(1/20th @ f2.8 @ 1250 iso)

I am frequently asked whether I use a tripod at all to help overcome the slow shutter speeds that I often shoot at.  The question also often relates to shooting handheld, below the arbitrary value of 1/60th of a second.

The choice of shutter speed at which you will get a sharp (enough) image will depend on a number of factors, such as how fast your subject is moving and at what angle compared to your camera, and whether you are panning with your subject.  And also choice of lens, and camera’s sensor size, and your own ability to hold a camera steady.  And luck.  And also on how large you want to display the image.

I’m not going to attempt a broad explanation covering every possibility that we’ll encounter as photographers, but answer the question in terms of the work that I do - which is primarily wedding and on-location portrait photography.  

My own preference is for ’sharp’. I like crisp images, and don’t much like too much motion blur.  But this is a personal artistic choice.  So I tend to shoot at higher shutter speeds where I can.  Part of this is simply because I am not that steady in hand-holding a camera.

And in attaining higher shutter speeds, I tend to use fast optics, or shoot at higher iso settings.  Or I just use flash at times to stop motion blur.   But there are times when I am shooting in low light, and have to use a slow shutter speed …

Now I know this will aggravate many photographers, and perhaps rightly so .. but I rarely use a tripod.  I have two of them that I constantly have in the car (okay, okay .. van) that I travel to shoots with. One of the tripods is a big beast, and the other a superlight carbon-fibre tripod. (Both are made by Manfrotto.)

For most of the photography work that I do, I find that my shooting style is too fast-paced for a tripod, and hampers the fluidity with which I want to work.
So as an alternate to using a tripod, I make do with:
- stabilised lenses,
- being careful in steadying myself, or
- purposely placing my subject such that they are shaded and will be lit by flash.

In this first example, which has appeared elsewhere on these pages: 
The piano player is shaded compared to the brighter background.  So he was mostly lit by flash .. and this would’ve frozen any camera shake.  (The ultra-wide angle lens would also help mask camera shake in this instance.)   Any noticable camera shake would’ve been in the out-of-focus background. ie .. you’d never notice.

(1/15th @ f4 @ 800 iso)

.
In fact, I use this idea in how I very often specifically set people up in areas where they are shaded in comparison to the background. I then  use the instantaneous burst of flash to freeze any noticable camera shake.  This next image, an impromptu portrait of my friend Thomas, shows in part how I set out to manipulate such a scenario. 

I deliberately positioned him in a darker part outside this venue, and then lit him with bounced flash.  In this case, the shutter speed of 1/100th was fairly high, but the technique would’ve worked just as well at a much slower shutter speed - simply because the flash would’ve stopped any noticable camera shake.

.
In this image - a candid photo of a mom and her daughter, the flowergirl - I was shooting at a slow shutter speed, but knew that the low ambient light would barely register, and therefore flash would stop any camera shake.  (The stabilised lens just clinched the deal.)

.
With this photo below, the background was lit by a (manual) Q-flash triggered with a radio slave, and the foreground is light from a bedside table lamp. To enable the tungsten light to spill enough light onto the bride for the camera to register, I had to use a slow shutter speed of 1/40th (@ f2.8).   I controlled how bright my background is, by changing my ISO and aperture … and then I could control how bright the tungsten light would appear in relation to that, by riding my shutter speed. 

The slow shutter speed here was possible because I used a stabilised lens.  But I also ensured success by shooting a sequence of images. So part of my slow-shutter speed technique, is to make sure I take a series of shots.

Stabilised lenses are essential additions to any camera bag.  It enables you to get sharp images under circumstances that would be difficult otherwise.  With the image at the top of this posting, the slow shutter speed was just due to the low light levels - and the stablised lens was crucial.   

In this engagement session, I was able to get a slow enough shutter speed (1/20th @ f10) to get the New York taxi cabs to streak past. The stabilised lens was essential here.

.
Therefore attaining a usable image at a slow shutter speed, is not just down to a single thing that we could do - but a combination of techniques applied with some thought.

