Using Ringflash for Aisle Shots at a wedding

markrichardson

markrichardson

Judge Judy
Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,852
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I was just reading a blog post on using a ring flash (orbs, rayflash style) and wondered if anyone had tried using at a wedding for the shots down the aisle.

Churches are often entirely unsuited to bouncing flash, so thought it might be a good alternative (bearing in mind that most weddings don't allow for time for setting up off-camera lighting).
 
Frankly I don't see the point.
You'd really struggle for power at the distances involved, and I can't see any benefit in using what is after all just a 6" or so diameter light source that will just be a point source of light at anything more than a few feet distance
 
Garry Edwards said:
Frankly I don't see the point.
You'd really struggle for power at the distances involved, and I can't see any benefit in using what is after all just a 6" or so diameter light source that will just be a point source of light at anything more than a few feet distance
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up, what's the guide on them -2 stops of power at 10 feat? :thinking: will need filling in as don't own one but know they lose a fair whack.

Flash down the isle in general, if possible just boost the ISO to a half decent level and forget flash, shot one on a monopod, iso 1600, 1/50th at f4,, most in a sequence are keepers and I avoid that head on flash look.
 
Barry - I seem to end up shooting in a lot of churches where I can't get 1/100th at f/2.8 at a decent iso - any slower than that and you get motion blur on the couple.

Michael - most ministers are happy with flash during the processional/recessional, and during the service isn't an issue as the couple aren't moving much so slower shutter speeds are fine.

Garry - I didn't realise that there was that much power loss - I thought it was just about 1 stop.
 
markrichardson said:
Barry - I seem to end up shooting in a lot of churches where I can't get 1/100th at f/2.8 at a decent iso - any slower than that and you get motion blur on the couple.

Michael - most ministers are happy with flash during the processional/recessional, and during the service isn't an issue as the couple aren't moving much so slower shutter speeds are fine.

Garry - I didn't realise that there was that much power loss - I thought it was just about 1 stop.
Click to expand...

This might help

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2009/07/12/photographing-the-wedding-processional/

I wonder if US churches are brighter. I looked at a "no-flash shot of the B&G at the alter at my last shoot and it was: 2.8 1600 ISO 1/60th sec... It was considerably darker down the aisle, so I had to use flash, and as Mark indicates the results are not what I am really looking for. The idea of gelling the flash for tungsten, and using the "black foam thing" for the walking down the aisle shot looks a good compromise

In a much bigger (wider aisled) church, I have remote triggered a flash my wife was holding (she was sat on the end of a aisle about 3 pews from the front, and from memory, that was the very best option I have tried so far. Of course the other advantage of this approach is that if you also have a on-board flash, you can flash from in-front and behind as the bride walks past pew 3 (I must try that)
 
I'm also a regular user of the 'black foamie thing' but if there's nothing within reasonable distance for bouncing, it's no use!

I usually shoot on my own, so having someone holding an off-camera flash is rarely an option.

Only other option I've used is using a piece of a4 white foam as a bounce card, but less than ideal.
 
markrichardson said:
Barry - I seem to end up shooting in a lot of churches where I can't get 1/100th at f/2.8 at a decent iso - any slower than that and you get motion blur on the couple.

Michael - most ministers are happy with flash during the processional/recessional, and during the service isn't an issue as the couple aren't moving much so slower shutter speeds are fine.

Garry - I didn't realise that there was that much power loss - I thought it was just about 1 stop.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's a lot of power loss.
Also, not the toughest bit of kit on the market and maybe not ideal for the wedding photography environment because of that.

But the main problem is, as I said earlier, that the ringflash only really works as a ringflash at much closer distances that you'll actually be able to use it at, all you'll end up with is a tiny point source of light that will produce 'deer in the headlamps' lighting. you'll be much better off with the standard hotshoe flash on a bracket.
 
Thanks Garry - I'll give up exploring that route then!
 
markrichardson said:
I'm also a regular user of the 'black foamie thing' but if there's nothing within reasonable distance for bouncing, it's no use!

I usually shoot on my own, so having someone holding an off-camera flash is rarely an option.

Only other option I've used is using a piece of a4 white foam as a bounce card, but less than ideal.
Click to expand...

Looking at my aisle shots from my last wedding - they suffer from the same issue you are having, the flashed look also breaks the flow of the set :'(

On reflection - the distance is the issue.

If the bride and groom are at the alter end, near the alter, unless you can so something to get the flash a long way from the camera, you will always get a nasty shadow

Looking at the ones where I am a lot closer to the B&G, and where the B&G are further from the alter the issue resolves itself...

I might resign myself to starting 3/4 way up the aisle, grabbing 2 shots and then retreating and waiting till the B&G are 3/4 down the aisle

Let me know if you figure it out :-)
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
you'll be much better off with the standard hotshoe flash on a bracket.
Click to expand...

