City lights..really need help.

[Valjoy]

I have just got back from shooting a wedding where I wanted to take a photo of the B AND G overlooking the city lights below.(wedding was on top of a lookout at night)

I have no idea what I am missing in regards to this shot ...but I could not get the lights to show up...just darkness. I tried everything from manual mode to the little green box mode trying to get the right settings to get the lights to show up.

Different shutter speeds, high iso, different apertures...very frustrating and I feel that I should know how to do this but I have drawn a blank. I actually didnt think this should be a problem....camera was finding focus fine but the only lights I could get was at 1.6 sec shutter. Blurred blurred blurred.
I would be extremely grateful for any advice with this problem.

[tim]

This is a simple problem, same as a sunset. Expose for the background, flash for the foreground. It's possible you needed ISO3200 F2.8 1/5th for the background, that's no problem on a tripod, the foreground exposure is usually irrelevant. The add flash for the foreground, preferably off camera but whatever you have works. No tripod? An IS lens is a good substitute.

I don't mean to offend, but what part of basic exposure are you having trouble with? There are always challenges at weddings, but this doesn't sound difficult. Trying green box mode suggests you have nfi (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nfi) what you're doing.

Quick tutorial: every image has two exposures, ambient and flash. You have to balance the two, and you have to take flash sync speeds into account. For what you've described i'd expect to use something like ISO800 F4 1/80th. The couple would hopefully be underexposed, otherwise you'd perhaps move them to reduce the ambient light on them. Then you'd add light in terms of off camera flash to bring the couple up to the exposure of the background.

One potential problem is if the couple are brighter than the background. The practical solution is to move them somewhere darker. Another solution is to realise the flash exposure isn't affected by shutter speed and to compensate accordingly.

[angryhampster]

Could you please post a photo? How far away from the lights were you?

[candjphoto]

No disrespect - but if you are, at any time, hoping that the little green box mode will fix your problem, then you really need to step back and do some research before you get into doing too many weddings.

Your problem, as described, is a very basic flash set-up. You either didn't bring a flash, don't know how to use one, or didn't even know you needed one. Any of those scenerios is bad news if you are presenting yourself as a professional wedding photographer. Weddings are brutal and will test every bit of photography knowledge you possess.... so I'd say you get out there in the same situation with some friends and try to troubleshoot the situation.

www.strobist.com is FANTASTIC for learning some basic flash information.

And again - if I didn't understand your problem correctly, I apologize.

[Valjoy]

This is a simple problem, same as a sunset. Expose for the background, flash for the foreground. It's possible you needed ISO3200 F2.8 1/5th for the background, that's no problem on a tripod, the foreground exposure is usually irrelevant. The add flash for the foreground, preferably off camera but whatever you have works. No tripod? An IS lens is a good substitute.

I don't mean to offend, but what part of basic exposure are you having trouble with? There are always challenges at weddings, but this doesn't sound difficult. Trying green box mode suggests you have nfi (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nfi) what you're doing.

Quick tutorial: every image has two exposures, ambient and flash. You have to balance the two, and you have to take flash sync speeds into account. For what you've described i'd expect to use something like ISO800 F4 1/80th. The couple would hopefully be underexposed, otherwise you'd perhaps move them to reduce the ambient light on them. Then you'd add light in terms of off camera flash to bring the couple up to the exposure of the background.

One potential problem is if the couple are brighter than the background. The practical solution is to move them somewhere darker. Another solution is to realise the flash exposure isn't affected by shutter speed and to compensate accordingly.


Tim I havent lived to being probably twice your age without knowing what NFI means....I thought you would have gathered from my post that I didnt have AFI.. ( would you like a link to this) That green box certainly gets people going.

Sarcasm isnt what I was after I asked a genuine question that I needed advice for. You have given me some good advice in you answer for which I am thankful. I always appreciate you technical knowledge.
I am still learning and improving my ambient/ flash photography hopefully one day I will have it down pat. There was no ambient, pitch black except for the distant lights.
I also didnt think this should be so hard ...but it was...I tried many things including the settings you suggested in the 'tutorial' with 17-55is ..........with and without the 580 ex 11...no off camera lights.
I actually thought I should have been able to capture just the lights with no flash no people in the forground with high ISO and a handheld slower shutter...no luck. I went to 1600.

[Valjoy]

Could you please post a photo? How far away from the lights were you?

I was quite a long distance and up a lot higher than the city lights......I will try to get some pics up later.

[Valjoy]

No disrespect - but if you are, at any time, hoping that the little green box mode will fix your problem, then you really need to step back and do some research before you get into doing too many weddings.

Your problem, as described, is a very basic flash set-up. You either didn't bring a flash, don't know how to use one, or didn't even know you needed one. Any of those scenerios is bad news if you are presenting yourself as a professional wedding photographer. Weddings are brutal and will test every bit of photography knowledge you possess.... so I'd say you get out there in the same situation with some friends and try to troubleshoot the situation.

www.strobist.com (http://www.strobist.com) is FANTASTIC for learning some basic flash information.

