mid day outdoor lighting problem

[3bayjunkie]

Originally Posted by autofocus

no fill, no reflector = dark underexposed faces

I always expose for the shadows on people faces so they aren't under exposed.

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by 3bayjunkie

I always expose for the shadows on people faces so they aren't under exposed.

...and I never slice.

[scootermcq]

If you look at my portfolio, there are very few pictures of the B&G at the alter in outdoor weddings..... why? Cause they all suck!

1/250
f3.2
I fired 2 strobes down the isle and had a bare speed light on the camera as well.
Look at the specular highlights caused by the sun, also her dress is almost blown, the sky is almost blown, he has shadows on his eyes and her face is dark and his forehead is way to bright. I really needed more light than the almost 500 w/s that I was throwing at them. A lot of these issue could be fixed in post, which I have not done in this image to show you, but if you have no shade & direct sun at mid-day, you might as well buy some jam, because without external lights..... you're toast

[BigFuzzy]

Originally Posted by 3bayjunkie

At a wedding I really don't want to be flashing everyone with a bright light every time I take a photo. may use it once in a while, but for indoor low light I use a video light, and i'll use a low powered flash setting to stop motion while dragging the shutter for any fast moving action. Having the subjects back lit with soft natural light is the style I am going for. Thanks for the idea though. I'm sure it would help in situations where you aren't back lighting your subject.

I think that if you asked pretty much anyone here (I'm willing to accept one or two exeptions) who's shot weddings outdoors regularly (l've done 6) I'd be shocked if any of them had complaints about the flash from the B&G after the fact. In fact, i'd wager there are more complaints from B&Gs about sh!ttily exposed non-flash images than being flashed and I think that shooting a whole wedding in the way you say, with the little experience you have, you will risk having too high of a sh!tty exposure vs. nice soft natural light ratio... especially since it's very difficult to have soft natural light in the middle of the day even if the angle of the sun is lower than usual.

Originally Posted by scootermcq

Really, unless you want blown sky and dresses you will need a crap load of external light. It is the only solution I have found.

+1 Though I'd say a nice powerful flash gun can rectify the situation even if it's not the best option. Still, I'd wager it's better than no flash.

Originally Posted by 3bayjunkie

I will just back light with the sun

Originally Posted by autofocus

no fill, no reflector = dark underexposed faces

+1

Originally Posted by 3bayjunkie

I always expose for the shadows on people faces so they aren't under exposed.

Then you have sh!tty blown out sky with lots... it's nice to use as a different type of shot, but to shoot the whole wedding this way? Really?

Originally Posted by scootermcq

If you look at my portfolio, there are very few pictures of the B&G at the alter in outdoor weddings..... why? Cause they all suck!

1/250
f3.2
I fired 2 strobes down the isle and had a bare speed light on the camera as well.
Look at the specular highlights caused by the sun, also her dress is almost blown, the sky is almost blown, he has shadows on his eyes and her face is dark and his forehead is way to bright. I really needed more light than the almost 500 w/s that I was throwing at them. A lot of these issue could be fixed in post, which I have not done in this image to show you, but if you have no shade & direct sun at mid-day, you might as well buy some jam, because without external lights..... you're toast

I think, 3bay, that in the end your comments show a general lack of knowledge of shooting well exposed flash images outdoors in mid-day bright sun even if it's not overhead.
I'd highly recommend you start practicing in these conditions now. Use the tools given you above to find similar lighting conditions (ie sun altitude) and practice in them and see what you get.

I like your confidence, and that's important, but I'm equally interested to see how things turn out if you proceed as you planned considering most here (who I'd wager have more experience doing exactly what you're thinking of doing) as suggesting against it.

I hope we're wrong.. for the sake of the couple.

[scootermcq]

What I find interesting is when someone asks a question, gets answers from people with experience in that area, gets a consistent answer and argues with the facts presented.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by scootermcq

What I find interesting is when someone asks a question, gets answers from people with experience in that area, gets a consistent answer and argues with the facts presented.