The reason why I want (if possible) only indirect light from my on-camera flash, is that any direct flash looks too harsh.

Here’s a typical example:
As you can see, using the Stofen helps to disperse some light and is a huge step up from direct flash.  But you can also see in the entire frame that the light from top to bottom is uneven.  In the close-up you can see how there is a hard shadow on the bride’s face, as well as some specular reflection on her skin from the flash directly from the Stofen.  And in some way, any time there is flash directly from the flash modifier on your subject, you get this kind of light.  It is inevitable. 

On the right-hand side images, I simply took the Stofen off, and pointed the flash over my shoulder into the rest of the hallway.  As you can clearly see, having only indirect light from the flashgun, completely changes the look of the image.

.
Remember :  any time your subject can see your flash-tube you have direct flash.

This implies that if you are ”bouncing” flash with the flash set to 45′ upwards, you’re not doing anything to improve your flash photography.
There are  occasional times to do that with specific intent, but mostly it just gives bad results.

The key idea here is that bouncing your flash does not mean simply putting a flash modifier on your flashgun and pointing it at the ceiling.

As to why I prefer not to bounce from the ceiling -  in a studio set-up you would most likely never set up a soft-box directly over someone’s head as the only light-source. Similarly, why would you want to bounce flash from above someone, if there are walls and other surfaces around to bounce from ? Pointing the flashgun upwards is a poor choice compared to other possibilities when shooting indoors.

It is with this approach that I want to specifically choose where I want my light to come from.

There are times I do want to throw light forward from my flashgun.
But this is a specific choice, whether a short-cut or a specifically intended thing, or just a limitation of the scenario I am working in.

While the techniques described on these pages are heavily dependent on shooting indoors which provide places to bounce flash off … it wouldn’t seem possible to use these techniques outdoors.  After all, you can’t bounce flash off the clouds.  (Although we’ve all seen photographers attempt this outside. )

So while there are obvious limitations in applying these bounce flash techniques outdoors, there are times when these techniques can still be quite effective.

.

.

As a start, an example that I show in the tutorial pages is of this image taken at a wedding that I photographed in Aruba.

Here I had my daughter hold up the gold side of the Lastolite reflector. And hopefully this gives the idea of light from the sun setting over the ocean. (It had just gone down, and the light was blandly grey.)

.
However, these bounce flash techniques do imply some kind of surface to bounce your flash off.

.

.

But you shouldn’t feel limited by not having an obvious area to bounce light off.
Have a look at this sequence:

Nice evening light:
Settings of  .. 1/125th @ f2 @ 1000 ISO .. exposed properly for skin tones and the dress.
BUT, the evening sky and the light from the lamp are lost.

.
1/250th @ f2 @ 320 ISO …
Nice enough detail in the sky and the lamppost, but the couple is lost in murkiness.

So this is (for me anyway), the kind of opportunity where a touch of flash would work wonders.
So I turned my flash-head 90′ to my left, and bounced light into the shop displays.
Not any particular surface .. just off the general shop displays.

And here are the results, still at 1/250th @ f2 @ 320 ISO.

It works for me.
And I know my client will love it when she sees it.

.
To show you exactly what I was bouncing light from, have a look at the shop displays to the left in this test shot:

… and this crop from another test shot:

Yup, I bounced flash off that stuff.  Nothing in particular .. but, enough light will spill back from whatever is struck by the light from my flashgun .. to give enough light on my couple to enhance the photo.

.

.

 Here’s another example :

It was really dark already. This was at 1/100th @ f1.2 @ 1250 ISO
Canon 5D and 85mm f1.2 II
I was really squeezing the last bit of light out of the setting we were in.  I wanted to use the tree behind them with the last remaining autumn leaves, but the evening light was also coming from behind them.  So their faces were shaded. Not good.

