Its very difficult to manage Tom. The only way to do it properly with flash is to bring the light level on the subject up to the same level as the background, and thats extremely difficult with many portable strobes.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
shooting wedding without flash?
- Thread starter tsunami
- Start date
Jay Barnes
Well-known member
These are good compositions, but almost all of them could have been better if a flash was properly used, especially the indoor shots.
It's not just the amount of light available, but the color spectrum of the available light. All of the indoor shots, where light is being filtered by the windows, show un-natural color casts and many have been oversaturated in post to make them look more life-like.
Here is a perfect example: http://www.jacobel.com/wwf/imagepages/image26.htm
Notice all the ISO noise and PS saturation artifacts. And the odd colors of her face suggest to me that the artificial light was flourescent, the prime ingredient in a recipe for disaster.
Also note the CA around her veil. Maybe it's just a crummy lens, but another stop or two plus flash might have gotten rid of that. (Actually, in this case, the CA could have been removed very easily in PS by moving the blue channel just a bit)
I don't think there is any arguement about non-flash wedding photos being POSSIBLE, and these are certainly decent photos given the tools that were used, but if the wedding party will allow it I can't think of a reason NOT to use it.
Jay Barnes
http://www.pbase.com/jbarnes
It's not just the amount of light available, but the color spectrum of the available light. All of the indoor shots, where light is being filtered by the windows, show un-natural color casts and many have been oversaturated in post to make them look more life-like.
Here is a perfect example: http://www.jacobel.com/wwf/imagepages/image26.htm
Notice all the ISO noise and PS saturation artifacts. And the odd colors of her face suggest to me that the artificial light was flourescent, the prime ingredient in a recipe for disaster.
Also note the CA around her veil. Maybe it's just a crummy lens, but another stop or two plus flash might have gotten rid of that. (Actually, in this case, the CA could have been removed very easily in PS by moving the blue channel just a bit)
I don't think there is any arguement about non-flash wedding photos being POSSIBLE, and these are certainly decent photos given the tools that were used, but if the wedding party will allow it I can't think of a reason NOT to use it.
--
Jay Barnes
http://www.pbase.com/jbarnes
Steve Niedorf
Member
I guess this is what makes the world go round, I like that image, I'm not bothered my the technical aspects, I think the "real life" look of available light overpowers the techno aspects which we as photographers can appreciate, but our clients do not dwell on.
Bottom line, its subjective. If available light is in your samples the clients see them and like them for what they are, its fine to shoot that way. You are shooting the way you want to and feel comfortable with and your clients are buying your style.
cheers!
Steve Niedorf
Steve Niedorf
Bottom line, its subjective. If available light is in your samples the clients see them and like them for what they are, its fine to shoot that way. You are shooting the way you want to and feel comfortable with and your clients are buying your style.
cheers!
Steve Niedorf
--These are good compositions, but almost all of them could have been
better if a flash was properly used, especially the indoor shots.
It's not just the amount of light available, but the color spectrum
of the available light. All of the indoor shots, where light is
being filtered by the windows, show un-natural color casts and many
have been oversaturated in post to make them look more life-like.
Here is a perfect
example: http://www.jacobel.com/wwf/imagepages/image26.htm
Notice all the ISO noise and PS saturation artifacts. And the odd
colors of her face suggest to me that the artificial light was
flourescent, the prime ingredient in a recipe for disaster.
Also note the CA around her veil. Maybe it's just a crummy lens,
but another stop or two plus flash might have gotten rid of that.
(Actually, in this case, the CA could have been removed very easily
in PS by moving the blue channel just a bit)
I don't think there is any arguement about non-flash wedding photos
being POSSIBLE, and these are certainly decent photos given the
tools that were used, but if the wedding party will allow it I
can't think of a reason NOT to use it.
Steve Niedorf
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum