Striving for a clean clear sharp result. Any tips?

HoppyUK said:
By the way, how did you light that group shot? The light is from quite a large (square?) source to the right :thinking:
Click to expand...

The catchlights and shadows make it look to me like it was on camera flash fired straight at the group, which is another reason why the background is so dark compared with the front row. There also appears to be a natural "flash vignette", with the lighting strongest in the centre and falling off at the sides as well as to the rear. That's what made me think pop up flash was used earlier. It certainly doesn't look to me like the output from a 580EX, direct or bounced.
 
tdodd said:
The catchlights and shadows make it look to me like it was on camera flash fired straight at the group, which is another reason why the background is so dark compared with the front row. There also appears to be a natural "flash vignette", with the lighting strongest in the centre and falling off at the sides as well as to the rear. That's what made me think pop up flash was used earlier. It certainly doesn't look to me like the output from a 580EX, direct or bounced.
Click to expand...

Tim, I think the catchlights are too large for any kind of direct flash, and the shadows too soft. It looks like a brolly to the above right, but I would have thought the OP would have mentioned that.

The catchlights are also a little square looking if you take a close peek. Like a square softbox. Or a window... :thinking:
 
Richard, are we looking at the same photo? The catchlights are minute, and if you look at the eyes of the older girl, who is looking straight at the camera, are almost dead centre in the pupil and certainly not off to one side. Also look at how the shadows fall below her ears. These are strong signs that the flash is close to the lens axis and just above. Maybe you are thrown by the eyes of the other kids pointing in different directions, but for anyone staring down the barrel of the lens, such as the bride, the catchlights are almost perfectly in the centre of the eye, not off to one side. The shadow edge looks pretty hard to me.

20100911_125437_0784_LR-6.jpg


Perhaps we should let Leanne put us out of our misery.
 
Last edited:
I am still thinking a better Lens would help matters

If you are anywhere near Cambridge you are welcome to give my Canon 17-55 a go and see what you think.
Maybe the IS would help too, I know ithe Lens doesn't have any issues so the offer is there if it helps at all
 
Tim, you're probably right. I just thought the catchlights looked just a little too big to be on-camera direct flash, at the kind of distance used, and then started imagining things :lol: Don't know why really.

However, I do think that the light is too even to be 100% direct flash and I think there's a lot of ambient fill softening the shadows and lightening the back of the room.

Just an observation really, and maybe not a very helpful one :D
 
Last edited:
The issue isn't to do with the lens. The issue is that the OP was struggling with a lack of light, and also then struggling with controlling the light added to the scene by flash

This thread shows why getting a 2.8 or 1.4 lens is not the answer to all wedding photography problems, because we are just substituting one set of problems with another

The root problem here for a wedding photographer is:
- there isn't enough light
- even if you have on camera flash, there more than likley wasn't anywhere decent to bounce it off to diffuse and alter the lighting angle
- Yes you can do a off camera flash solution, but in reality, are you going to cart (2x) a light stand, a wescott softbox/brollies and speedilights arround inside this building in a real wedding situation. And even if you are, do you have the time to faff about setting them up

The staircase shot in a post further up the thread was bright and well lit in the first place, so isnt really a great comparison. The next issue in this shot is the proximity of the background to the subjects. Because it is so close, you are faced with 2 choices - go with a shallow DOF and try to blur it, or go with a deep DOF and try to get everything pin sharp. Anything in between looks messy The issue with the shalow DOF - is the subjects are in 2 rows, so the best option is to try to get everything sharp... and that brings us fairly and squarely back to the lighting> Great lighting wil give you better contrast, definition, and reduce under exposure. but the amount of lighting you really need to get this shot under control, isn't practical to pull off on a shot by shot basis at a fast moving wedding. if you have an assistant, the best option might be to use a big reflector and bang a bit of light that is falling in the room elsewhere into the shot, or bounce your on camera flash off a big reflector to the side. Either way, you are clutching at straws - the better option would be to find a better lit location to start off with


the next option is a bit extreme - if you know you are going to have to shoot in a dingy corner, and you know you are going to have to pose a number of groups there, and that's that - no escaping from that part of the job.. and if you have access before - rig up some studio flashes in the right places before the day gets going. then when you need to shoot in that spot, pop a radio trigger on, and shoot away - you can even do test shots and get it metered up so you dont have to think about it
 
Just a point of interest, I would try in the future to include the feet in the image.
 
My keyboard broke, I didn't have a way to come and reply to any of this! Now I'm in editing mode so I have a few minutes, may not be able to respond fully to everyone, will try though....

Rich, will check out those links, thank you! Good ideas re. indoor environments!

thanks Donki!

Tim, thanks for that explanation, helps a lot with my understanding of flash. Once I'm less busy, will have a play. Will do print outs of all this good advice on here, and when I'm on hols in Mexico in TWO WEEKS (whoop!) I can try out the advice indoors - in the restaurant/hotel room at night... also thanks for the comparison shots, really very helpful :) The shot of the little boy on his Dad's shoulder is really nice, and plenty sharp. And the sparkler pictures are great, really telling about what flash can do!

