A lighting problem...

Big_Bill

Big_Bill

Messages
317
Name
William
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,
I couldn't decide if this should go in the "Talk Lighting" section but as I'm not asking about lighting equipment I decided to post it here.

Anyway, here is my problem.
I love portrait photography and have some ok results from my home "studio" but I find the plain backdrops are starting to become a bit boring now.
My last couple of shoots I have been doing "on location" (parks/industrial estates etc) but I am having real problems with exposing for the subject at the same time as not blowing out the sky.

My set up is a basic one with a Canon 400D, 50mm F1.8 and a Sigma 500DG Flash (and a big reflector).

Anyone got any advice on where I am going wrong?
 
Hi Jamie,
Thanks for the reply.
Here are a couple of examples from a recent shoot.
Plenty wrong with both photos but by this point I was so frustrated with not being able to expose them well, I had lost the plot a little.

In this one I had exposed for Jemma but the sky was obviously blown out...
IMG_0111.jpg


In this one, I had dialled down the exposure as much as I could to get even the smallest amount of detail in the sky but Jemma was now starting to look like a silhouette.
IMG_0112.jpg


Both where shot at about 2pm with the sun on it's way down.
 
Bill, with respect you're trying the impossible. A camera has a limited dynamic range and the range between your subjects dark clothes and the bright cloudy sky is far too much for your camera to capture. As you've found out, depending on the exposure set you'll either retain shadow detail and blow the highlights or keep the highlights and lose the shadows. You're going to have to get more lighting on the subject either by lighting, flash or reflectors.
 
Hi Gofer,
Thanks for the reply, I guess you have part answered my question.
It can't be "impossible" to achieve because you see wedding photos all the time with a bride and her husband (usually in a dark suite) in front of a bright beach where the entire photo is perfectly exposed.

I had tried to expose well for the sky and then use my flash to "fill" the subject but what you see in photo 2 was my results.
I had wondered if having a cheep flash was letting me down for only having 2 settings (full and half power).
I also wondered if investing in (although I have no idea how to use them at the moment) a decent flash and a light meter would help?

Not sure that makes my question any clearer or not?
 
Sorry Bill, I should have said you're attempting the impossible without getting more light on your subject. The fact remains, a camera has a limited dynamic range and without additional lighting you just ain't going to get that shot. Fill flash should be able to cope well enough though. It would be much easier if your flash was ETTL compatible but by using the one you have on manual, you should still be able to achieve what you're after. If I were taking that shot I'd have the camera set to Manual and get a correct exposure for the background, then I'd experiment taking the shot with the flash enabled. If your flash is not capable of ETTL and you only have two manual settings you are a bit disadvantaged, but with a bit of experimentation you should be able to get the lighting right. It may be a case of using the flash on full power and diffusing the light from it (always assuming your flash is actually powerful enough for this scenario). You may even be able to bounce the light from a nearby bush with a white sheet or something over it. The other alternative of course is by post processing using exposure blending software.
 
Ok, well at least I know that it's worth keep trying with the kit I have (I was looking forward to a shopping trip around the net).
 
You want a sky with plenty of blue or cloud interest. Where I am at this time of year we can occasionally get some blue by midday . . .

If you've got a polariser, position yourself so the sun is at your side, for greater effect.

Set your exposure manually to get the sky detail you want with a shutterspeed at or below the flash sync speed of 1/200.

If you get the flash off the camera on a light stand or tripod you'll be able to vary its distance from the model to compensate for its lack of settings. Without more choice in focal lengths you'll be changing the composition if you need to move in closer with the flash mounted on the camera.

See what you can do before embarking on spending on light modifiers, stands etc., but a more capable flash would be my priority. If you can get someone to help and act as your Voice Activated Light Stand (holding the flash) then a cheapo radio trigger is probably less expense than hotshoe adapters and a 5m cable.
 
Excellent.
Cheers photon, will have a google for a radio trigger.
I think I have made up my mind that I am going to invest in a better flash so I will have a shop for a decent but affordable radio trigger.

Cheers.
 
Big Bill, try searching on ebay for raio triggers, you will get a set for about £15 from Hong Kong, they are known as cactus triggers or PT-04's. They are cheap and they work.

As for your problem there are always to work round the issues. The first thing is to lower the dynamic range in your image so you can get decent shadows/highlights without losing either.

When working with flash the trick is to remember you are working with two exposures, the part lit by ambient light and the other part lit by the flash. The ambient part is exposed with the usual combination of shutter speed and aperture but the flash exposure is governed by the aperture alone.

What this means is that you can control both your ambient and flash pretty easily. First of all, dial down the ambient so the sky is two-stops underexposed. This will lower the dynamic range, keep detail in the sky and give your main subject some pop.

Next, try to use the set exposure and then set up your flash. Off-camera flash is totally essential but you lose TTL metering, its manual all the way.

In order to adjust your flash level either move the flash closer to or further away, change aperture (remembering to adjust shutter speed for the ambient) or dial in a change to the flash output.

This sounds complex but with practice you can easily get a near enough exposure on the first shot.

Take a test image and check your histogram, make sure there is a good spread of pixels with no blown highlights.

I would totally recommend reading up on the strobist blog, especially lighting 101 as this will give you a more indepth knowledge.

To be fair you are doing the best thing by getting out there and taking the photos, remember a mistake is just a step forward in your learning. Well done for getting out there.
 
This type has some advantages over the more common Cactus V2S. I would get two sets, as insurance for either transmitter or receiver going wrong. Get some transmitter batteries and long life AAA batteries (e.g. Hybrio) too, and don't forget to switch off the receivers when you've finished a shoot!
 
Cheers subseasniper & andy,
I was just about to ask for suggestions on radio triggers but you beet me to it!
This may be a (very) stupid question, but if I invest in a couple of sets and then get a 2nd flash unit, will both receivers work from the 1 transmitter?

I had read about strobist in practical photography but had totaly forgot about the site.
Will go check it out now.

I am trying to get some practice shoots in now so that when (and if) the weather pics up, I don't waste a bunch of (potentialy) good shots with interesting sky for not knowing what I'm doing.

Cheers chaps
 
If you order two pairs of the same triggers then yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top