How do I expose, for glamour, while shooting into the sun with fill-in flash?

Rob,

Thank you for the links; it was these clips that got me started on this crazy idea. The difference being the colour of the landscape, though; in the McNally location the sand is an orange brown, where I'm shooting it's a pink-white colour.

I am, at this stage, more comfortable with the idea of going with a good set of powerful studio lights and a generator to power them up, I'm not keen on buying anymore Speedlights.

Thank you for your input (y)
 
Wail said:
Rob,

Thank you for the links; it was these clips that got me started on this crazy idea. The difference being the colour of the landscape, though; in the McNally location the sand is an orange brown, where I'm shooting it's a pink-white colour.

I am, at this stage, more comfortable with the idea of going with a good set of powerful studio lights and a generator to power them up, I'm not keen on buying anymore Speedlights.

Thank you for your input (y)
Click to expand...

I know the sand you mean - I stopped-off at a 'certain' Military Air base once and it was pretty bright after being inside a C-17 for ten hours...lol
 
Arkady said:
Here's the desert shoot I mentioned earlier featuring Joe McNally, he was using about 25 SB900's I think
Click to expand...

Rofl, Joe's videos were linked earlier, he's only using 8 or 9 of 'em.

Shooting at 1/4000th or even 1/8000th to get the sky crushed and the sun in your shot is not a problem with speedlights, you just have to be able to get 'em close enough. Double the distance, 1/4 the light n' all that lot still applies.

You want an extra 2 stops of light from 'em, move them half the distance to the subject. That's how he got his subject lit with just three SB-800s through a brolly. it was practically touching her.
 
Kaouthia said:
Rofl, Joe's videos were linked earlier, he's only using 8 or 9 of 'em.

Shooting at 1/4000th or even 1/8000th to get the sky crushed and the sun in your shot is not a problem with speedlights, you just have to be able to get 'em close enough. Double the distance, 1/4 the light n' all that lot still applies.

You want an extra 2 stops of light from 'em, move them half the distance to the subject. That's how he got his subject lit with just three SB-800s through a brolly. it was practically touching her.
Click to expand...

:LOL: I definitely saw another vid (and I'm still scouring YouTube as we speak, looking for it) that showed a ridiculous number of speedlights (maybe '800's and not 900's as it was last year). Three seperate banks of lights, each with either six or eight lights on C-Stands...
Silly-money...
 
oh I remember that one. But he had those at a fair distance, that was from his "Moving Fast" blog post I think.
 
Wail said:
<snip>

On a more serious note, would you suggest I go with the studio lights and generator or spend the money of the super large reflector?

<snip>
Click to expand...

If you're asking me, the least impractical of the impractical options would be reflectors (plural).

Just working out the flash power you would need, my little 200ws Elinchroms give me 1/250sec at f/11 ISO200, with a 33in/85cm silver brolly (the most efficient) at 10ft/3m. That's outdoors. That is just under a stop less than Sunny 16, which fits with the rule of thumb which says you need at least 400ws to compete with bright sun.

So if you could magic 1600ws lights from somewhere, and feed them with enough power (Safari is 600ws max BTW) as a very rough guess you'd be getting there, but from the (extraordinarily high) figures you've given us about ambient light levels you're still going to be short even with that. Basically flash is a non-starter (which I think has been mentioned before ;) ) if your figures are real.

These pictures must be something special!

Arkady said:
<snip>

I also think you're making a rod to beat yourself with here - maybe the reason we only see this kind of shot taken at dusk is because that's the only time it's practical?
Click to expand...

Yes!!!

Since there's all that light around at noon, maybe forget the flash altogether and just use loads of scrims, mirrors and reflectors...?

<snip>
Click to expand...

Yes again.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
If you're asking me, the least impractical of the impractical options would be reflectors (plural).
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm looking to order something large with stands, they'll come in very handy for this shoot and a few other ideas I'll be putting to practice.



HoppyUK said:
Just working out the flash power you would need, my little 200ws Elinchroms give me 1/250sec at f/11 ISO200, with a 33in/85cm silver brolly (the most efficient) at 10ft/3m. That's outdoors. That is just under a stop less than Sunny 16, which fits with the rule of thumb which says you need at least 400ws to compete with bright sun.

So if you could magic 1600ws lights from somewhere, and feed them with enough power (Safari is 600ws max BTW) as a very rough guess you'd be getting there, but from the (extraordinarily high) figures you've given us about ambient light levels you're still going to be short even with that. Basically flash is a non-starter (which I think has been mentioned before ;) ) if your figures are real.
Click to expand...

I think the idea of Speedlights is now ruled out completely for this type of shoot, except for evening / dawn shoots. I don't want to go about spending anymore chasing the idea of trying to make it work.

As for the figures (my readings), I've made a point of only shooting in this one specific location because I've been there close to a year shooting (landscape), trying to reduce the variables (change of locations), and know it pretty well so as not to get lost / stuck. I would hope that my readings were pretty accurate, I don't take notes, but it's not something I'd have to think hard about. I think test shots would be best to show the landscape and the harsh sunlight.


