Challenging high ceilings in Chinese Restaurants

Hello all,

Yesterday I was in a challenging situation in a wedding reception. High ceilings with little walls to bounce off of. Wood was the decorative material for parts of the walls. I guess this is where a quantum Qflash on a light stand with umbrella may have worked well.

I saw the hired photographer using direct flash (no stofen either) on a bracket. I just find this unacceptable due to harsh lighting. I wonder sometimes how people/clients consider acceptable.

Since I was not "hired" I casually documented my friends special day by keeping a distance away from the hired photographer. On the otherhand one of the relatives was one of the rude individuals glued to the hired photog stealing shots. I was the only one using a flipit and everyone else was using direct. Although a handful of people seemed to have zero concepts of light.

Is this harsh direct flash lighting considered acceptable? I had to get in real close stopping down the lens alot to get the desired dof with the 5d and 24-70l with 4 people group shots. Ambient exposure with some fill seemed to be extremely difficult. My 50D with 70-200 I used direct.

I find reception photos are simply boring and typically its just the MC and bridal group "speech" talk and some candid moments of the bride and groom.

The tight spaced restaurant was difficult to deal with but the light was horrible. How do photographers cope with such lighting conditions?

You haven't looked at the hired photog's pictures? Maybe his direct flash pictures are good. Just putting a small plastic thing on hot hoe flash doesn't make it nice diffused light like some folks think it to be.

If you search the forum, I think Curtis did some test with high ceilings and how well flash can bounce where you would think it won't.

Here's the thread about bounced flash with high ceilings:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=451770

Using a flipit, or any other "diffuser" product, will give only marginal improvement unless a significant portion of the light bounces off the walls/ceiling and back into the frame. Managing the ratio of flipit-bounced light with ceiling-bounced light is a real challenge that requires a lot of practice.

Hey Bobby,

I can see how specular a photo can get with direct flash 5+ feet away from the B&G.

I cannot see how the hired pro's photographs would look better since his lighting is completely flat with no contrast due to no bounce. I think in this case landing the shot is the importance. I dont own a stofen and my lightsphere tupperware clone hasn't been touched over 2 yrs. I use the Demb flipit (x2) on a two body combo I use.

My CP-e4 (ebay special) is on route but I sure wish I had it yesterday. I found the shallow dof of the FF to be challenging since I must stop down the lens alot in close quarters to get a small group shot all in focus even with staggered couples at a round table. I'd need to crank the ISO's higher and bump up the FEC alot if I had to bounce or get extremely close.

I just found this situation an interesting learning curve. Many of my photos turned out well but I had to get very close and bounce on the walls that had no wood.

I wonder if this is where it becomes more work in Post processing to get the desired IQ.

Thanks for the link Curtis,

In my particular case f/2.8 and even f/5.6 in close proximity in a small environment at wideopen would not work even in a staggered positioned couple shot. That restaurant was packed like sardines. Shooting at ISO 1600 is not an issue for me but the DOF was a huge challenge. Honestly I SHOULD HAVE used ISO 1600 more that night. I wanted more fill in the eye sockets but space was soooo limited to get closer sometimes.

This was an eye opener aswell when it came to etiquette. I have never been so disgusted in people leaching a shot off of the hired pro. After talking to my friend (groom) he said he was blind and his "cheek muscles" were sore

Alan,

I think in some situations, higher DOF provided by cropped sensor can come in handy.

AlanU wrote in post #8350788
Hello all,

Yesterday I was in a challenging situation in a wedding reception. High ceilings with little walls to bounce off of. Wood was the decorative material for parts of the walls. I guess this is where a quantum Qflash on a light stand with umbrella may have worked well.

I saw the hired photographer using direct flash (no stofen either) on a bracket. I just find this unacceptable due to harsh lighting. I wonder sometimes how people/clients consider acceptable.

Since I was not "hired" I casually documented my friends special day by keeping a distance away from the hired photographer. On the otherhand one of the relatives was one of the rude individuals glued to the hired photog stealing shots. I was the only one using a flipit and everyone else was using direct. Although a handful of people seemed to have zero concepts of light.

Is this harsh direct flash lighting considered acceptable? I had to get in real close stopping down the lens alot to get the desired dof with the 5d and 24-70l with 4 people group shots. Ambient exposure with some fill seemed to be extremely difficult. My 50D with 70-200 I used direct.

I find reception photos are simply boring and typically its just the MC and bridal group "speech" talk and some candid moments of the bride and groom.

The tight spaced restaurant was difficult to deal with but the light was horrible. How do photographers cope with such lighting conditions?

