Exposing for the white wedding dress

I agree. A blown highlight is blown, and a clipped shadow is clipped by their nature. And that's how an incident meter will render them. That's "fine," but quite often not the goal.

The one time *I* think an incident meter may be "the way to go" is if setting up multiple lights at varying distances and you want specific lighting ratios. If you don't know how, or want to do it "the hard way" then an incident meter that calculates that stuff for you could be a blessing. And it's likely to get you "closer" out the gate. But I don't honestly know...I've never used an incident meter that smart.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
No one is attacking young photographers. or blaming them for anything.

I have put up a number of shots in various threads to demonstrate something or other, even a shots taken in the 1950's and shots taken very recently.
However I have never put up a shot just to show off or as a form of competition.
I would not have held the senior positions I have, if I were incompetent.
Nor does Old imply "not modern". we all fit the "contemporary modern" bracket till we pop our clogs.

I would not want to turn the clock back to pre digital days. There is no doubt that it is now far easier to get fantastic quality results, perhaps far better than most people want or require. Of course top quality results should be the starting point for professional work, not the target
Click to expand...

Actually we agree here generally. Except about this:

Terrywoodenpic said:
I wonder if all this digital stuff helps get it right first time, or is it just a more complex suck it and see system.

Take a shot
Have a look
don't like it
Make an adjustment
Try another shot
Iterate as needed
Iterate as needed
Iterate as needed

Opportunity lost.....:eek: :exit::dummy1:

Perhaps it is all a faster way to get it wrong first time.
Click to expand...

Which is clearly a cheap shot at those you see 'beneath' you.
If you see it any other way, you really will have to explain.
 
Phil V said:
Actually we agree here generally. Except about this:



Which is clearly a cheap shot at those you see 'beneath' you.
If you see it any other way, you really will have to explain.
Click to expand...

I don't see any one as beneath me... or above me come to that .... I don't carry those sort of chips on my shoulder.
I was knocking the iterated trial and error method.... not any photographer
I can't imagine a professional ever doing things that way.





sk66 said:
I agree. A blown highlight is blown, and a clipped shadow is clipped by their nature. And that's how an incident meter will render them. That's "fine," but quite often not the goal.

The one time *I* think an incident meter may be "the way to go" is if setting up multiple lights at varying distances and you want specific lighting ratios. If you don't know how, or want to do it "the hard way" then an incident meter that calculates that stuff for you could be a blessing. And it's likely to get you "closer" out the gate. But I don't honestly know...I've never used an incident meter that smart.
Click to expand...


In the normal way a properly set and used incident meter will never clip a highlight, though at the other end there must come a point where the sensor can not register any photons... that is as black as you can get. Every sensor has a maximum brightness range nothing can be done about that.

You can calibrate the incident meter to expose to the right, Just as you can a camera or any other meter.
 
I haven't read all this so I apologise if this has been said before....

In particularly bright ( read 'bad' ) light conditions the only way to avoid areas of over exposure in the dress is to render your subjects totally underexposed. I mean unrecognisably underexposed.

Typically with the sun behind the subject one part of the dress which can still get nuked is the train.

Whatever the situation, a key decision has to be "is the dress more important than the face of the bride"? I'll give you a clue - the answer is "no".

HOWEVER, as photographers we can swing the odds in our favour. Shoot with the sun behind the subject, find shade, use a reflector, use flash (radical I know), use a scrim, etc.

Whilst the use of a light meter is commendable it does not solve the problem. A light meter will still result in saving the dress and underexposing the face/everything else or vice versa. The problem isn't with exposure it's with dynamic range.

The secret is reduce the latitude between the brightest parts of the scene and the darkest (using the suggestions above).

What do I do? I shoot Aperture Priority - with exposure compensation on every shot, adjusted by how i expect the camera to react to the scene in front of me. I then use the blinkies to tell me if I've screwed up in any important parts of the scene.

And guess what - I can live with a little over exposure in the dress. Just a little mind. A little can be recovered in LR. If it's totally nuked then it's an adjustment and fire again.