I therefore bounced flash off the brick wall of the temple.  I’d guess it was about 10 meters from where I was standing.  But enough light spilled back to register at that wide an aperture and high an iso.  Because the light from the flash is now coming in from an angle, the foreground doesn’t have that typical on-camera flash look to it.

Here’s another image from the same sequence.
(I did edit this though for the dark rings under his eyes from lack of sleep. )

But in this example and the previous one that I show here, I got lucky.
There was some kind of surface or objects nearby to bounce light off.

So, would these techniques work outside ?
Maybe.  Quite often not, but sometimes it will. It depends.
It will require some thought.

… aperture / shutter speed / ISO

Those are the three controls we have over our exposure of ambient light.
But depending on whether we are using manual flash or TTL flash, our control over our flash (in relation to our ambient light), changes somewhat.

To recap quickly from the previous posting where I went over the differences between manual flash, and TTL flash.

With manual flash,  two (of the four) things that control our exposure:
 - aperture,
 - ISO.

With TTL flash,  we have only one control over our flash exposure:
 - flash exposure compensation.

The reason for this, as explained is that our two controls that affect manual flash, seemingly become transparent with TTL flash.  And therefore we have to control TTL flash exposure with flash exposure compensation.  The flip-side of this is … that we can now use aperture and ISO to affect our ambient exposure.  This we couldn’t do with manual flash, because it would’ve affected our flash exposure as well, and not just our ambient exposure.

The point of this posting? 
It’s just a correction to a lot of the mistaken advice I’ve seen on the photography forums,
where incorrect advice is given,  such as:

 - aperture doesn’t affect ambient exposure. 
Yikes!  Just because shutter speed is the only independent control you have over ambient exposure when using manual flash, doesn’t mean that aperture doesn’t affect ambient exposure.

- your choice of aperture affects flash exposure. 
Weeeell, it could be.   As we’ve seen, this depends on whether you’re using manual flash or TTL flash.  If you’re using TTL flash, you could use aperture to affect only your ambient exposure. ie .. you could affect your ambient-vs-flash ratio by controlling your aperture. (The same goes for your ISO setting.)

This and the previous posting have been very wordy, so perhaps it is time for some photos again …

This posting is going to seem a little dry, and overly techy … but it pertains to questions that I am often asked.  So hang in there and let’s go over some of the basics and see how it all fits together.

There are two distinct ways in which flash is handled.  Manual flash or Auto / TTL flash.
(For the purposes of the explanation here, Auto and TTL flash can be grouped together wrt D-SLRs.)

.

.

Manual flash

Firstly, flash could simply be a constant amount of light that is emitted from the flashgun.  In the case of manual flash, there is NO control by the flashgun or camera, over the intensity or duration of the pulse of light from the flash unit.

This is manual flash.  Photographers can control the output of their flashguns by adjusting the settings in fractions of the maximum possible output, eg, ¼ power, 1/16th power.   It should be obvious that the absolute value of ¼ power will vary from flashgun to flash gun, as each model and make of flashgun has a different maximum power.  Manual flash exposure is most easily measured by a handheld flashmeter.

With manual flash,  four things control the exposure metering of our subject:
 - the actual output level from the flashgun, (ie the ratio of the full power),
 - distance from our light source to the subject,
 - aperture,
 - ISO.

Any of these four things can be used to control the amount of light falling on your subject.

.

.

TTL flash

The second way to control flash exposure, is as an automatically controlled flash burst. This flash output can either be controlled by the flashgun itself (usually called Auto mode), or by the camera in conjunction with the camera’s metering system (usually called TTL flash).  When the flash is controlled by the camera, as then measured as the amount of light coming through the camera’s lens, it is called Through-The-Lens flash metering, (hence, TTL flash.)

For most purposes in understanding the basics of flash exposure with D-SLRs, there is little difference between Auto flash and TTL flash.  So, as mentioned earlier, for simplicity’s sake here, we could group Auto flash and TTL flash together.  (There are differences with pre-digital cameras and older flashguns, in how Auto flashguns interface with the cameras, and then the explanation is slightly more complex.)

