Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Oh boy, fresh 'meat' :shock:

As the wedding season approaches I've been wanting to feel more at ease with flash photography as so many reception venues are so dark you must use flash.

I thought shooting a few Swing dances would give me some good practice. Shot these last night using my Canon 70D, 18 - 135mm kit lens and 2 600EX speed lights, one off camera and one on.

I can see where having 4 or 5 speed lights would be helpful to eliminate hash shadows.

Typically I was shooting back into the off camera flash which was sitting at the 10 or 2 o' clock position from where I was shooting from. Off camera was up at around 11', used it as ambient/rim light.

All were shot at 1/160, F/7.1, 500ISO and in the multiplied (cropped sensor camera) 40 - 70mm range.

Feed back please .......... but no busting _alls ....... thanks

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

fotodon Loc: Oberlin, OH

Very nice shots. I really like the girls hair one.
Lighting is a subjective thing. Of course it can be very bad as in over/under exposures and very flat. But, other than that, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. So, I will give you my take on lighting, but by all means, do what works for you.

In a controlled "portrait" situation lighting can be whatever you want it to be. I have seen and used some awesome off camera flash setups for this. Weddings seldom offer that kind of controlled situation. I have seen and used different off camera setups at weddings. Most of these are extensions of in studio setups. With a few exceptions I have not been comfortable with the results and the extra effort. The exceptions would be like the bouquet, garter toss or group formals. My biggest complaint is with weird shadows.

I have always wondered why a wedding photographer would want to go to great lengths for shallow depth of field to highlight the subject while going to great lengths to light the background. Great for studio portraits but not so much at a wedding reception. My style tends to dark backgrounds. I feel it is more romantic but that is my style. To each his own. Of course, a light background is easier to darken in PP than it is to lighten a dark background.

This is what we have found to work well for us. First, we still use brackets, something we are seeing less of with new photographers. Brackets have the same benefits that they had 40 years ago, more so with todays flashes. Flash modifiers are a must and there are several, no all, good ones. I like the Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer. We have the older ones that have the barn doors on top to allow for ceiling bounce if you want it. We rarely use that feature and I think they have been eliminated from newer models. They provide an excellent softening and wrap around effect on shots of 15 ft. or less. At that distance I estimate 1 fstop or less loss. At 15 to 30 ft. figure on 2 fstops. Beyond that there is little need for the modifier. That is where off camera additional light is called for but not always necessary. This modifier is also excellent when using fill flash outdoors.

Yes, I know I am going against popular trends. But the proof is in the pudding they say. The first two shots are in a semi dark hall from 10 and 20 ft respectively. The third one is with the sun above and behind subjects on July afternoon. All shot with Lumiquest on flash on bracket.

Don

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Thank you for the response.

This is what makes things so fun, each of us look at things a bit different thus our galleries will attract a different client.

I understand the need to isolate the B&G at appropriate times such as the first dance ....

My take on the reception is the candid shots can show the venue which is why I set the off camera flash where I did.

I would tend to agree that during important moments to isolate by use of background and DOF.

Frankly I was satisfied with the results knowing this was with a cropped sensor, kit lens and only one off-camera flash.

I've seen better and I've seem worst ......

My hope is I will of taken the technical aspects of my current setup to it's limits and thus when I finally get a Canon 5DIII and L glass will see an improvement :)

Again thanks for the review, appreciate your time ....

fotodon Loc: Oberlin, OH

You are welcome and I too appreciate the diversity and diplomacy we enjoy on the Wedding Photography board thanks to bkyser. I enjoy sharing viewpoints here. Not so much on the General Discussion board.

For what it is worth, the above pictures were shoot with a 60D. I also have two shots of basically the same scene shot seconds apart at a wedding about five years ago. One was with a 20D, bracket flash with Lumiquest. The other was with a 30D and two off camera flashes 12 ft high in corners of room. Lighting on both look almost exactly the same. I will post them if I can find them.

BTW...5D???s are in the future for us also. Just can't let equipment expenses over run income.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Would love to see them ..............

BTW, off camera had a Super Scoop II and the on camera I was using the built-in swing diffuser panel, I tried using the Fong diffuser on-camera but as most shots were around 15 - 20 feet away I was using up a bunch of power so I pulled it off and just used the swing diffuser panel. The Fong works well close up but past 15 feet it isn't the best, IMO.

The Super Scoop is best out to about 25 feet, after that it's best to use nothing on the flash.