Hope this helps...
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I don't see any one as beneath me... or above me come to that .... I don't carry those sort of chips on my shoulder.
I was knocking the iterated trial and error method.... not any photographer
I can't imagine a professional ever doing things that way.
Click to expand...
So how does it belong in a discussion with 'professional photographers'? o_O

You're fighting shadows if you just 'threw it out there' in response to posts from professional photographers. If you claim it's not them you were aiming it at.
 
Phil V said:
So how does it belong in a discussion with 'professional photographers'? o_O

You're fighting shadows if you just 'threw it out there' in response to posts from professional photographers. If you claim it's not them you were aiming it at.
Click to expand...

Not so at all...
The OP of the thread is Exposing for the white wedding dress
It is not about Professional anything... it is about Exposure.
I was talking about exposure.
So what is the problem?

if you think this is knocking professionals I will need it spelling out..............

Take a shot
Have a look
don't like it
Make an adjustment
Try another shot
Iterate as needed
Iterate as needed
Iterate as needed

Opportunity lost.....:eek: :exit::dummy1:
Click to expand...
 
ryanyboy said:
I haven't read all this so I apologise if this has been said before....

In particularly bright ( read 'bad' ) light conditions the only way to avoid areas of over exposure in the dress is to render your subjects totally underexposed. I mean unrecognisably underexposed.

Typically with the sun behind the subject one part of the dress which can still get nuked is the train.

Whatever the situation, a key decision has to be "is the dress more important than the face of the bride"? I'll give you a clue - the answer is "no".

HOWEVER, as photographers we can swing the odds in our favour. Shoot with the sun behind the subject, find shade, use a reflector, use flash (radical I know), use a scrim, etc.

Whilst the use of a light meter is commendable it does not solve the problem. A light meter will still result in saving the dress and underexposing the face/everything else or vice versa. The problem isn't with exposure it's with dynamic range.

The secret is reduce the latitude between the brightest parts of the scene and the darkest (using the suggestions above).

What do I do? I shoot Aperture Priority - with exposure compensation on every shot, adjusted by how i expect the camera to react to the scene in front of me. I then use the blinkies to tell me if I've screwed up in any important parts of the scene.

And guess what - I can live with a little over exposure in the dress. Just a little mind. A little can be recovered in LR. If it's totally nuked then it's an adjustment and fire again.

Hope this helps...
Click to expand...

I was taught at a very early stage in my career by a South African photographer that you should always shoot with the brides back to the sun.
( we used fill flash anyway) That way all the amateurs among the guests got horrible results, and you sold more pictures.

For this and many other reasons like avoiding squinting and nice rim lights it is a good idea anyway. The problem came when people started using focal plane shutters and the impossibly limited sync speeds. (I kept on using leaf shutters).
To day many of the better high power flashes allow high speed flash so it is far less of a problem.
Have a look at the site I gave earlier http://meninenuotrauka.lt/en/wedding/ for how to handle bright bride shots.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I was taught at a very early stage in my career by a South African photographer that you should always shoot with the brides back to the sun.
( we used fill flash anyway) That way all the amateurs among the guests got horrible results, and you sold more pictures.

For this and many other reasons like avoiding squinting and nice rim lights it is a good idea anyway. The problem came when people started using focal plane shutters and the impossibly limited sync speeds. (I kept on using leaf shutters).
To day many of the better high power flashes allow high speed flash so it is far less of a problem.
Have a look at the site I gave earlier http://meninenuotrauka.lt/en/wedding/ for how to handle bright bride shots.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you quoted me here Terry....?
 
ryanyboy said:
I'm not sure why you quoted me here Terry....?
Click to expand...

It is just that you mention of "Bad" light made me remember that it also has advantages... as in most things photographic.
One thing led on to another................in a good way.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Not so at all...
The OP of the thread is Exposing for the white wedding dress
It is not about Professional anything... it is about Exposure.
I was talking about exposure.
So what is the problem?

if you think this is knocking professionals I will need it spelling out..............
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you'll accept it if I spell it out, but from my rough count, all the advice you belittled is from current working professionals. I have no idea what pointing at someone else's website is supposed to do for your credibility, I think we all knew what a genius he was prior to your post. I'm fairly sure that anyone with half an interest in wedding photography who frequents this site will be familiar, so; I fail to see the point.