And again - if I didn't understand your problem correctly, I apologize.


Seriously did I say I thought the 'little green box would fix my problem'
.....NO
What is it with you that .....that makes you feel you can judge me my photography or my professionalism all because I posted a question on something that I am having a problem with albeit I should know how to fix it......I didnt at the time , but I am sure I will...because I strive to learn and be better at what I do. Usually with help from more experienced photographers than me.
As for my business... and how I 'represent' myself to my clients....very honestly and with pictures not words.

No apologies required , you knew exactly what you meant to achieve.
Sorry I dont take offence easily.
Tim may be a bit unnessasarily sarcastic at times but he always finishes with good advice.

[candjphoto]

Look - I think it's just one of those things. Internet forum posts are easy to... not "misread" (because you DID say that you tried to use the green box to fix your problem) - but to miss the intent or understand context.

From the wording in your post, you really did come across as a complete amateur trying to be a professional wedding photographer (again - from your post, it sounds like you threw the everything and the kitchen sink at the problem - which usually is a sign of an amateur in panic mode).

I haven't been around the forums enough to know this isn't the case, and I really hope no hard feelings were taken.

In the future I'll try to keep this in mind and just see how I can be more helpful without laying down judgement... because this is an easy situation to misread.

[Valjoy]

Look - I think it's just one of those things. Internet forum posts are easy to... not "misread" (because you DID say that you tried to use the green box to fix your problem) - but to miss the intent or understand context.

From the wording in your post, you really did come across as a complete amateur trying to be a professional wedding photographer (again - from your post, it sounds like you threw the everything and the kitchen sink at the problem - which usually is a sign of an amateur in panic mode).

I haven't been around the forums enough to know this isn't the case, and I really hope no hard feelings were taken.

In the future I'll try to keep this in mind and just see how I can be more helpful without laying down judgement... because this is an easy situation to misread.

Firstly....I had to restrain myself in my response to your original reply.
Second...I tried to disregard your second response above. 24 hours later I find ....I cannot no longer.

THE POINT YOU MISS ....It shouldnt of mattered what my stature as a photgrapher was.....read the other 2 replies 'angryhampster' asked 2 intelligent questions to gain more info .......and Tim (even though he thought I may be a Hack) took the time to give intelligent constructive advice to help. (only one sentence in his response hit a nerve )..... Not self indulgent rhetoric as in your response.

I am a mature, reasonably intelligent , usually articulate woman.
That said ,when posing my question I had just finished a

10 hour wedding in a 40 degree heatwave, with salt stinging my eyes from the sweat, glasses fogged, a LCD screen I couldnt see, on a usually deserted end of a beach location with hundreds of onlookers that had taken up every square inch of open shade....to top it off the water background that my clients wanted ...was at lowtide and I had an extremely sunburnt nose. Almost forgot the heatstruck bridesmaid.

Brutal, yes....So by the time I asked my question I was rather tired with not only a fried nose but brain as well.

Still reading over my original post .....I dont think it was too hard for you to understand what the crux of my question was.....

As for your second response.....do not insult my intelligence by blaming me for your post. 3 Times in 4 paragraphs.....you reiterated it was my fault for your response. I taught my children at the age of 10 to take responsability for what they do and say. Not others.

In short....no panic...I had finished and went outside to go home when I 'saw the shot" .....The B and G didnt know I was still there.

Frustration not panic. Determination not kitchen sink.
If you want me to be really pedantic ( look it up reminds me of you)

I did NOT say I thought the little green box would fix my problem.

QUOTE....
'I tried everything from Manual mode to the little green box mode
TRYING TO GET THE RIGHT SETTINGS to make the lights show up"

Could I have used better photographic terminology .....yes.

I learnt more from one turn of the dial ...(to green box) than in 2 posts from you.
I need a tripod......................10 sec shutter.

[jdhart73]

^^^ is learnt a word?

[tim]

Valjoy, it is a pretty simple concept and you did use green box mode, so it's not unexpected you're getting a little grief. Requiring a 10 second exposure is pretty extreme though, I doubt the human eye can see anything that requires a 10 second exposure though. ISO3200 F2.8 should've given you a 1 second exposure even with dim lights in the distance. If it didn't then it's not unreasonable not to get the shot.

One other thing to note is green box mode won't record a raw, it'll only do a jpeg. P mode is the same as auto, but with raw available, and a couple of other minor differences. It's quite reasonable to use P in fast paced scenarios, I do it osmetimes for photos of people hugging after a ceremony. From memory (and I could be totally wrong) it won't use an ISO over 400, but that may have been my 20D as I don't read that section of the manual any more, since I don't use it.

^^^ is learnt a word?

Haha, fail. Definition (http://www.google.co.nz/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=learnt). It's the past tense of learn, like learned.