The group loved the snaps enough to ask me to come back in the end of April for a National Lindy Hop 3 day competition, was flattering to get the invite.

fotodon Loc: Oberlin, OH

The Super Scoop is a very good modifier. I almost bought one but the tech specs on the Lumiquest seemed better and it was cheaper. I could never understand why a paid (notice I didn't say pro) wedding photog would show up with a cut out milk jug or piece of white paper taped to their flash when a proper modifier is so cheap. I have seen it several times because here in the city it is not unusual to be shooting at a venue where there are other weddings going on. Often you could tell they were the paid photog because they were the only ones wearing jeans and tennis shoes. :lol: :lol:

We have Fong knock offs. IMO Fong products are way overpriced. Haven't used them in years. They were great when they first came out but have been replaced by better new technology.

At the risk of preaching to the choir, here are some thoughts. At 1/160 @ f7.1 you are getting 90% or so of your light from your flash. And by the looks of it you are getting more than enough light (exposure). The flash will always freeze the action. Ambient light and placement of the flash will soften the shadows. But, exposure times long enough to utilize ambient light may create subject motion blur. I find that often 1/125 or a little slower @ f5.6 gives a nice balance of DOF and ambient light when I have and want ambient light. Of course, playing with the exposure triangle relative to flash settings can yield all kinds of results. If shooting ETTL you can adjust flash compensation. If shooting with flash on manual you can adjust power. This applies to both on camera and off camera set ups. Unfortunately, the elephant in the room is the ability to play with and make adjustments in a fast paced environment.

You probably know all of this but there may be someone on this thread that may benefit by this info. To summarize: Control flash with aperture and flash comp/power. Control ambient to flash ratio with shutter speed. Full manual on camera is a must. ISO setting is an aid to achieving the results you want but Auto ISO will mess you up.

Don

jaysnave Loc: Central Ohio

Hey Beercat,

Thanks for sharing. Creating great light in dark venues is such a challenge. Actually fun when it works. The swing dancers are great. Shutter speed and light set up worked well for freezing motion (hair, dresses, etc.) I think I might have done something crazy like get on the floor for some interesting angles. I might have to eat my words and do that as I am doing a prom in a few weeks.

I have done a lot of experimenting with lighting in dark venues. The go to is my litescoop on camera. If there is a wall close by I will turn it and bounce. I have added remote speedlites with limited success. Harsh shadows are the issue. Really the issue is everything moving (subject, cameraman, ,moving to different parts of the room). At one point I asked one of the guys to go dancing holding my speed light angled to the ceiling. It made for some funny pics, but that didn't work either.

I have found that the most consistent lighting aid is to find a wall to bounce a remote light from, turning it into a giant softbox. Of course the the angle of wall to subjects has to be correct and the distance relative to light power. However in theory the entire room would be lit evenly if bounced from a good distance and angle.

I have not become proficient yet in my opinion, however again thanks for sharing! It makes great discussion.

As another alternative some swear by crazy high ISOs with no additional lighting. I am afraid of noise, but maybe worth a try. DXO software is supposed to be the best for denoising and I may get a free trial and check it out. What does everyone think of high ISO images?

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

The technical answers first .............

I started out at F/5.6 as my kit lens is 3.5/5.6 but at 50mm is starts at 5.6 so it made sense as my initial thoughts was I would snap at at range of 20 feet.

On a 70D, 20 feet, 50mm, F/5.6 my DOF behind the focus target is 7 feet, about right IMO for swing dancing as couples can easily be 7 feet apart during certain moves.

When the floor got 'busy' I was finding my self not able to get 20' distance from me to the subjects. it became more like 12' - 15' ............ so I shot most at around 30mm and to get 8' DOF I had to go to F/7.1 FYI, I always bring along a DOF chart for my 70D. Until you know DOF a cheat sheet isn't a bad thing to have with you.

As far as bouncing flash it wasn't possible. The venue was the Madonna Inn ballroom. This isn't my picture blow but it does give you an idea of the problems with bouncing, darker woods on the wall and ceilings plus the red globe lights, a nightmare for bouncing, plus the top of the ceiling was about 20 feet with several angles.

For most wedding receptions and for shots like first dance and father/daughter, son/mother I can see f/5.6 but in this application as it was swing dancing I needed 7.1. Today so many B&G's are doing some form of ballroom dancing and thus I can see f/7.1 as being the go to stop.