And I too used focal plane shutters and now I use HSS. However, my favoured method is to get out of those conditions into somewhere I'm controlling rather than taming the light. And that's always my advice to others too. But, again, I fail to see how you're trying to make any point other than 'I've been at it for a long time and I know the right way of doing it'. Again, I would guess that all the other (sensible) posters on this thread know that we don't face people into the sun as a general rule, yet you mention it as some kind of revelation (in a good way).
 
Phil V said:
I'm not sure you'll accept it if I spell it out, but from my rough count, all the advice you belittled is from current working professionals. I have no idea what pointing at someone else's website is supposed to do for your credibility, I think we all knew what a genius he was prior to your post. I'm fairly sure that anyone with half an interest in wedding photography who frequents this site will be familiar, so; I fail to see the point.

And I too used focal plane shutters and now I use HSS. However, my favoured method is to get out of those conditions into somewhere I'm controlling rather than taming the light. And that's always my advice to others too. But, again, I fail to see how you're trying to make any point other than 'I've been at it for a long time and I know the right way of doing it'. Again, I would guess that all the other (sensible) posters on this thread know that we don't face people into the sun as a general rule, yet you mention it as some kind of revelation (in a good way).
Click to expand...

I have belittled no one... My answers did not take into account the professional status of the other contributors as it is irrelevant to the question.

I too would play to my strengths, and if I had the choice I would avoid difficult light conditions. However a large part of a modern shoot is unposed so one must use skill to capture the situation as it exists. I listed "Babi's" site because he is now recognised as one of the worlds best, and the best I know at making the most of light and the situation. (many here will not know of him as he has not recently turned up.)

My answers all make the assumption that the OP is inexperienced, as his question was basic to wedding photography. They are not directed to experienced wedding photographers, who clearly have their own opinions. If you do not agree with some of my answers or think them too basic that is fine. However I would be surprised if I have said anything that is factually wrong, and if I have I will correct it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an aside... If you look at almost any wedding shots prior to the 70's you will find that the "general Rule" was to pose people 3/4 on to the sun, some but very few were shot with the brides back to the sun.... strange but true.....

Right up to the 60's the most famous and expensive society photographer of the day, Dorothy Wilding, staged all her wedding photographs in her studio. We have one of her photographs of my aunt as a bride. the quality and elegant pose is outstanding. (she did not attend weddings)

One advantage of age, is being able to see the "Context" of photography over time, as styles change. Some things seem better now, others can be difficult to equal.
 
Last edited:
wow. What a thread....

Try everything listed on this thread, then see what works for you....

Im no expert but for me, I know that for my camera to make white white i need 3-5 clicks of exp comp. So, AV + a suitable ISO (200 - 400 for decent light / 1600 for indoor) mode plus 4 clicks 'generally' means im close to perfect exposure. I shoot raw so i have some wiggle room and noise issues are onltyapparent in the shadow areas, when you are pulling up the exposure in PP, and when the image is printed large).

If its posed shooting where i have a little more time i take a few test shots in manual with the frame filled by the brightest subject i want correctly exposed, ensure the histogram is to the right, check and adjust.

Or i use a light meter....

there is no right or wrong, there is only what works for you to get the results you want.

trial and error, lots of frustration, tears, swearing, and then finally....ding....it clicks and you find what works...for you
 
big soft moose said:
Of course we all realise that you were the mary poppins of photography and never needed to check your exposure or have any post process work done in the dark room. Its odd that we've never seen these amazing and perfect shots :whistle:
Click to expand...
Never mind the "WE ALL". Just speak for yourself don't try rallying support from others because you have no confidence in your own statements.:wave:
 
okay - I call troll unless you actually show us some of this amazing work that needed no PP or exposure checking. Put up or shut up
 
wooster said:
Is it just me or has this all got rather unpleasant?:(
Click to expand...
yes I think it has. I work mostly one way but in some situations the other. That's because both can achieve good results. If you find a way that produces consistent results and it suits your way of working then fair play. Its for no one else to criticise.
 
I've just noticed a similar debate on a much more friendly thread elsewhere on the forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top