk11 for about a month now, but it has only been a second body to my 1Dmk111 until I had tested every part of the camera with on and off camera
flashes until I could as Chuck states, look at any scene and think that`s [email protected], a quick look at the histogram make any small adjustment and fire away. I always use Manual setting on the camera with both ETTL and Manual on the flashguns as and when required. As for the OP`s problem of underexposure, had he arrived at the church a few minutes early, he could have done some tests from the positions that the No 1 photographer had told him to work from and started with [email protected] at 800iso in Manual, and he would only have needed one test shot to give him 100% correct exposure for the next. This is the beauty of digital, testing costs nothing other than your time, and all adjustments can be made without taking your eye from the eyepiece. If you are taking money from a client for your photography, then you owe it to your client to be able to deliver the goods, and not blame your equipment, on every job you do.
Mike, what you and brainiac say isn't necessarily different. Your test shot approach means shooting Manual flash unless you're porting around a doll in a white satin dress as a prop. Shooting a test shot ETTL without a white dress somewhere in the scene just isn't the same as shooting the real thing with the white dress stuff and all. The test shot in advance is a very good advice, when shooting manual everything. And for that, you don't need a top-of-the-bill Canon flash.
Still, I value the advice given. I find I'm always working around the limitations of flash. I've got the feeling you are working with it.
Mike C. wrote:
Lord Fluff states that Canon's pro flash units are a total waste of money in my opinion. You will get a better result from the pop-up flash on a 450D in green square mode.
WestFalcon wrote:
Those of you recommending a bounce flash in a processional are asking for disaster. I love bounce but you are sometimes talking about a 40-60 foot ceiling in a typical church and it simply does not work. Walls won't work in a church either since they too are too far away. Manual flash works and can be harsh and ugly but it doesn't have to be if set properly. I think available light in most churches is also asking for trouble. After 30 years of wedding photography, I've tried about everything and manual flash is still my method.
Bouncing off of a card on the flash may work but that doesn't soften very much since it's still a very small point light source....Show more →
Amen. I know I'm hearing from someone with real experience here.
One issue is that at weddings we are often very rushed. The bride and groom canter down the aisle, and it's a matter of professionalism to get the shot without interfering and stopping them. You move around quickly, and there simply isn't time to wonder "I wonder if bounce wouldn't look awful for once just here", let alone set bounce and exposure etc.. You need a reliable method that works no matter what your orientation. Full manual flash, basic thyristor auto, and Nikon TTL are the three reliable methods I have encountered. Canon ETTL can get you into real trouble, and will still make you panicky even if it decides to work. It's not reliable enough for a pro who intends to get the job done, without fail.
brainiac wrote:
Amen. I know I'm hearing from someone with real experience here.
One issue is that at weddings we are often very rushed. The bride and groom canter down the aisle, and it's a matter of professionalism to get the shot without interfering and stopping them. You move around quickly, and there simply isn't time to wonder "I wonder if bounce wouldn't look awful for once just here", let alone set bounce and exposure etc.. You need a reliable method that works no matter what your orientation. Full manual flash, basic thyristor auto, and Nikon TTL are the three reliable methods I have encountered. Canon ETTL can get you into real trouble, and will still make you panicky even if it decides to work. It's not reliable enough for a pro who intends to get the job done, without fail....Show more →
As a professional wouldn't you owe it to the couple to scout out the church and do a test shot prior to them walking down the aisle? Surely the moment they are walking down the aisle wouldn't be the first time you would have taken a photo there
If I found bounce flash inappropriate, I would just get rid of flash altogether and put on the fast primes and something to stabilise myself. The other day I had a wedding where the ceiling was wood with heaps of pylons going left and right. Bouncing was inappropriate, but fortunately a f/1.4 lens (35L on a 1.6X body) at 1/50, ISO 1600 did the job nicely
To date I have been fortunate enough not to have been to a wedding where f/1.2, ISO 3200, 1/50 has not been enough to expose the scene properly.