I have tried that, I have also tried remote triggering the flash in my left hand extended to the left - both approaches just moves the ugly shadow about (slightly)

The issue is that to get enough light down to the B&G to freeze the shot in a dark church always is also enough light to give you a nasty shadow

I suppose ideally we could elevate the flash 6 feet upwards, and cast the shadow out of sight below the B&G
 
Last edited:
Richard King said:
I have tried that, I have also tried remote triggering the flash in my left hand extended to the left - both approaches just moves the ugly shadow about (slightly)

The issue is that to get enough light down to the B&G to freeze the shot in a dark church always is also enough light to give you a nasty shadow

I suppose ideally we could elevate the flash 6 feet upwards, and cast the shadow out of sight below the B&G
Click to expand...
Well, there really isn't a complete answer.
The nearest thing to a complete answer, short of having an assistant with a flash fitted to a softbox and held on a pole, not really a practical solution normally, is to use a fairly high ISO and slow-ish shutter speed to capture as much ambient as possible, and having the flash power set fairly low.

And yes, keep fairly close to the couple and walk backwards without falling over as you shoot:)
 
Richard King said:
I wonder if US churches are brighter. (I must try that)
Click to expand...

The photo shows white walls, big hint :D

Simple as I can conclude,, old churches have dark stone walls and dark wood and many other dark things, new ones dating about Victorian or later I would reckon always seem to be painted white inside and have more simple windows (and a **** load of graffiti outside).

Seen as America has no old churches ;) and by old I mean more then 100 years.

PS, Mark, dont suppose you can define your idea of decent ISO? I find flash at 800iso shutter set to 50-60 on a monopod I can get something that looks near natural and over exposing a little seems to leave little in the way of noise or blur.

Mind that does not apply to all cases thinking back to one church last month where 6400 was barely getting 40th (depending where I was looking) and that was with all lights on inside and sun beaming outside! never wanted FX or 6000000000 iso more in my life :sulk:
 
By decent ISO I mean 1600 or lower. At a push I'd use 3200 but not if I can help it.

Surprised you're using such slow shutter speeds for aisle shots. Fine when they are stationary but surely they end up motion blurred when walking?

I think the point about US churches being brighter is valid...but not helpful to the solution!
 
markrichardson said:
By decent ISO I mean 1600 or lower. At a push I'd use 3200 but not if I can help it.

Surprised you're using such slow shutter speeds for aisle shots. Fine when they are stationary but surely they end up motion blurred when walking?

I think the point about US churches being brighter is valid...but not helpful to the solution!
Click to expand...
Surely, what is acceptable in terms of ISO depends on a mix of correct exposure and the capability of the camera?

Obviously a slow shutter speed is needed to avoid the 'deer in the headlamps' look and bring in a reasonable amount of ambient. Camera shake and subject blur need to be avoided, but the flash will take care of that. At worst, you should get a blurred image (and especially the background) but with an underlying sharp image, due to the short flash duration. It's always worked out OK for me.
 
Of course acceptable ISO varies based on camera - I just answered based on my set-up (5d Mk II).

I guess I'm looking for an answer that doesn't exist* for those large, dark churches!



*short of having an experienced assistant who is able to both hold an off camera flash in a flattering way and not get in the way of proceedings at all.
 
Last edited:
markrichardson said:
Of course acceptable ISO varies based on camera - I just answered based on my set-up (5d Mk II).

I guess I'm looking for an answer that doesn't exist* for those large, dark churches!



*short of having an experienced assistant who is able to both hold an off camera flash in a flattering way and not get in the way of proceedings at all.
Click to expand...
Short of buying a Nikon...:exit:
:lol:
 
Garry Edwards said:
Short of buying a Nikon...:exit:
:lol:
Click to expand...

Well - I sort of agree with that!

I shot a wedding the other day. F2.8 was simply not enough. I had to crank the 5D up to 6400 :shake: Got the shot but I will not be printing large prints!

For me, a 1DIV would have been nice (or as Garry says a Nikon).

Alternative would be to buy a 35mm F1.4.

I've never used flash in the church - I only found out about the processional/recessional bit recently. Now I do, I'' make use of a large bounce card (even if ceiling is high) just to get some light forward.

Very good thread btw!

Cheers.

Dav
 
Last edited:
I'll try and dig up some shots, but a 50mm @ f2 or an 85mm @ f2 should give you enough light to shoot at around 1600-2500 (very decent on the 5DMKII) at 1/80. If I am bouncing flash, I always ensure I shoot as close to wide open as possible to a) balance ambient b) allow my flash to register as much as possible (flash will most likely be dumping all its juice in one go), which should overcome the highest of ceilings.

When bouncing flash, you have to give the flashgun the best chance it can to give you some results.
 
Yes. US churches are in general a lot brighter than UK ones.

On a couple of very special occasions, I've set up studio lights specifically to light processional/recessional. I don't think I'd like the look of a ringlit bride walking down the aisle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top