The Stoffen would have done very very little (close to nothing) to alter the quality of light under these circumstances. The Flipit helps a little, but even it is very limited in the small area increase that it provides.

I cope by using small softbox and dual lighting.

AlanU wrote in post #8350788
I saw the hired photographer using direct flash (no stofen either) on a bracket. I just find this unacceptable due to harsh lighting. I wonder sometimes how people/clients consider acceptable.
?

he get the booking and you don't. Don't hate. That just life.

Bubble wrote in post #8352064
he get the booking and you don't. Don't hate. That just life.

Was a friends wedding if I read correctly. Sometimes it's best just to be a guest

hawk911 wrote in post #8352304
Was a friends wedding if I read correctly. Sometimes it's best just to be a guest

if my friend take great picture, i would hire him to take the picture for my wedding for sure. This "hired" photographer didn't do it for free; meaning both the groom/bride already see his work and like it. I don't see the problem with it. Seem like OP try to bashing this "hired" photographer. I wonder how the OP picture looks like. Care to share your "wonderful/perfect lighting" picture to us Alan?

and that's also a great way to ruin a friendship; if you didn't get just the right shot. either way, he's looking for suggestions on how to light this situation.

hawk911 wrote in post #8352492
and that's also a great way to ruin a friendship; if you didn't get just the right shot. either way, he's looking for suggestions on how to light this situation.

If you're doing it for a living then every shot should be a good shot. No matter what.

95% of the thread was bashing then a question at the last sentence? He already have the asnwer to his question in the thread.

Bubble wrote in post #8352469
if my friend take great picture, i would hire him to take the picture for my wedding for sure. This "hired" photographer didn't do it for free; meaning both the groom/bride already see his work and like it. I don't see the problem with it. Seem like OP try to bashing this "hired" photographer. I wonder how the OP picture looks like. Care to share your "wonderful/perfect lighting" picture to us Alan?

My friend's wife had a "package deal" at a bridal store. She had very little selection of photogs to choose from. I dont even think she looked thoroughly at their portfolio's either. My friend had nothing to do with in the decision of the photographer.

I think many people would agree that a photo should be dynamic and not a flat light bomb hitting the subject. I am a hobbyist on a steep learning curve so every situation I get into is a wonderful opportunity to learn.

I have not seen the "hired photog's" photos but I am not holding my breathe. Composition of the "posed" caked eating and crossing of arms Champagne sips will look decent. The bare flash in their faces aprox 5 feet away is my valid criticism. He used bare flash for everything.

Today I spoke to my friend that shoots weddings for a living. I paid my friend $7000 to document my wedding day....yes he did a phenominal job. I told him the scenario (He's shot many wedding in that same restaurant) and he said his mechanic with a pro dslr could have done that cop out direct flash shot( I'm his mechanic for many year now ) I laughed because I was honestly putting great efforts in bouncing light that night. He uses assistance with remote lighting when he shoots at horribly lit receptions.

I stupidly had my cybersyncs and 1 umbrella, stand, monopod. I just didn't think of using others in giving me a hand. I was gonna use those items "if" I had to do a large group shot.

My post was to hear how others cope with challenging situations. If I had to do it again I'd use remote triggers. Even Canon IR would work in that tight small restaurant setting. I'll also now consider a smaller softbox if I do it solo (thanks Wilt).

Bubbles, I guess you can interpret my post as a minor "bashing". I'll use bare flash outdoors but indoors I see it unflattering. My friend has his wedding on one day (to suite the chinese lunar calendar) and his reception was another day. I like to capture photos with or without flash. I'll keep my friend's faces out of this. Here are a few intentionally shot this way. Bubbles I'll gladly share my "wonderful/perfect lighting" photos

Since I was a guest I was more concerned about eating at the reception and enjoying the company of my friends. At the same time I wanted to get some nice photos since they asked me to capture "moments".

Deleted - Let the wedding experts handle this.

Interesting how this thread questions the quality of the hired pro's lighting, and yet so many jump to the pro's defense and seem to forget just how much "I own a camera, therefore I am a wedding photographer" there is on POTN. People who fail to know advanced flash techniques are included in this 'instant wedding pro' compulsion. Yet at the same time, everybody is defending a so-called pro and his lighting with no understanding of the background knowledge and experience of that specific hired photographer! What makes anyone think this hired shooter was someone with any professional background and comprehensive knowledge of lighting, and not one of the instant pros???
I'm confused by this.

--wilt
Who double lights wedding coverage