Anyway, with  TTL flash, the flash output is varied and controlled by the camera’s metering system. This means that for a certain range, our chosen aperture or ISO, or distance to our subject, does not influence our TTL flash exposure.

This is such a crucial point to understand about TTL flash, that I want to mention it again for emphasis. 

With TTL flash, our chosen aperture or ISO (within a certain usable range), doesn’t affect our exposure - and in a sense becomes transparent to our exposure metering. What does affect our exposure, is the reflectivity of our subject, and how large our subject appears within our frame.

This is something that is difficult to comprehend at first, but is easily verifiable with your D-SLR.  There, at home, you can photograph any subject in your immediate surroundings using a TTL capable flashgun.  You can change your aperture from f4 to f5.6 to f8 … and your exposures should look the same.  Similarly if you changed your ISO, your TTL flash exposures should look the same.  The reason for this is that your camera and flashgun’s TTL flash metering system takes care of the basic flash exposure … and can do this within a certain range of chosen apertures and ISO settings.  Your flashgun will emit more or less light as required for correct exposure, dependent on your settings … but your exposures should appear similar.

So, looking back at the four things which affect manual flash, you’ll notice that none of these, not distance, nor aperure, nor ISO setting, seem to have an effect on our flash exposure. (Within reasonable range of course.) 

And it is in this, that the huge difference arises beween approaching metering for manual flash, and TTL flash metering.

The only way to control TTL flash metering, is with flash exposure compensation.  You could control manual flash exposure with any of the four variables mentioned earlier on, but with TTL flash, you would have to change your flash exposure compensation.

.

.

In these differences, the individual strengths of using manual flash, or using TTL flash, can be seen.  And this will most likely affect which of the two kinds of flash lighting we end up using. 

With manual flash, since the flash is a specific level, our subject’s reflectivity or our choice of composition (ie, how we frame our subject) has absolutely no impact on our metering.

This is a hugely important aspect of manual flash.  Once we have our lights set up at a specific distance, and determined our aperture and ISO … then the subject’s reflectivity (ie, how much lighter tones or darker tones there are), have NO effect on our flash exposure.

However, with TTL flash, the subject’s reflectivity / tonality, and our choice of composition, WILL affect our flash exposure.   And hence, we often need to control our flash exposure with the flash exposure compensation. 

More on Flash exposure compensation

.

.

The concepts explained in this section are so essential to our further understanding in flash photography, that I would strongly suggest re-reading this section until it makes sense.  Also check other webpages or books on this topic.  It is also important to your own understanding of flash photography, to try and figure this out with your own camera and flashgun. 

In  thoroughly grasping of the differences between manual flash and TTL flash, our approach to balancing flash with available light will become so much easier.  But that is subject matter for a future series of topics.

There is a fundamental principle in lighting :
the larger your light source, the softer your light.

Using any of the myriad of flash modifiers that are on offer, helps in achieving that - spreading the light from the on-camera Speedlight much wider, thereby creating softer light that direct flash would’ve given.  However, (and this is a big however), these flash modifiers also throw light forward.  Ultimately all flash modifiers do the same thing - they disperse a lot of light around the room, while throwing some measure of light directly forward to lift shadows under the eyes and bring a sparkle to the eyes.

That is a huge step up from using direct flash - (or poorly bounced flash.. ie, flash at 45′ or 60′ forward) - but won’t be as good as directional light.  Directional light falls onto your subject from a specific angle.  This direction can very often be carefully chosen even when you use an on-camera flash indoors.

The image at the top is from a wedding I photographed a few weeks ago.
I touched up the WB in RAW, and that’s that. Simple, and it looks just great.
The light is soft, and the baby wasn’t bothered by any direct flash … since there was NO direct flash at all.

[edited to add on Dec 15 : I originally  used the term 'scrim'. 
I have since changed it for the more correct description of 'half-snoot'.]