Tracer, I actually do have a little pull out bounce card built into my flash - not sure how good it is or isn't - must experiment. There's also a pull-out diffusor which I think I had on.

Jabbermack - there is no doubt about it, I want better glass, for a start, I'd love a 70-200 Canon lens. But as Rich said, it's not on the cards right now. Can't even afford to replace our rotting window frames - eek. Need to either get a job with more than 10 hours a week or I need to start commercialising my photography.

TommyH, what are hassleblads? I'm intrigued! Empty church, fab idea! I think you're a genius!


Paul, thank you - that's good to hear.

Chappers thanks so much, will try that and stick with LR :)

Hoppy, yes the groom is about 7 feet tall, the best man (his brother) about 8 feet tall, and the bride about 5 feet tall! I could have put her on a stool or taken the men down a step, but then that would give an unrealistic picture I think ;)

On that note, Ed Bray, I know it's a massive no no - as I was saying earlier, this was impossible as I was back as far as possible, but yes I should have moved closer in. I would not normally chop off feet. I'll be cropping to correct for that.

tijuana taxi that is so kind! Unfortunately I'm in the north of Scotland. Living where I do and I miss out, again ;) Mind you it's "affa bonny" where I live so mustn't grumble.

Hoppy and Tim - the answer to the lighting question: my new flashgun (a Yongnuo YN465) which was mounted on the camera, and there was a window directly behind me, but with not much light as it was on the shaded side of the building, sadly.

thanks Richard King - I agree the location has major issues. Thanks for the tips. I was under the understanding that the location was the beach (reception venue on the beach), but this all changed on the day. The weather running up to the wedding had been awful and they were worried it would rain during group shots.

Hope I remembered everyone!
 
kitschenalia said:
My keyboard broke, I didn't have a way to come and reply to any of this! Now I'm in editing mode so I have a few minutes, may not be able to respond fully to everyone, will try though....

Rich, will check out those links, thank you! Good ideas re. indoor environments!

thanks Donki!

Tim, thanks for that explanation, helps a lot with my understanding of flash. Once I'm less busy, will have a play. Will do print outs of all this good advice on here, and when I'm on hols in Mexico in TWO WEEKS (whoop!) I can try out the advice indoors - in the restaurant/hotel room at night... also thanks for the comparison shots, really very helpful :) The shot of the little boy on his Dad's shoulder is really nice, and plenty sharp. And the sparkler pictures are great, really telling about what flash can do!

Tracer, I actually do have a little pull out bounce card built into my flash - not sure how good it is or isn't - must experiment. There's also a pull-out diffusor which I think I had on.
Click to expand...

That little bounce card can be excellent for bounce-fill off a ceiling. It gives a similar effect to a Stofen-style diffuser cap. Have a look here www.abetterbouncecard.com Any form of bounce flash needs a lot of power though.

The pull-out diffuser is only for when you've got a very wide angle lens. If you haven't, it just spreads the light wider than you need, wasting a lot of it and diluting the power.

Jabbermack - there is no doubt about it, I want better glass, for a start, I'd love a 70-200 Canon lens. But as Rich said, it's not on the cards right now. Can't even afford to replace our rotting window frames - eek. Need to either get a job with more than 10 hours a week or I need to start commercialising my photography.

TommyH, what are hassleblads? I'm intrigued! Empty church, fab idea! I think you're a genius!


Paul, thank you - that's good to hear.

Chappers thanks so much, will try that and stick with LR :)

Hoppy, yes the groom is about 7 feet tall, the best man (his brother) about 8 feet tall, and the bride about 5 feet tall! I could have put her on a stool or taken the men down a step, but then that would give an unrealistic picture I think ;)

On that note, Ed Bray, I know it's a massive no no - as I was saying earlier, this was impossible as I was back as far as possible, but yes I should have moved closer in. I would not normally chop off feet. I'll be cropping to correct for that.

tijuana taxi that is so kind! Unfortunately I'm in the north of Scotland. Living where I do and I miss out, again ;) Mind you it's "affa bonny" where I live so mustn't grumble.

Hoppy and Tim - the answer to the lighting question: my new flashgun (a Yongnuo YN465) which was mounted on the camera, and there was a window directly behind me, but with not much light as it was on the shaded side of the building, sadly.
Click to expand...

I wasn't a million miles out then. Because you used 1/80sec shutter speed, there is a fair amount of light coming from that window which has helped a lot.

thanks Richard King - I agree the location has major issues. Thanks for the tips. I was under the understanding that the location was the beach (reception venue on the beach), but this all changed on the day. The weather running up to the wedding had been awful and they were worried it would rain during group shots.

Hope I remembered everyone!
Click to expand...
 
If you come along to the "Aberdeenshire meet" at wartle Hall on Saturday, You'll get a chance at some better lenses. For weddings you obviously want the flexibility of a short - medium zoom but the kit lenses are generally seriously poor at the wider end... Also, bring along a couple of the RAW files from the wedding to see if we can help convert them for better results.
 
regarding the sigma 18-50, is it the "macro" or non macro you have? the "macro" is much better than the latter. the former was always a fantactically sharp lens for me before i had to sell it (switch to 1.3x sensor).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top