Bounce flash also doesn't have to be off a flash card (who does that?), or a wall or ceiling, you could get an assistant to hold a large reflector to bounce off, or bounce off a piece of furniture and colour correct later. But you would test this out prior to the actual walking down the aisle sequence. I can't understand how a bride and groom down the aisle shot can be wrecked if careful planning is conducted. The only thing I would be worried about is some massive AF failure causing all the shots to be OOF
ETTL sucks, but there is a consistency about how it sucks. There is always something in the frame, or a reason, which messes up exposures, it doesn't just randomly act fickle in my opinion. But what's difficult is identifying things in the frame which will throw out the exposure, and as you say this is hard in the fast paced wedding environment.
I often use FEB to counteract ETTL idiosyncrasies, but this requires high ISO and a battery pack
Frankly, it's not a question of scouting, because ambient light changes from one minute to the next, at least here in the UK where the sun, if it appears at all through church windows, is as likely to be gone again in one minute. Dusk falls quickly too. Will the service end at 4.40pm or 4.50pm? It matters. At the beginning of their exit, the bride and groom might be 30 or 100 yards away. By the time they emerge you will be a few feet from them, and walking backwards down steps into daylight, or dusk, or darkness. Not a great time to be checking that your bounce is successfully providing that cluless shadowy bounce look. Every flash during a service is a distraction, so tests are a nuisance. As you look at your first test, the bride and groom have covered 5 yards towards you. The test of a second or two ago is already obsolete. Ambient light and subject movement (smiles/laughs to the passing congregation) often mean that the high iso/wide aperture method, without flash, can be problematic or even unviable too. Once you've been in enough churches, and done this often enough, scouting is quite unnecessary. You've got plenty of time during the service to decide your strategy for shooting the exeunt. Frankly, some of the advice being given here seems to come from a lack of experience, or a willingness to interfere more in proceedings than is proper. It's a wedding, not an ego-driven photo shoot. The best qualities a wedding photographer can have are reliability and inconspicuity.
I started out with flash shooting weddings, working with and learning from the best in that niche of the business. The most valuable lessons I learned from my mentor by observation was watching him take total control over the timing of many aspects of the ceremony and reception in a way that ensured that the necessary shots could be taken in a way which didn't involve technical compromises. By discussing what would be required to get good photos in advance of the ceremony the wedding party already viewed him as an authority on how best to run the show in a way that was non-stressful. Best case everything would run on schedule. Worst case if things started falling behind schedule, as they often do, he was able to get cooperation in the form of reminding them what was necessary "to make them look their best" in that wedding album they'd be looking at for the rest of their lives.
Beyond basic photographic skills a competent wedding photographer must know when and where to be to capture the various classic wedding shots: experience and understanding the logistics and timing of the wedding. Getting the those shots to a large degree can require taking a pro-active role in controlling the scheduling and logistics by communicating in advance what will be needed to capture the best possible photos, then on the day of the event making sure things stay on track. It requires communicating with the wedding party, wedding planner, minister/officiant, caterer/banquet manager, and even the band or DJ all who have a role in the logistics of when and where things happen at a wedding. Everyone needs to be operating from the same script and know what everyone else needs.
I don't subscribe to the "wedding photographer should be invisible" school of thought. For example I've read people say they only shoot ambient or would never used a bracket or diffuser or second flash because it would be "too obtrusive". As I see it the client hires the photographer to capture the best possible most flattering photos of the event. Sometimes doing that requires being obtrusive in the sense of being visible and sometimes asking people to do things in order to get a better shot. The bottom line is that the work will be judged by the quality of the photos and few will remember if you stood on a chair, your head, or used a flash to get them after the fact.
I learned very quickly that a big part of getting really good "candid" photos at weddings was simply communicating to the people what is required to get a decent shot that doesn't make them look unflattering. Its when you don't communicate you will appear to be an obtrusive PITA. People don't realize it takes time to take decent photos. Not a huge amount of time, just long enough to capture the "decisive moment" in a flattering way. Weddings are one of the most challenging forms of photography because they are filled with once in a lifetime decisive moments.