The way I achieve directional light from my flash is by adding what is in effect, a half-snoot to my on-camera flash.  The half-snoot will partially block the light, and also direct it.  I also very often when shooting in tungsten light, use a filter on my flash to bring the cold light of the flash closer to the warmer tones of tungsten light. 

I simply stick a piece of gel over the head of my Speedlight with some gaffer’s tape. It is low-tech, but it works.

By gelling my flash for tungsten I change the grungy orange backgrounds to a more pleasing warm tone.

The gel used in the image of the baby above, was full CTO.  I keep my camera’s WB to Tungsten.  And in post-production I fine-tune the WB, since by bouncing my flash, it picks up an additional colour from the walls and ceiling.  The gel shown in the illustration here is 1/2 CTS.  I then keep my WB of my camera to 3800 K, which is still much closer to Tungsten, than the 5400K of flash.

The black half-snoot that I add to my Speedlight is just as simple.  It’s a piece of thin black foam bought from an arts store, and then cut smaller.

I keep the piece of black foam tied to my Speedlight with a hair band that I stole from my daughter.  Yup, low-tech and simple … and it works!

This piece of black foam around my Speedlight has two advantages:
1. Directional light.  I can now much more precisely direct where I want my light to come from.
2. Less annoying to others.  In turning my flash to the side or to point behind me, I would risk blasting other people directly in the face with flash. This piece of black foam keeps that from happening.  I now direct my flash over people’s heads, and no flash hits people directly in the eyes.

And thatis the flash modifier I most often use. Total cost is less than $2.oo However, if you feel the need to splash some money on hardware that is custom-made for you, send $40 to my Paypal account.  I will cut a piece of foam for you, add the hair band, and even sign it with silver pen. Oh, go on, you know you want one. It will surely become a collectible.

The additional advantage with this light modifier is that you retain the cool all-black stealthy ninja-photographer look. This is Elisabeth, who often works with me as a 2nd photographer. She’s cool.

.

.

The only other light modifier that I use, is a Stofen cup.  This I use when I am in a situation where I do need light thrown directly forward. I also use it in rooms where the ceiling is too high to successfully shoot with the black half-snoot.

However, I still want a measure of control over where I direct my light.  Therefore I cut a hole in the top of the Stofen so that the majority of light can still be thrown in a direction of my choice, instead of being scattered all around. (I do keep a spare Stofen on hand that is unblemished, as well as an Amber coloured Stofen.)

To be able to flip the Stofen in and out of position, I keep it down with a piece of gaffer’s tape.  So if I want to take a shot without it, I simply flip it over.

.

.

And there they are - the only light modifiers that I use when I use on-camera Speedlights.
In my weddings and portrait work,  I often do use off-camera lighting, whether Speedlights or Q-flashes.  But with on-camera strobes, these are the only light modifiers I use.  And they are all I need.

Several photographers have asked me how in much of my photography has flash been used.  And I would say that about 80% of my work when I photograph weddings and environmental portraits, has flash of some kind.

Whether nearly all flash :

(a single on-camera speedlight, gelled to tungsten, and bounced over my left shoulder,
1/25th @ f4 @ 1600 iso)

.

(Once again, a single on-camera speedlight, gelled to tungsten, and bounced over my left shoulder,
1/100th @ f2.8 @ 2000 iso)

.
… or a healthy mixture of flash and available light …
(both these next images also had the flash gelled for tungsten, but I  
dialled down appropriately to match ambient light the way I wanted to.
I also took care in controlling the direction of my flash.)

.
…. or just a touch of fill-flash.
(juuuuust enough to lift the shadows from her eyes, or lift the contrast levels … so that I have to spend very little time in post-production, editing these images.)

(flash directly forward, but dialled down to -3EV to enable just a touch of fill-flash.
1/250th @ f4.5 @ 160 ISO)

.

(flash once again directly forward, but dialled down to -2EV to enable just a touch of fill-flash.
1/200th @ f5.0 @ 200 ISO)

.
Or sometimes only the available light when the existing light is just perfect.

