Has anyone seen or used this lighting technique?

Share their link when they start posting pics.

You-by-Lou wrote in post #14528633
a million shy of a billion...and that is facebook alone...yeah the masses would agree...social media sucks

Much like their stock value.

klr.b wrote in post #14527946
I've seen some pictures before that looked quite nice. With good framing, a rim light can make a kiss during the couple's first dance look quite magical.

But that's got to require some fill from the camera position. Flare on it's own is just ugly.

Skip,

In the past I have often set a remote light under radio control, even with my medium format system which lacked ETTL capability. Then I would position myself relative to the action, not caring about the location of the remote light. It was a remote light on a stand, without an assistant to move it around for me. This is my usual modus operandi at wedding receptions...double lighting, whenever possible. It is what could distinguish my work from 'other pros'.

Essentially you need to think of the off-camera flash as 'the sun' and the fact that you have front lighting for some shots, side lighting for others, and backlighting for yet others. In the case of backlighting, one would ordinarily have fill flash at camera position (which I would have, with a second flash!), but not go without fill flash in backlit situations. The remote light becomes somewhat 'more controllable' than the sun...you can turn it off or regulate its intensity, but you are stuck with the placement of the sun, so you compensate with supplemental light!
...which might be where this photographer erred -- but since you do not have a web site to inspect, you don't know if the backlit shots are suboptimally lit (which I would expect them to be!)

Wilt wrote in post #14537240
Skip,

In the past I have often set a remote light under radio control, even with my medium format system which lacked ETTL capability. Then I would position myself relative to the action, not caring about the location of the remote light. It was a remote light on a stand, without an assistant to move it around for me. This is my usual modus operandi at wedding receptions...double lighting, whenever possible. It is what could distinguish my work from 'other pros'.

Essentially you need to think of the off-camera flash as 'the sun' and the fact that you have front lighting for some shots, side lighting for others, and backlighting for yet others. In the case of backlighting, one would ordinarily have fill flash at camera position (which I would have, with a second flash!), but not go without fill flash in backlit situations. The remote light becomes somewhat 'more controllable' than the sun...you can turn it off or regulate its intensity, but you are stuck with the placement of the sun, so you compensate with supplemental light!
...which might be where this photographer erred -- but since you do not have a web site to inspect, you don't know if the backlit shots are suboptimally lit (which I would expect them to be!)

I watched the gal doing all the shots with the remote flash. ALL of them were essentially done with a backlit configuration. The camera side of the dancing couples (which is what the subject was for all of the shots lit this way - only one couple on the dance floor at a time for the series) was lit only with available light and the flash was always pointing at the camera from the other side of the subjects. I suspect the flash itself was hidden by the subject's bodies (or heads) from time to time but not all the time.

SkipD wrote in post #14537489
I watched the gal doing all the shots with the remote flash. ALL of them were essentially done with a backlit configuration. The camera side of the dancing couples (which is what the subject was for all of the shots lit this way - only one couple on the dance floor at a time for the series) was lit only with available light and the flash was always pointing at the camera from the other side of the subjects. I suspect the flash itself was hidden by the subject's bodies (or heads) from time to time but not all the time.

Sounds as if the pros subsequently needed to apply quite generous amounts of Fill control in Lightroom! Maybe their Input Preset has that built in?!

Wilt wrote in post #14537240
Skip,

In the past I have often set a remote light under radio control, even with my medium format system which lacked ETTL capability. Then I would position myself relative to the action, not caring about the location of the remote light. It was a remote light on a stand, without an assistant to move it around for me. This is my usual modus operandi at wedding receptions...double lighting, whenever possible. It is what could distinguish my work from 'other pros'.

That's a pretty standard technique these days and possibly what the photographer was trying to emulate. And as you note, the lack of fill could be corrected for in post, but you have to ask why you'd want to work that way.

I take this a step further with a grid spot on a Profoto D1 AIR on a tall stand. I dial in the D1 with a test shot. You could do the same with an Elinchrom EL-Skyport or other remote system that lets you control output level.

K.C. wrote in post #14537185
Much like their stock value.

yeah well anyone getting in the first 30 days was bound to experience the drop.
don't think IPO's are what they used to be

I used a separate backlight for the first time at a May wedding. I used the new 600EX-RT on my backup camera, with the camera turned off, gave it to my wife and told her to move around opposite from my position and act like you're taking photographs of the couple.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.joshnibertp​hotography.com …786984&k=4s462R​p&lb=1&s=A

professoryeti wrote in post #14539242
I used a separate backlight for the first time at a May wedding. I used the new 600EX-RT on my backup camera, with the camera turned off, gave it to my wife and told her to move around opposite from my position and act like you're taking photographs of the couple.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.joshnibertp​hotography.com …786984&k=4s462R​p&lb=1&s=A

I was pleased with how it turned out, but I definitely recognize that practice will make perfect and I have some improvement to work toward.

Did you use flash on your camera? Nice picture btw and I would prefer wider shots, but thats just me.

I'm wondering if she is trying to replicate some kind of stage or theatrical lighting.

I use the same technique from time to time. I tend to use a bit of fill light from the camera unless the ambient is really good.

I don't see what's wrong with this technique. I feel that it does enhance the creative aspect and create more subject isolation for the image.

I had a rear-bounced flash on camera.

Could she have been going for silhouettes and not so much flared shots?