+ 1 Scott, some people just have to learn the hard way. I hope for him that in the time before the actual wedding he'll be able to learn more, and put some of the tips into practice. I don't have to tell those of you who have done weddings that they are far and away the most stressful of all photo jobs...not to mention very time consuming edits after the fact. This just underlines the need to get as much as possible right at the time of the shot.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by scootermcq

What I find interesting is when someone asks a question, gets answers from people with experience in that area, gets a consistent answer and argues with the facts presented.

+ 1 Scott, some people just have to learn the hard way. I hope for him that in the time before the actual wedding he'll be able to learn more, and put some of the tips into practice. I don't have to tell those of you who have done weddings that they are far and away the most stressful of all photo jobs...not to mention very time consuming edits after the fact. This just underlines the need to get as much as possible right at the time of the shot.

[3bayjunkie]

Originally Posted by Doug Sundseth

The good news about Alaska is that even in mid-day, the sun doesn't rise all that far above the horizon. AFAICT, in mid-May in Anchorage, the sun is around 33 degrees above the horizon at noon. (The elevation of the sun will vary with latitude if the wedding is someplace else.)

It's not ideal, but it's really not "directly overhead".

No disrespect to you Scooter and Fuzzy. I am taking your points into consideration. Don't think I'm not listening. I am new to digital. I shot film for three years for a number of venues and sold my N80 because i wanted to try out digital. I understand it records light different than film.

I was not trying to ignore your suggestions I got the answer to my main concern from Doug. I haven't seen the sun in Alaska for over a year, so I forgot about its low horizon during mid day. 33 degreez is not soo bad for outdoor lighting. Thanks for the advice guys and when I do my first wedding in May 2012 I will be sure to share my experience with you all. Thanks for your help!

CJ

[scootermcq]

Originally Posted by 3bayjunkie

No disrespect to you Scooter and Fuzzy. I am taking your points into consideration. Don't think I'm not listening. I am new to digital. I shot film for three years for a number of venues and sold my N80 because i wanted to try out digital. I understand it records light different than film.

I was not trying to ignore your suggestions I got the answer to my main concern from Doug. I haven't seen the sun in Alaska for over a year, so I forgot about its low horizon during mid day. 33 degreez is not soo bad for outdoor lighting. Thanks for the advice guys and when I do my first wedding in May 2012 I will be sure to share my experience with you all. Thanks for your help!

CJ

Digital is like shooting slide.... alot less forgiving.

I shot that scene I attached at 4:00pm, so based on a calculator I found on line the sun was roughly 45%. The sun position does not really matter. You will either get squinting facing one way or underexposed facing the other. It will help prevent shadowed eyes, but you are still screwed for good pictures. If you expose for the face, and their back is to the sun, you will blow out the dress and sky every time. You can pray for clouds (the big softbox in the sky), but baring that I really have to urge you to be prepared for some of the most difficult lighting you have dealt with yet.



This one I shot with 3 speedlights on one stand at 100% power about 4 feet from the subject and look at the shoulders... still over exposed. Sunlight is our enemy.

[3bayjunkie]

can't see the images on NPRNET but ill check when i get home. I guess shooting with digital i may be in for some dissapointment. I can't wait to get a new film camera. but there is no way im shooting a wedding for free using film haha. As for my lenses I am renting the 70-200mm VRII as aposed to buying it. again because I am not getting paid. I am going to try to borrow a second camera body. My wife will have her Lumix DMC G3 and ill have a micro 4/3s to nikon F mount adapter, but thats gonna be a worst case scenario because i really don't want to use that tiny camera.

If i am too dissapointed with the way it looks on digital i may just bite the bullet and buy a film camera for the next wedding. Nikon F5 and Mamiya 645AFD? We will see. As I said before I am still trying to figure out this digital exposure range that works for my style.