(1/250th @ f4 @ 640 ISO)

.

(1/320th @ f2 @ 640 ISO)

.
Whatever needs to be done to create a flattering image.

It isn’t just a about sense of aesthetics:
1. Reducing my post-production time is a strong consideration whether I should use flash or not. At best, I only want to touch up WB and exposure and still have images that look great.
2. I want to give the bride the best photos on the day that I can get, without clinging to any particular rigid ideology.

.
Oh, and can we just dispell one silly notion here … that being able to shoot at a high ISO enables you not to use flash. The decision to use alternate lighting (whether flash or video lights or reflectors) has more to do with the quality of light, than the light levels. Those are two distinctly different aspects .. quality and quantity of light.

.
Back to the topic … In portaiture and wedding photography, my intention though is always to create flattering images, combined with a story-telling approach, and one that is not intrusive.  And within certain contraints, I am always considering the direction and intensity of the flash that I use.  And I am always aware of the ambient light levels, and the quality of the ambient light … and this shapes my decision as to how I use flash, and how much.  And thereby using juuuust enough flash.

The breathtaking sight of lightning splitting the evening sky has to be one of the more dramatic subjects to photograph… and also surprisingly easy.

A vivid burst of purple lightning over this store, framed by the arch of the verandah I was sheltering under, contrasts perfectly with the yellow cast of the man-made light. Of a series of 10 photos I took here, there were 2 usable images with lightning.  The strong colour cast are from the street-lights, and having used daylight-balanced film.

April ‘91 .. Colesberg; South Africa
Pentax Super-A;  Pentax-A 24-50mm f4
15 sec @ f8.0 .. Fuji RD 100 .. tripod.
 

the essentials:

• A camera with a wide to medium-range zoom.  (Composition is easier with a zoom.)
• A sturdy tripod.
• Your camera should have shutter speeds longer than a second or two, or should be able to take a cable release, since exposures are often going to be in the region of 4 to 30 seconds.
• A dry sheltered place from where to photograph. A verandah or some such to keep you and your equipment dry.  Especially if the lightning flashes aren’t merely far-off on the horizon, but somewhat closer.
• Lightning (of course.)

the method:

You might be under the impression that it takes great skill and reflexes to take the picture at the exact brief instant of the flash of lightning. Not so. Most times, you will be using a slow shutter speed in dim light, allowing the lightning to take its own photograph so to speak. The lightning flash is short-lasting, but your camera’s shutter will be open for at least a few seconds. (There are also devices available that will trigger your camera’s shutter at the very instant it detects the lightning flash.)

Since you can only anticipate where lighting will occur, you can only point your camera (on the tripod), at the approximate area of the most intense display of lightning.

Interesting foreground detail will add to the appeal of your photograph - city lights in the distance; or street lights closer up, perhaps some buildings in the picture with the lightning; lights of cars streaking by on a nearby road; or anything else to give a sense of scale and place.

metering & exposure

Most lightning will be seen at night or in the evening when the light level is fairly low due to weather condistions.  This low ambient light will necessitate a slow shutter speed of a few seconds or up to a minute or so.  But this works to your advantage.  More time for a bolt of lightning to appear.

On 100 ISO film, an aperture of f8 should expose the lightning fairly well.  A stop or even two wider perhaps if the lightning is distant or faint due to rain.  With an aperture of f8, you need to decide on the length of exposure, and this will be determined by the ambient light or how bright the scenery is that you’re including.

In other words, you need to expose for the rest of the scene using f8 (or your chosen aperture.) How intensely the flash of lightning will record on film or digital, is controlled by the aperture and not the shutter speed. (This is similar to using flashguns on manual output.)  This is due to the short duration of the flash.  So the eventual shutter speed that you use will not dictate the lightning intensity, but only how bright the entire scene will appear in your final image. However, the shutter speed will dictate how many flashes of lightning appear on the single frame of film.

Meter for the rest of the picture in the usual way.  If, for example, you are including a street-lit building in the foreground, take a meter reading of this building or an appropriate area that you would like to expose for.

