Two Questions about the Sun and Outdoor Ceremonies

form wrote in post #10307246
With those photos, I'd be throwing LR gradients on the dark area or the bright area and noticing a significant improvement. Then I would try to make the fact that it was altered as subtle as possible.

That's essentially what I've done, that plus a little fill-light slider and maybe even a little touch up with the adjustment brush. They're not coming out awful, but I don't think I see many going into my website's gallery.

I don't see 99.5% of my shots being gallery-worthy; being selective is part of putting your best face forward.

form wrote in post #10307246
With those photos, I'd be throwing LR gradients on the dark area or the bright area and noticing a significant improvement. Then I would try to make the fact that it was altered as subtle as possible.

As a general rule, I would like to use powerful strobes off-camera facing the opposite direction of the sun in order to light the dark face. I have done this once at a country club that had the ceremony out on the back patio with a nearby power outlet, but I would need a vagabond unit to do it elsewhere and I don't have that. Alternately, I have occasionally used off-camera bare flash facing opposite the sun, and now that I have two 580EXs with battery packs, I can pump those shots at a fair pace. It won't compare in output to my alienbees B1600, but it will make some difference.

A pair of them gave me this at about 15-20 feet from the subjects:

Judging from the light direction, you should have switched the bridemaids and groomen positions. Dark clothes don't reflect as much light, and you'll get better balanced light shots.

The lights were closer to the groomsmen...

Nice shot (it really is) but do something with that lens distortion. The gal on the end isn't really that "wide". Neither is the dude's head.

RT McAllister wrote in post #10305867
Even at 20 feet away, simple direct fill would have brought some of the bride out. But with no flash, I'm curious why you didn't expose for the darker subject? I'd rather deal with overexposure in post rather than trying to raise the darks.

I've found it's MUCH easier to brighten dark subjects and recover bright subjects. You can recover one stop of overexposure, maybe two but not so well. Underexpose is fine pushed two stops, three is ok. A balance is probably good, overexpose by half a stop maybe.

My general rule is expose for the highlights and flash for the subject, it applies in so many situations.

tim wrote in post #10309013
I've found it's MUCH easier to brighten dark subjects and recover bright subjects.

That's because you don't use LR and don't know what you're missing.

Yes, recovering "bright" hot spots is easier but it's not easier to add light that was never there to begin with. (i.e., brightening the darks). You run the risk of introducing too much grain.

Give me an overexposed pic any day vs. the alternative.

But there was no flash used in this thread.

ACR and LR have the same image processing functions. I still find that brightening dark areas is far more successful than recovering overexposed images, I don't care about noise but blown images are unacceptable.

This is correct from a theoretical point of view as well, as once you limit one or more channels (R, G, B) there's no information there to recover.

I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. I work from my experience, what's worked for me over the past 5 or 6 years in weddings, as long as you consistently get results you're happy with that's the main thing.

Not a wedding guy but can't you use off camera flash which is closer to the subject. If you had assistant you can do the light on stick thing. If you need wider aperture use the newer eTTl compatiable Rf triggers.

bobbyz wrote in post #10319554
Not a wedding guy but can't you use off camera flash which is closer to the subject. If you had assistant you can do the light on stick thing. If you need wider aperture use the newer eTTl compatiable Rf triggers.

That could've worked, but I wouldn've needed to prepare for it. I have only Cybersyncs so would need to have metered for flash exposure first. That and the space was so tight, an assistant or even light stand might have been too intrusive.

highway0691 wrote in post #10305021
Don't you just like the way ceremonies are sometimes set up with no regard to the light. What makes your situation more challenging here is the shadow cutting right through the B&G. Almost an impossible task. I do shoot in strong sun regularly and have found that fill flash on a 580ex manual usually at 1/2 full power or even at full power can do the trick. I usually have to take few photos to get the exposure right. It's a delicate balance but once you've got it exposed well enough just keep that setting and adjust in small increments as the light changes. Here is a photo I have taken recently shooting almost into the sun. F22 and 1/2 power on manual flash setting. I hope this is of some help.

F22? Does 580ex not have HSS? Just wondering.

Gometang wrote in post #10321544
F22? Does 580ex not have HSS? Just wondering.

HSS cuts down power a lot so how far the flash goes is reduced.

bobbyz wrote in post #10323841
HSS cuts down power a lot so how far the flash goes is reduced.

And that's why I elected not to even try. Given my distance, high shutter speed, etc., I suspected that a meaninful amount of light was simply not going to reach the subject.

This is a good thread. Most summer weddings are in bright sunshine and you dont have optimal light all the time.

Its nice to see some discussion about it.


I have also a problem with the sun - given that group pics on a hill in front of the village were demanded but there is no shadow at all. Will be a bit tempting, do you guys think meter for the background and use my 430II to lighten the faces? Will it be enough for 40-50 people?
I think i will just try some different options.

Gometang wrote in post #10321544
F22? Does 580ex not have HSS? Just wondering.

Actually It was with a 430EX not 580Ex which was on my other camera. Just checked the RAW file and yes it is 100th sec at f22. Notice the sun directly behind the Groom, which does help diminish the impact of the sun to some degree. Camera was set to TV so in this instance the camera decided the f stop - had one look at the light and went to f22. I don't argue with that so I power up the flash on manual mode till it fills in. May sound a bit unorthdox but it does work to some degree.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.