As far as high ISO's .......... I have found my 70D is pretty solid to ISO 800 but beyond that I'm on shaky ground and if I did I'd probably sey myself up for more PP work. I prefer ISO 400 for reception dancing. If and when I get my 5DIII I'll feel good about pushing up the ISO.

fotodon Loc: Oberlin, OH

Thanks for the quick reply. I should be working on my new website design but am stuck on email (UHH) and such. These forums can be addictive. I also spend a lot of time on the NAPP forum and another one related to my other alter ego. Yes, I am slightly schizo. :lol: :roll: :lol: :evil: ;-)

I can relate to all you have said. As for ISO, my 60D is very good with high ISOs. Your 70D should be the same or better. I am using 800 at weddings a lot and have gone higher with no noise problem. We also shoot for a few local bands for their promo stuff. This is all available light shooting and the stages are typically well lit but with multi-colored lights. What a nightmare. I typically start at ISO 2000 and go up from there. 1/60 @ f4.5 or 5.6 is average. Subject motion blur is not an issue with these and can be beneficial. Noise is acceptable and some of the shots have been used on posters with the image enlarged to something like 16 x 20. I rarely do noise reduction. I do not pixel peep. Sharpness is important but noise, like graininess in film is something different. My 30 yrs. working with film has jaded me when it comes to noise.

Enjoy the pics below:
1: Tommy Amato, local guy turned 30yr session drummer in LA. Worked with all the top celebs. Two time cancer survivor. Hosts annual cancer benefit show.
2: Tommy's band, Pop Culture
3: Former keyboardist for original Herman's Hermits, don't know name.

PS. Sorry jaysnave. Thought I was replying to beercat.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

They look go but a bit of noise for rock bad stuff isn't a bad thing but for a wedding .......... don't think I want to chance it.

I've done comparison snaps from a tripod, same subject ....... from what I gathered there seems to be a major difference between 800 and 1600 ISO on my 70D. When I got more precise 800 - 1000 seemed to be the limit and after that detail started to go bye bye quickly. When I did research from 3rd party reviews it would support my same conclusion 800 - 1000 seem to be the acceptable noise limit for important photos, again, just what I've found in regards to the 70D. When I snap football I'll go up to 1600 but it isn't a wedding and isn't going to be blown up to 16X20 or larger.

jaysnave Loc: Central Ohio

Very good point about the DOF and not getting too shallow for any type of dancers. There can be too much distance created between subjects which can result in soft focus on one of them. I applaud you for being diligent regarding the science of light.

For what it's worth I do the church drama presentation every holiday season. This year I used two Bowens lights faced against the back wall to create that giant softbox. FYI, they have me do this during rehearsal so I don't bother the audience :)

Regarding ISO I was at a lighting workshop with Tony Corbell recently. He is one of top lighting guys in the country, but when someone asked about wedding receptions he said he goes with high ISO and uses NIK Dfine to reduce noise. I was in a bit of shock hearing that from him, but maybe it is worth a try.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Very nice shots ..........

Back to the high ISO. Did anyone ask him about which camera he snaps with? I would guess a top line photographer has top line equipment.

Technically noise free best performers are the top end Sony cameras at around 3700, the Nikon, about 3200 ISO and then the Canon top end at about 2800 ISO.

Much more forgiving than my 70D, so it's all relative to what one considers high ISO. To me 1000 ISO is high on my 70D, for a top end user 3200 is still within the limits of the experts.

jaysnave Loc: Central Ohio

Ah Don, I thought you were replying to me. Anyway Herman's Hermits got my attention. I preferred them over the Beetles back in the day.

I did a fundraiser recently with high ISO and 70-200 2.8. Most came out well. The performers are using the pics on their websites.

I hope to do more bands. My son in law does sound for some local clubs with live bands. I retired from the day job 2 weeks ago so I may get my own seat there like Cliff from cheers.

I too am also spending too much time on forums and other photography related activities... not getting much of anything else done.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

jaysnave Loc: Central Ohio

Tony was a Nikon shooter that a few years ago took all of his equipment in and traded for Canon. He said it was nothing to do with the equipment, but did not like Nikon customer service. I am not sure which Canon he has.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

I've known about this link for about a year, it's great info and you can sort of figure out where your camera stands.

Doesn't mean you can't snap higher, just gives you the threshold for noise free snaps.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0012810/article/15-Low-Light-High-ISO-All-Stars