[jonwhite]

Sorry you feel like your getting lots of stick Valjoy but it does look like your lacking some essential knowledge to shoot weddings and your getting some good advice here even if its tough to hear.

The book, Understanding Exposure (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Updated/dp/0817463003) would definitely help you I reckon, it certainly opened my eyes to a lot of a creative opportunities and helped me understand how to tackle shots like what you recently faced.

[tim]

AFAIK Understanding Exposure doesn't cover flash.

[Philco]

I'll share a couple examples here that may be similar to what you are trying to do. I guess it really depends on just how much light the city is putting out. This is from a venue 15 stories high above San Diego.

Both are 1/80th at f1.8. It's a bit slow to hand hold at 85mm, so I'd go 1/100th at least if you can. You might want to use a tripod if you have to go 1/30th at 2.8 or something.

ISO 1600

http://www.defalcophoto.com/post/Willard712 copy.jpg

ISO 2000

http://www.defalcophoto.com/post/Willard720 copy.jpg

These were done with a video light...for me it was quickest and easiest, though it would be just as easy to use off camera flash. My only suggestion with flash would be to gel it to match tungsten, otherwise the background lights will look quite yellow when you balance for skin tone. Sometimes that looks cool, but I prefer not to do it that way. Hope it helps.

[Valjoy]

Philco........Thank you, thankyou, thankyou.....my hat is off to you. Exactly the type of shot I envisaged. With fabulous info to boot. Only difference from what I wanted to capture is the distance to the lights.

I am smiling....cheers Val


Jonwhite........I sincerely appreciate any advice I am given relevant to my question.


Tim .....Disregard that 10secs I got from GBM ...After going through all the test shots today it wasnt just GBM...It had been on closeup GBM I had no idea. ISO 100...No wonder it was perplexing.( Idid say it was very dark and I was tired..)

Just a couple of the test shots taken.
421034

[Valjoy]

I am attaching a small cross section of some of my work . I have tried to include different lighting situations.Inside, outside, harsh sun, shade, flash, ambient/flash .
You may judge for yourselves, where you think I am up to...and what type of answer I deserve. I dont usually feel the need to justify myself like this
...but so many out there seem preoccupied with my status as a photographer rather than the question I posed..what do I think..I still have a long way to go.
a couple more to come.


421000

421001

[Valjoy]

Another 2

421002

421003

[Valjoy]

Last 2.....thanks for looking

421004

421005

[jonwhite]

AFAIK Understanding Exposure doesn't cover flash.

True enough, but it does give enough information for the OP to understand the ambient exposure required here and that flash would be needed to get the desired shot she was looking for.

[jonwhite]

You have some nicely composed shots there Valjoy, and I am sorry your feeling very defensive but anyone reading your original question can be forgiven for thinking that you lacked some basic knowledge about exposure

[Valjoy]

You have some nicely composed shots there Valjoy, and I am sorry your feeling very defensive but anyone reading your original question can be forgiven for thinking that you lacked some basic knowledge about exposure

Jonwhite...Please do not feel sorry for me..I am a big girl.
I

[angryhampster]

Those lights look REALLY far away. I think you may have simply been expecting too much out of the shot.

[Philco]

That was a tough situation where you were. I think all you could do is what has already been mentioned...use a tripod, a two second exposure, using the burst of the flash to freeze the couple. As long as they are still enough, ghosting probably wouldn't be too big of a problem. Not an easy shot for anyone to get right without a few experiments.

Incidentally, my bride in this instance is from Melbourne. Her father is a baseball coach, and she met her groom when he moved to Australia to play baseball. I didn't even know they played baseball there!

[Valjoy]

Those lights look REALLY far away. I think you may have simply been expecting too much out of the shot.

I think you may be right....I will give it another go in a couple of weeks when I am back down that way.......Thanks

[Valjoy]

That was a tough situation where you were. I think all you could do is what has already been mentioned...use a tripod, a two second exposure, using the burst of the flash to freeze the couple. As long as they are still enough, ghosting probably wouldn't be too big of a problem. Not an easy shot for anyone to get right without a few experiments.

Incidentally, my bride in this instance is from Melbourne. Her father is a baseball coach, and she met her groom when he moved to Australia to play baseball. I didn't even know they played baseball there!


I appreciate all the advice and will definately try again to get the shot. I will take a cool head, calm mind and a tripod and see what I can come up with.

As for baseball in Australia ..my son is a High School P.E Teacher and he says there is growing interest in baseball with lots of smaller comps around here...with the larger comps in Melbourne where they have been playing for quite some time.
cheers Val

[The Mack]

Seems as though you struggle with flash. You might wanna read up on strobist for some information. Don't get so defensive, it's just the internet.

Not everyone is going to understand your post the way you want them too. I read the whole thread before posting, but I will say that from your first post it did seem you lacked the very basics for wedding photography - which is why the reaction you got wasn't liked from your point of view.