Suggestions for a Scrim, for weddings and on location.

[Thuringer]

So, I decided to do some wedding photography. I think the only thing I really need is a Scrim.

I am looking for one, that you guys have field tested, love and like.

Also am I being crazy for thinking I need one?

[tim]

I've been photographing weddings for 6 or 7 years professionally, I've never used a scrim. I had to use google to work out what it was - from what I've read it's effectively a diffuser for the sun.

Why do you think you need a scrim? How many assistants do you plan to use for the sized scrim that would be useful?

[highway0691]

I googled as well. Would certainly be useful in certain light conditions but the downside to using one would be it's negative visual impact on the backdrop of a wedding particularly the ceremony.

[tim]

Instead of taking away light, I tend to add light. It tends to be easier.

I really think Thuringer that you should assist a professional before you decide to do it yourself.

[nicksan]

I mean, you could use a scrim for specific situations, sure, but that's just another thing to carry around and worry about. I've never had to use one.

[Peacefield]

I'm familiar with them (quite common in commercial and portrait photography, quite rare in weddings), but would never try to use them. I do bring an assistant, but the day just moves too quickly to not want to find a better more portable less intrusive solution.

[Red Tie Photography]

I work with a photographer who uses this sometimes: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...la_System.html

It can come in really handy, but you need extra help (as I am sure you are aware).

[umphotography]

These are the ones to use.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...anslucent.html

Seen a lot of commercial guys use them. They are pricey. Lets you do just about anything with a OCF strobe set up. I dont use them. If i were a big time 10K photographer like some of these PPA photogs claim they are.....Well, i would probably have an assistant holding one.

But I'm not so i don't use them either

[tim]

If you shade people you still have a bright background, so it's rarely going to be very useful.

[Thuringer]

So, if you guys don't use a scrim, what are you using to defeat the sun, and harsh shadows?

Defused light is always flattering on skin tones, the location I'll be shooting at is here:

http://www.quailrunranch.biz/photo%20gallery.htm

Those pictures are not mine. But you see where there is no shade, its all direct sun light, and these images lack any wow factor. So my thinking is leave the BG's alone, use a scrim to defuse the light (in the posed shots) and really try and even out the light under the eyes and such.

This is why I am thinking a scrim would be a good idea.

[tim]

If you put a scrim over people you need to then add light otherwise they'll be darker than the background, unless you want it blown out, but I find that ugly. Plus it's big, expensive, and requires at least one extra assistant.

Find shade or nicer areas, even if you have to take people offsite. Inside's an option. Puts peoples backs to the sun then add light - I use an AB800 and vagabond mini but a couple of speedlites are ok if you can spend the time in post to bring levels up.

In my opinion you're thinking about this backwards. Don't take light away, causing problems, add more to balance. Not every photo's a work of art, some are just a record of the day. Check out an article about adding light on my blog, and check out this wedding and this wedding.

[umphotography]

Tim
What this thing does is allow filter light instead of harsh light to hit you client from the top . Its like being in the shade. You still have to balance with your ambient. These things work bitchen when used properly. Ive seen guys use them at the beach, city, everywhere. It allows you to shoot during peak light as long as you have a strobe that can match the ambient. Use an ND filter and you really have an awesome set up.

My problem is that I dont have an assistant that can always go out plus i dont have enough portrait type work to justify the expense. That being said, there is no better way to do it in full light. You have an instant light line with filtered overhead ambient lighting.

[tim]

I understand what they do, I just think they'd be impractical as you'd need at least two assistants. I manage light by putting it behind people, which doesn't work so well at midday.

Wedding photography can be compared to an Olympic sprint. We have to compromise between time taken to set up and take the photo and quality. Some customers can get bored, annoyed, and ever bordering on abusive (i've had that) if it takes more than about 5 seconds to set an image or lighting up.

[scorpio_e]

My thinking is most of the time,you need to add light in a wedding. Why add something else in the mix that you need another assistant for?

[Red Tie Photography]

Originally Posted by scorpio_e

My thinking is most of the time,you need to add light in a wedding. Why add something else in the mix that you need another assistant for?

Because it will look better. But it is a lot more work.