For example, I don't think its intrusive to talk to the wedding party before they walk down the aisle and tell them "So I can get you looking your best, please stop for a few seconds at the last pew, look at me and smile." In most cases the people will appreciate your effort to make them look good and respect your abilities more. With that respect comes better cooperation. The more you communicate in ways that resonate with the people in the photo the more cooperation and respect you'll find you get. You understand all the technical limitations of the lousy ambient light and high ceilings, but the client doesn't and doesn't need to know. But if you don't communicate what you need in a way the client will respond to, you'll never be able to overcome the technical problems. All you need to do is preface anything you need them to do with the phase "In order to made you look your best in the photos.... " and you can usually get the cooperation necessary to do the best possible jobs without compromises.
The magic words are "I want to make you look you best in the photo...."
My point here? When you finally reach the level of technical competence where decisions of how to execute the shot are practiced to the point of being instinctive you will be able to focus on the bigger picture of being able to control a situation like a wedding in a tactful non-obtrusive way that ensures there are opportunities to take the best possible shots. If done skillfully, with a relaxed attitude and a smile (which comes from being technically competent) you'll come across as a pro who has their best interests in mind and usually get cooperation. If you are uptight worrying about f/stops or how to bounce it will show and affect the way you are perceived. Any time spend obsessing on the technical takes away from time spent connecting with the people, and thats the real key to making great looking photos: the expressions of the people in them.
That advice might seem odd coming from me, who always focuses on the technical aspects. But the reason I focus on the technical aspects is to help people quickly master them to the point of becoming instinctive and getting out of the way of being creative
I don't think anybody else mentioned it but the first photo posted looks like it had some other error involved - the flash doesn't seem to be aimed properly.
I understand the OP was shooting portrait with the flash to the side but beyond that it looks like the flash had been bumped into partial bounce mode or for some reason was in zoom mode when it shouldn't have been. You can see this by the way that the wall on the right side (which is farther away) is brighter than the wall on the left (which is closer).
I would also second Chuck's suggestion that part of the problem is likely not giving the flash time to recycle. If you were using akalines, you might try switching to hi-power rechargeables or getting one of those external battery packs for the 580. Either of those options would likely help reduce the recycle times.
As many have said, I would also vote for practicing shooting with the camera in manual and the flash in automatic ETTL-2. You will actually gain more control and be taking more advantage of the flash's automatic capabilities. Using that configuration :
- the shutter speed becomes your ambient light control (won't affect the flash exposure unless you exceed the max. flash sync speed or you are using hi-speed sync and are beyond the reduced flash range).
- the aperture becomes your depth-of-field control (up to the maximum flash range).
- FEC becomes your flash exposure control
Thinking about the controls in this manner can be very useful for flash photography at weddings and such since DOF and ambient light are exactly what you are usually wrestling with: including enough ambient to avoid the "deer in the headlights" look and controlling the DOF to blur unnecessary detail.
Down the road, you may also want to try gelling the flash to get a closer match to ambient.
Eyeball wrote:
I understand the OP was shooting portrait with the flash to the side but beyond that it looks like the flash had been bumped into partial bounce mode or for some reason was in zoom mode when it shouldn't have been. You can see this by the way that the wall on the right side (which is farther away) is brighter than the wall on the left (which is closer).
.
You can hold the camera at portrait position in TWO ways.....so the flash can be at the RIGHT or LEFT side of the lens...
lidesun wrote:
You can hold the camera at portrait position in TWO ways.....so the flash can be at the RIGHT or LEFT side of the lens...
Yes, that's true, and in this case the flash is clearly on the right. Nevertheless, the flash looks mis-aimed or mis-zoomed to my eyes. He was using 50mm on a full-frame camera. It looks like pretty uneven illumination to me unless there was operator error or the flash is broken.
