Ok...we all know, high noon, bright sun is the worst possible lighting for shooting in. Avoid it at all costs, right?

But sometimes it just can't be avoided. Sometimes you're photographing a wedding on a golf course, with no shade anywhere.

So...when this happens, I need to do better. When I'm dealing with only a bride and groom, and have my assistant with me, I get her to hold up the dark side of the reflector to make shade.

I need to know though, how to reduce the contrast when I don't have shade.
Does anyone have some great lighting techniques, or shooting techniques to make to make this work?

I've seen some beautiful photos that appear to be taken in bright light, but don't blow the highlights and don't have blacker than black shadows, but I don't know how it's done.

I do fill shadows with flash but I find it adds to the overall exposure, over-exposing the image(shooting in TTL and RAW). I also have studio mono-lights, but they are not the kind that hook up to a generator. (they plug in).
I would prefer not to bring such huge gear anyway.

Perhaps, there is no great solution to my request aside from studio lights, but if anyone has any...please, please share.

bump, I'd like to know too!

check out my blog and the very last post of rachel's bridals... most were shot in harsh sunlight... around 230... very bright day... i shot these with the 580 off camera and set the exposure to around -1 and the fec to around +2/3... worked pretty well.

Matt...can you tell me why you set the exposure compensation to +2/3 if it's already so bright outside. Does this help with shadows?
Do you ever find that even with -1 on your 580 that it over exposes the photos?

I think what Matt means is exposure compensation on camera is set to -1 and flash e.c. set to +2/3. Right Matt?

One of the sites that I read regularly is Dave Black's. One of the things he does to get an extra punch out of smaller strobes is to use two of them. Check this out for an example. This would require another strobe which could mean another purchase but that is an idea. Another option is using something similar to a Q-flash. You can get those with battery packs that make them almost as compact as your 580 setup. I have never used these particular kind but Zack Arias is a big fan of the Sunpak 120j...check out this post.

Sorry for all the second hand info...but hopefully this will help!

***Edit
After reading the most recent posts on Zack's linked thread on gear I realized that the 120j has been discontinued. I'm sorry about that....bummer.

that is exactly what i mean... the -1ish on the exposure just tones down the overall brightness of the entire scene... then the +2/3ish on the flash gives the subject a boost to bring it back to optimal exposure. it takes some tinkering to get perfect... also, i always try to keep the sun to the subjects back.... this way there are no shadows on the face or under the eyes. hope this helps and makes sense...

does anyone else do this or am i crazy?

Judging by the work on your blog, it seems to work well. The lighting on those bridal portraits of Rachel is great!

Oh...that makes more sense to me! Thank you.




Thank you Matt...I will try this



I have another flash that is compatible with my 580 and can be used as a slave. I will check out these sites. Thank you so much.




+1

I usually do a few things:

1) expose for the ambient light or lower (depending on the look you want)
2) get the sun as much perpendicular to them as possible (if the sun is not directly overhead it'll give a nice sidelight effect)
3) put one or two flashes to be opposite the sun (various angles will give different effects, to smooth the effect a little bit spread the two flashes out a little)
4) I usually use the flashes in manual mode for bright sun (usually at 100% power - if they are too bright, scoot them back, too dim move them closer). ETTL is very touchy in high contrast light so you'll have a lot more luck just eyeballing it by looking at the back back of the camera and histograms.)
5) fire away! - the only thing to watch out for is overheating the flashes. At full power in the bright sun they can overheat and stop working well if you are firing them in quick succession.

You can use reflectors too but I generally don't as they can be annoying to the people you are working with (i.e... blinding, hot, etc...).

ken

I expose for the background/sky and use fill flash. In really harsh conditions, you may have to just blast away at full power to soften those shadows (especially if you're using a shoe mounted flash).

Thanks Ken.

Question: Don't you have trouble seeing the histograms or images in the sun???



Thank you.

Yes, it is difficult to see. If you have a 20d or something like it they display the blown out areas of the picture as blinking white when you have the display set to view the picture + shot details. If large parts of your picture are blinking (at least important parts of the picture, like the brides dress), shoot it again till they're not. It's a really helpful feature that will really help you from totally blowing out a picture. While not perfect, it does help from making a total catastrophic error...

ken

I feel your pain! The first time I ever got to shoot a wedding, it was at about 1pm on a day with ZERO clouds, and it was bright, and +40C all day long, it was horrible as far as getting quality shots.

Luckily I was family so my shots didn't matter, but I was still trying. Hard enough with that horrible light, but I also had to take whatever I could get as far as position. Not being the main photog, I couldn't boss them around or anything

Go figure, I was watching this thread closely because it was supposed to be glaringly sunny for today's wedding... now the report says "mostly cloudy."

Can't say I'm complaining, though!

Jennifer I heard this formula on the "Lightsource pod cast". Put your camera on AV mode f/4.5-5.6 your 580 at -1 1/3 and shoot away. Am just a beginner, but try it I used that with just my flash that came with 30d canon and did okay with it.

For direct sunlight, my preference has been to just let the background get blown and go for Manual mode to get the skin tones right. Flash output can vary with distance.

Here's an example of a bright sunlit 11:30AM wedding shot, at the beach no-less. The B&G liked it ... although I'm sure careful flash settings could have done better - it's not so awful. Full wedding here.


Using a flash, particularly off-camera, would be a wonderful improvement once perfected, but could cause more missed shots than acceptable until well practiced.

The under-pier formal shots were mostly with direct flash, setting about 1/2 stop under on M mode then FEC + 1 or 2 from about 20 feet away, or with no flash and exposure set to skin tones (and obviously, sunny horizon a total blow-out).

Thanks everyone for all of the wonderful advice.
This forum has been really great at helping me, improve.

I took Matt's advice and shot with a -2/3 exposure compensation and
0 to +1 flash compensation and got some great results!

This first photo was taken to show you the actual lighting condition without flash.




This is the one with the compensations:



Finally...this one is taken in direct sun, with the same flash and exposure compensations. I'm really happy because the highlights aren't completely blown and the shadows are perfectly filled. (ok, it's not my best composition, but the lighting is great!)

One thing that actually does work, short of hunting for shade, is putting the sun directly behind your subjects. If you can get up higher than them, you'll get some b/g in, like trees, buildings, etc.
If you have an assistant, bring along a small step ladder.

Skip the fill flash. The worst that happens is a bit of halo blowout around the hair, but that can look cool. If you open right up, you'll get the skin tones, and there is so much reflection around you that the face is quite softly lit.

If you can't get up higher, you will likely blow out the sky and any water. If the image has big plans (albums, competition) you can always drop in a stock sky later.

Give it a shot. It works much better than I would have predicted.