Jed Eltom wrote:
Underexpose like a madman, then blast them away with a ridiculously powerful flash.
Jeremy Clay style.
THIS!! (though if not possible..)
The recent Mark/Mei post was super-bright midday ceremony, and it's hard to work with..just be mindful of where you're photographing from, and how the light plays on your subject from said spot...always know basically what the light is going to do to the features before shooting from there. If you have to shoot unflattering shadows (I'll take bright sun on the face then to the back of them), nail your exposures and B&W some of them. lol
I always try to meter for the face or the dress, then tweek is as I see fit in post. Though I try to get it as close as possible in camera. Don't be afraid if "some minor" highlights get blown, as long as the overall "feel" of the image is intact. Also, shoot RAW if you can. Your angle of shooting will play a big role in these situations also.
Excellent examples of a ceremony, Saad - you showed different angles, which is very helpful since you have little control over where people stand.
Also, keep your histogram up and watch where the highlights are blowing. In the bright sun you can hardly see your LCD, but at least you can see blinkies. If large portions of skin, or important parts of the photo are blowing out, I know to change exposure. When I'm at the beach, I usually expose to the point right before the sand blows out - that usually preserves highlights in the gown as well. But it's different for each angle I'm at.
BrianO wrote:
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.
You're correct that adding "fill" from a light source on or near the camera typically adds to both the highlights and shadows, but not correct in the "gain nothing" argument.
Light increases in an exponential fashion, at least as it is measured by photographic equipment. Each f-stop requires twice the amount of light as the previous stop. For this reason, your fill light may make a greater difference on shadows than highlights. Here's a real world example:
On a sunny day, you may find that the highlights are two stops brighter than the shadows. This means that the highlights are getting 4x the amount of light that the shadows are. Thus, in the beginning, h=4s. If we add enough fill to increase the shadows by a full stop, we're only increasing the highlights by a 1/4 stop (beginning to be practically negligible). (we've moved to 2s for the shadows and 5s for the highlights now, respectively.)
This is not to say that fill-flash is a perfect solution. However, to say that fill flash "gains nothing" is overstating the case.
Jeremy, the lighting is going to be almost exactly the same as your Mark/Mei ceremony. At least I know it's possible to work with. It looks like you didn't do much strobing during the ceremony, or did you fill flash stealthily?
Evan, your posts are always crazy helpful. That was something my friend and I were talking about when we went out on Monday to do some testing. I noticed that while it did add a little more light to the bright grass, it was minor compared to the amount it brought the shadows up.
I think my plan is to use my D200 for natural light, and use my D70s with the flash and drop that ambient with a 1/2500 sec exposure (I love CyberSyncs). With two SB's (28 & 800) at full power, ISO 200, f/11, and 1/250 on my D200, ambient is only 1/3 stop lower than the flash. Man am I glad I have that D70!
One thing to be careful of, with flash, is shiny skin. A local photographer and I both have noticed increased shiny-ness when we use flash. Only happens with certain brides, but it can be more of a pain to deal with than adding some fill in post.
DB wrote:
One thing to be careful of, with flash, is shiny skin. A local photographer and I both have noticed increased shiny-ness when we use flash. Only happens with certain brides, but it can be more of a pain to deal with than adding some fill in post.
I have found that the shiny-ness is dependent on the angle of the flash. That's one of the reasons why I hate on-camera flash is because it has that shiny look.
jeremy_clay wrote:
Nah, no fill, just went for it, minded my exposures, specifically the faces. It can be done!
Evan Baines wrote:
You're correct that adding "fill" from a light source on or near the camera typically adds to both the highlights and shadows, but not correct in the "gain nothing" argument.
Light increases in an exponential fashion, at least as it is measured by photographic equipment. Each f-stop requires twice the amount of light as the previous stop. For this reason, your fill light may make a greater difference on shadows than highlights. Here's a real world example:
On a sunny day, you may find that the highlights are two stops brighter than the shadows. This means that the highlights are getting 4x the amount of light that the shadows are. Thus, in the beginning, h=4s. If we add enough fill to increase the shadows by a full stop, we're only increasing the highlights by a 1/4 stop (beginning to be practically negligible). (we've moved to 2s for the shadows and 5s for the highlights now, respectively.)
This is not to say that fill-flash is a perfect solution. However, to say that fill flash "gains nothing" is overstating the case....Show more →
I use fill flash all the time in bright sunlight. I've found that dialing in -2 or even -3 stops of FEC with ETTL leaves the subject looking reasonably natural, while filling in shadows nicely. Of course ETTL follows the camera's meter, so you have to be careful with subjects that are either really bright or really dark...but I've still found it faster than working with manual flash if I'm moving around a lot. YMMV, of course...
I know this is an old thread, but I was looking at the lighting here and I see something I"m curious about. In Ryan Brittons post on July 17, 2009, I see the happy bride and groom, but WTF is up with the guy in the blue shirt behind the bride? Is that his underware showing?
Evan Baines wrote:
Light increases in an exponential fashion, at least as it is measured by photographic equipment. Each f-stop requires twice the amount of light as the previous stop. For this reason, your fill light may make a greater difference on shadows than highlights. Here's a real world example:
On a sunny day, you may find that the highlights are two stops brighter than the shadows. This means that the highlights are getting 4x the amount of light that the shadows are. Thus, in the beginning, h=4s. If we add enough fill to increase the shadows by a full stop, we're only increasing the highlights by a 1/4 stop (beginning to be practically negligible). (we've moved to 2s for the shadows and 5s for the highlights now, respectively.)
This is not to say that fill-flash is a perfect solution. However, to say that fill flash "gains nothing" is overstating the case....Show more →
I had assumed that shadows and highlight would be effected equally. Algebra put to use, thank you Mr Baines.
Norman my love wrote:
I know this is an old thread, but I was looking at the lighting here and I see something I"m curious about. In Ryan Brittons post on July 17, 2009, I see the happy bride and groom, but WTF is up with the guy in the blue shirt behind the bride? Is that his underware showing?
it's the guy's sport coat hanging on the chair.
and a year old thread was really resurrected for that?
Norman my love wrote:
I know this is an old thread, but I was looking at the lighting here and I see something I"m curious about. In Ryan Brittons post on July 17, 2009, I see the happy bride and groom, but WTF is up with the guy in the blue shirt behind the bride? Is that his underware showing?
Time for new glasses?
He's wearing khaki slacks, and there's a dark jacket hanging on the back of the chair in front of him.
ksmahgrts wrote:
...and a year old thread was really resurrected for that?
It gives a new audience a chance to join in, at least.