If the scene is too dim for the range of your camera’s metering display, try metering at a large aperture or a higher ISO setting.  (Eg. f2 at 800ISO is 7 stops away from f8 at 100ISO.  A 1/4 sec reading at f2 and 800ISO will translate to 30 seconds at 100ISO.)

Since the lightning will not be predictable in how often and where it strikes, you will need to take a series of photos at your chosen shutter speed, to make sure you do get to record a lightning strike.

The matter of reciprocity failure with film never really bothered me in this type of photography.  With strangely coloured illumination from artificial light sources, and dark areas all round, exact exposure of foreground objects is not so critical. If anything, under-exposure is far more acceptable to the eye than even slight over-exposure of night-time shots.

One of the most astounding lightning photographs I have ever seen, was one where the photographer must have used a lens around 24mm while shooting upward to catch a crazed pattern of jagged lightning overhead in a delicately tinted evening sky.  Magical! 
There is always something to aspire to.

Most often when photographers start using their flashguns out of the directly-forward position, they move the flash head to point 45’ or 90’ upward. The idea here is to bounce flash off the ceiling. Even though this is an improvement in most cases over using the flashgun pointing directly forward, this is also most often not ideal. We can improve on this.

If we consider how studio lights are set up, we’ll rarely see a light source directly overhead of our subject. Top lighting just isn’t as flattering as light coming in from an angle to the subject. And in the same way, why would we want to bounce flash directly overhead of our subjects?

The subtitle of this post should be: You don’t really need that Lightsphere .
(Or whatever is the flavour of light modifier for this particular month.)

We need to consider the direction of our light carefully. This is one of the areas in which we can really set ourselves apart as photographers – by carefully choosing the direction our light falls onto our subject, we can control the mood of the photograph completely.

We have to think of the actual area that we’re bouncing light off, as our light source – and not of the flashgun as our light source.

Looking at this sequence of photographs, we can see that the direction of light came from slightly behind the subject to the camera’s left. These images were all done using a single on-camera flashgun.

A very important point here is that there is there is no light coming from ‘camera’s viewpoint’.In other words, from our viewpoint (which is the camera’s viewpoint), there is no light coming from directly forward. Therefore, instead of a flat even light, we have directional light. Light is coming in from the side, and creating that interplay between light and shade that creates shape and gives dimension to our subjects. The exact way that flash was bounced here, was by pointing the flashhead 45’ swiveled to the camera’s left, and tilted about 30’ up. To stop any direct flash falling onto the bride, I blocked the strobe with my left hand. This way I shielded the light from her, and the light from the flashgun fell onto the wall to the camera’s left, and slightly behind where she was sitting.

So in effect, our light source is coming from above and slightly behind our bride. This way we’re mimicking the effect that a large softbox would’ve given us.

Another very important point here to remember is, if your subject can see any part of your flashhead, then you are indeed getting direct flash. Or at least a measure of direct flash. Most often this is not flattering. The entire reason why we are bouncing flash, is to create softer light. And direct light from your flashgun will most often not be flattering and negate the quality of light we’re trying to achieve.

Looking at two more images from this sequence, we can see in the close-up images where our light-source is. It is crucial here that we see that the light was not bounced on the ceiling, or even behind us.

Bouncing the light on the ceiling would’ve given darker eye-sockets and that ‘raccoon eyes’ effect. Bouncing light behind us, would’ve given us much softer light from our flashgun than direct flash would’ve given us – but this would’ve produced light that is too flat.

No flash modifier was used, aside from my hand blocking light. Any off-the-shelf light modifier would’ve thrown too much forward, spilling directly on the bride’s face. That direct light would’ve been unflattering.

Just how much flash was used, and how it was balanced with available light, can be deduced from this image on the left.This is the initial image, where I didn’t use flash at all, but used the available light to create a silhouette effect.The same camera settings were used for the images above. Using flash wisely made all the difference.