HoppyUK said:
These pictures must be something special!
Click to expand...

If only :shrug:, I wish! I've never done glamour, implied nude or anything close to this. However, the challenge is having this done in Saudi, but I also hope that the images come out worth the while.



HoppyUK said:
Yes!!!
Click to expand...

From a practical point of view, I could just limit the shoots to a time when the sun is reasonably low and less harsh, I know that, and that would make things so much easier for everyone.

The biggest challenges are, finding willing models, getting the right permits to allow for this, and keeping everyone safe in the middle of nowhere. The light issue is a technical matter that is raising havoc because I want a longer shooting day!



HoppyUK said:
Yes again.
Click to expand...

I'll get on to that asap.
 
Please allow for the fact that i know jack about flash outside but i'm going to throw this in just to see if you guys think there is a way of making it work. : i have seen a wedding photographer use his camera upside down to let the shutter creep into the shot to have a gradient effect on the sky with high speed sync turned off. Like i say, just throwing it in :shrug:
 
corbystock said:
Please allow for the fact that i know jack about flash outside but i'm going to throw this in just to see if you guys think there is a way of making it work. : i have seen a wedding photographer use his camera upside down to let the shutter creep into the shot to have a gradient effect on the sky with high speed sync turned off. Like i say, just throwing it in :shrug:
Click to expand...

Interesting idea, and I'd have to say very out of the box idea, if it works; but I haven't a clue on this :shrug:; I'll leave it for the experts to chip in.
 
Wail said:
Interesting idea, and I'd have to say very out of the box idea, if it works; but I haven't a clue on this :shrug:; I'll leave it for the experts to chip in.
Click to expand...

It's what I call a strobist bodge. And not a very useful one IMHO.

It's a way of raising the effective x-sync speed, providing your subject only occupies half the frame.

With the normal max x-sync speed, the flash will expose the whole frame, let's say at 1/250sec. If you increase the shutter speed to 1/500sec, the top half of the frame will be exposed by the flash (but the whole frame will still be exposed by the ambient light). If you go further to 1/1000sec, the top quarter of the frame will be exposed by the flash, and the rest by the ambient, and so on.

Because it's always the top of the frame that gets the flash exposure at high speeds (before the second curtain returns from the top of the camera, remembering that the image on the sensor is inverted) if you turn the camera upside down this obviously becomes the bottom, depending on where you are able to position the subject.
 
Strobist-Dodge, Huh, :thinking:.

I will have to go back and read this, while visualising it, when I am more sober :p, passed over my head this one.
 
Oh yes :) (y), thank you; that explains it well without me having to re-read.
 
Richard King said:
http://nidalm.com/blog/travelography/the-mountains-of-makkah/

Looking at the settings this chap is using, something doesnt seem quite right with what Wail is indicating

http://nidalm.com/blog/travelography/the-ruins-of-old-muwaih/
Click to expand...

I was just going back over the thread, didn't realise I'd missed this.

With regards to the Mountains of Makkah, that's a different area all together. Although not too far from where I'm shooting, but the city of Makkah is basically in the middle of a lava field. The whole mountains in, and around that city, are lava rocks (dark grey).

Also, you'll note that the photographer wasn't shooting in to the sun, and wasn't getting the sun in the shots.

However, if you look in the 2nd link, last shot posted by the photographer, you will see that the sun was to his right; you can see from that shot just how washed-out the sky is. It's just a white screen. Granted, he was on f/4, but as I said, he wasn't shooting into the sun and didn't have the sun in his frame.

Now, I don't know what time he was shooting at; but I think this last picture gives a reasonable example of what it's like.
 
Going back and looking more into these shots, in the link Mountains of Makkah (1st link) the photographer does have a few shots that gets the sun in them.

The one with the Nokia phone in the picture; the sun, just above the phone is about 10 minutes from sunset! You can see just how washed out the sky is from this example. Now, take that scene, back in time a couple of hours, and the sun would be about 30-degrees above the horizon (rough and crude estimate here), with my model between the sun and me, that's what I'm aiming at.
 
For shots with the sun coming from left or right at almost right angles have you tried a polariser Wail?

A polariser will suck a couple of stops of flash but may get the sky to have a bit more detail interest without resorting to the extreme under exposures that you're having to go to at the minute.
 
I didn't use a polariser as I wanted to cut down the number of variables I had to fiddle with. Typically, I never remove the polariser off my lens, but on this occasion I opted against using it.
 
I want' able to go out to location yesterday to get some test shots, sorry about that; tomorrow I'm going on a 9 hour tour to scout for locations. I'll take shots purely for measurement's purpose. Basically, I know where I'm going, but I've never been to these locations with a Glamour & Nude shoot in mind, so it would be worthwhile me going back and seeing how suitable and safe these locations are.

Will post sample of locations when I'm back :)

Again, thanks to all who've helped and contributed, and to those who've pushed me into this challenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top