azted wrote:
Thank you for your expertise on this situation. I have been seeing and attending so many "one light" seminars, that this scene concerned me that I don't have enough equipment to come across as "professional". But there is more than one way to skin a cat, and so this was where this photographer and customer chose to do the pose perhaps because he felt more comfortable using a studio setup, and not the natural lighting that was available elsewhere in the Tivoli complex.
I've been involved in all kinds of photographic lighting for the better part of my life- it's part of my job as a professional photographer. Yet, I can not assess, analyze, precisely comment on the lighting scenario in question here without being right on the location with the photographer, speaking with him, finding out the exact nature, usage of the resulting images, and his approach and methodology to meet the requirements. If, however, you are really interested in professional light techniques, here are some facts to ponder.
There are lots of situations that can be addressed with one light, however, depending on the specifics of the job at hand, oftentimes multiple light sources are required.
When shooting in natural daylight, under the ideal circumstance, the photographer can select a specific location at the best time of day, find and recognize the best area for placing the subject(s) as per the direction of light, and the background elements. Oftentimes, however, a particular location is required, perhaps something in the background needs to be in view but the lighting on the subject is insufficient in volume or quality and NOT aesthetically acceptable for any number of reasons- quantity, quality, direction, evenness, or mood. The photographer has to then take full control to create believable lighting. The ambient light may still be part of the equation but flash application becomes the principal source.
There is a major misconception about FLASH usage with daylight. Not all flash applications are "flash fill". Flash fill is simply applied to reduce the density of harsh shadows and render them more natural and transparent as our eyes perceive them and some detail in the shadows is revealed. The technique involves providing a FLAT fill source on or near the camera, a light that has no highlight /shadow pattern of its own, and establishing a lighting (flash: natural light) ratio that will fill the shadows sufficiently but not entirely negate the ambient light. The fill light is at ZERO degrees to the camera/ subject axis.
If you move the flash light source off the camera/subject axis, at anywhere from 20 to 135 degrees, and elevated, whereby it begins to create highlights and shadows of its own, it is no longer a fill source but becomes the main or key light. It may require a fill light to modify its shadows or the ambient light may become the fill source.
The lighting setup in the image in question is typical wrap-around lighting with possibly multiple fill sources- one higher to prove more depth of lighting, the main off-axis light to provide modelling, mood, and form, and a kicker that will highlight hair, accentuate profiles, and/or provide separation for from the background. The exposure is based on the flash and the shutter speed will control the amount of ambient light.
For both basic methods, electronic flash, in my opinion, is the best kind of light source to fill in or augment daylight. Its color temperature is very compatible with a crosssection of natural light qualities. If critical colour temperature matching is required, gel filtration can be employed to warm or cool the flash lighting. Most better flash units and speedlights have adjustable output, many are powerful enough to provide adequate fill for subjects photographed under bright daylight and can be powered down sufficiently to accommodate lower light volumes or the use of wider apertures for selective focus, and bokeh effects.
The aforementioned are very basic concepts. There are many variations such as utilizing various modifiers, softboxes, parabolic reflectors, reflector flats, beauty-lights, diffusers, umbrellas, bare bulb, and feathering techniques.
So...using more elaborate multiple light setups in out-of-doors shooting is not necessarily "overkill". Most serious and creative professionals are not interested in impressing their clients or other photographers by flaunting excessive inventories of equipment. On location assignments, even with fastidious planning, one never knows exactly what can go sideways in terms of lighting or weather conditions. The shoot can be a business event, an assembly of people that can not be reconvened, and can not be postponed, re-shot, or reenacted nor can the location be changed at the last moment. In cases lie that, if the light ain't right, you need to create your own and the gear needs to be at the ready.
Sometimes minimal lighting gear is more practicable with certain subjects such as active children, nervous subjects, and/or where time is limited. It comes best to minimize the need for excessive equipment manipulation so that the photographer can concentrate on spontaneous expressions, etc.