.
In these two images we can see exactly the effect that the flash has had – and how much available light there was. All the light falling on the bride is from the flash on the camera. And here, even more clearly we can discern from the direction of the light, that the light source is the wall to the camera left, and behind the bride. 

.
Being very specific about the direction of our light source, we’re able to create flattering portraits with the minimum of fuss.

And being specific abour direction of our light source, means we simply can’t place a flash modifier on our flashgun and shoot without putting much thought into it.

.

This web article was first posted in April ‘06 on the DWF, as a tongue-in-cheek reaction - or sarcastic response then, if you will - against the numerous articles and seminars where we photographers are urged to just look for the light.

What triggered me to write this article in the first place, was that there seems to be a trend where use of flash is disdained in favour of only using available light.
As if it is always that simple.

(This article was also published in the Sept ‘06 issue of Rangefinder magazine.)

.

.

Finding the light …

I’ve been so inspired recently by the various photographers at seminars and magazine articles, telling everyone to just look for the light and to find the light.

So many photographers just use available light, and make the rest of us who aren’t blessed with perfect light like they have in la-la-land, feel so inadequate. It is our failing as photographers if we can’t find the light and use it properly.

I felt I had to rise up to this and push myself as a photographer, and just look for the light.  It is there to be found!  Inspired like that, I approached this very colourful Hindu ceremony (April 2006), with a fresh mindset …

The temple itself is beautiful and imposing from the outside, in a blocky New Jersey kinda way.

.
The late afternoon light was incredibly harsh, and I knew I had to do something here so that my portraits wouldn’t look like the few candids I had to shoot outside in the sun. So for the portraits, I moved the bride (and others) into the open shade between the pillars in the front. The strong vertical lines behind them helped to make the simple portraits more striking.

Speaking of striking - isn’t she an incredibly beautiful bride?

.
Well, I was happy at this point. I was able to get lovely portraits using the light and the setting … but walking inside of the room where the guests were going to dance, my heart sank.

The ceiling was high, with only fluorescent lights, which meant the light was top-heavy and dim.

Light levels were low - 1/60th @ f2.8 @ 1600 iso.
Hmmm .. just not enough to stop action. And the client wouldn’t be too happy with hundreds of impressionistic colour smears for photographs.

But .. I just had to look for the light.
Nevermind that this is a dimly-lit New Jersey room, and not a brightly lit la-la-land venue.

This would be MY failing for not looking for the light,
and finding the light,
and finally .. getting to USE the light.

I scoured the place … and .. sure enough .. there it was .. light!

But .. was it available light?
I looked around .. and sure .. no one else was using it.
It was available! I could use the light!
I saw it and found it, and now I could use it!

And boy! Am I impressed! Just look at the light! Look at the colours pop!
People were dancing around me, and I could stop the action if I chose to, and have faces recognisable. The bride would be able to recognize herself and her friends and family.

.
So, a genuine thank you to everyone here who inspired me so to rise above my own inadequacies as a photographer, and just frikkin LOOK for the light.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Neil van Niekerk

.

.

technical info:

The additional strobes that I put up in the corners of the room, were Quantum T2 strobes. They were powered by Quantum 2×2 batteries, and triggered by Quantum 4i radio slaves. The stands are Red-Wing stands. These strobes were run in manual mode, and at 2/3rd stops down from full output, to ensure consistency in exposures in faster sequences of shots.

I also used an on-camera flash which was turned around and slightly bent backwards, with a Stofen with the top cut open. This meant that most of the light from my on-camera strobe was thrown upwards and slightly back .. but because of the Stofen, enough light spilled forward, to ensure there were no raccoon eyes, and that the lighting was as even as I could make it under the circumstances.

Exposure info .. all shots at 1/125th, and 800 iso.
The aperture varied between f4 and f5.0
I diallied the flash exposure compensation down in certain areas of the room.
The on-camera flash exposure was varied from +0.3 to -1.0 EV.
The on-camera strobe was in TTL mode.