How Would You Shoot This Difficult Church Setting? [pics]

jhelmsjhelms Registered Users Posts: 651 Major grins
edited October 19, 2008 in Weddings
The Church I was at this morning to take pics for a friend (she is a public speaker) - all log built, so that means NOTHING white to bounce flash off of, all amber coated wood beams. Also, no bright lights at all, and top it off with 4 HUGE I MEAN HUGE windows RIGHT BEHIND the stage!!! I mean light just POURING in.... couldn't use flash during the service. Nothing helped except to goto iso1600 and mix between matrix and center weighted metering.

The windows were either blown out in almost every shot, or the person speaking was really dim. I tested using a 50mm 1.8 and the 20mm 2.8, then ended up throwing the 18-200VR on there and going to iso1600 and just zooming in on a lot of them to try and cut out the windows.

Looking back, I should have put an ND grad filter on to see if that would help.

Lemme know how you think I did:
http://jhelms.smugmug.com/gallery/6087325_wD4Vq//382166368_B7fBM

Here's a few specific pics (exif data is visible at the link above - these pics are unedited except for cropping):

382193777_NRcCt-L.jpg


382178454_XsphV-L.jpg


382866717_2frjQ-L.jpg


382432837_EcHzT-L.jpg


382884350_M4eVh-L.jpg
John in Georgia
Nikon | Private Photojournalist

Comments

  • tomautotomauto Registered Users Posts: 58 Big grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    IF you shot RAW use this lady's camisole (white shirt) to help you get the proper white balance in the photos. Your images seem really orange.
    http://jhelms.smugmug.com/gallery/6087325_wD4Vq//382166368_B7fBM#382189104_qZKkx
    My Smugmug Site! http://tomauto.smugmug.com/
    Canon Quality l Canon 30D l Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 "L" IS Lens l Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS Lens l Canon 580ex ii Flash l Canon 580ex Flash l Canon BG-E2N Battery Grip
    Strobist 101 kit l Bogen / Manfrotto Super Clamp l Westcott Umbrellas - Soft Silver Collapsible and Optical White 43" l Bogen / Manfrotto 3373 Light Stand l Photoflex Multiclamp

  • SwartzySwartzy Registered Users Posts: 3,293 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    Custom WB is critical here. The skin tones will literally suck in the colors from those surroundings. If any are a bit underexposed (especially the subject matter) the corrections are most difficult (an understatement). Desaturating in post would help here along with layers/masks. The saturation is a bit much as it looks global transferring over to your people.

    Getting at a different angle as you did here certainly helped..especially from up above. Obviously anytime shooting against window light without a light source compensating will give you fits. Oh, and to directly answer your question: I'd use a 70-200 and get in tight, eliminating the framed window and use the available light to my advantage.
    Swartzy:
    NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
    Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
    www.daveswartz.com
    Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
  • jhelmsjhelms Registered Users Posts: 651 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    tomauto wrote:
    IF you shot RAW use this lady's camisole (white shirt) to help you get the proper white balance in the photos. Your images seem really orange.
    http://jhelms.smugmug.com/gallery/6087325_wD4Vq//382166368_B7fBM#382189104_qZKkx

    Good idea, but I shot jpg fine, up until now have not done any post-processing beyond some very simple cropping and basic contrast correction but will be migrating to a better post-processing solution soon (have pre-ordered PS Elements 7.0).
    Swartzy wrote:
    Getting at a different angle as you did here certainly helped..especially from up above. Obviously anytime shooting against window light without a light source compensating will give you fits. Oh, and to directly answer your question: I'd use a 70-200 and get in tight, eliminating the framed window and use the available light to my advantage.

    Cool. I should have spent more time up in the balcony, but I did get a few up there at least. Also had I known about the windows ahead of time (the Church is about 30-45 minutes from my house depending on traffic) I would have borrowed a 70-200 2.8VR for this one.

    Hindsight working with what I had in the bag though what do ya'll think of my idea of throwing on a 2x grad ND filter? I didn't do that of course but looking back I just think that might have been the only other thing I could have done to help with the window light (again, using what I had with me at the time).

    Thanks again for the input!
    John in Georgia
    Nikon | Private Photojournalist
  • urbanariesurbanaries Registered Users Posts: 2,690 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    jhelms wrote:
    Good idea, but I shot jpg fine, up until now have not done any post-processing beyond some very simple cropping and basic contrast correction but will be migrating to a better post-processing solution soon (have pre-ordered PS Elements 7.0).



    Cool. I should have spent more time up in the balcony, but I did get a few up there at least. Also had I known about the windows ahead of time (the Church is about 30-45 minutes from my house depending on traffic) I would have borrowed a 70-200 2.8VR for this one.

    Hindsight working with what I had in the bag though what do ya'll think of my idea of throwing on a 2x grad ND filter? I didn't do that of course but looking back I just think that might have been the only other thing I could have done to help with the window light (again, using what I had with me at the time).

    Thanks again for the input!

    wouldn't a ND filter have taken 2 stops off of your exposure? Seems to me the only way you would have gotten away with the ND is to use flash which was not permitted.

    Did you use a tripod?
    Canon 5D MkI
    50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
    ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
  • SwartzySwartzy Registered Users Posts: 3,293 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    Not only would an ND filter drop your stops but also your shutter speed, hence motion blur. Your windows might then not get blown out but your subjects would be much darker...then comes the noise issue. ND is great outdoors when wanting to maintain a shallower DOF and keeping within sync speed of camera/flash....but flash is essential.
    Swartzy:
    NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
    Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
    www.daveswartz.com
    Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
  • Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    I'm thinking he was talking about a grad ND - which might have worked to reduce the light from the windows - at the expense of underexposing the surrounding walls.

    Edit: In fact, re-reading the OP, he does, in fact, mention a ND grad filter...
  • urbanariesurbanaries Registered Users Posts: 2,690 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    I'm thinking he was talking about a grad ND

    ah! That actually might have worked.....mwink.gif
    Canon 5D MkI
    50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
    ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
  • jhelmsjhelms Registered Users Posts: 651 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    Yep, I was talking about the graduated ND filter, just reducing the exposure at the top of the frame. I have a B&H "25%"? graduated ND that I've used outdoors to reign in bright skies but never thought to use it indoors (including this weekend, until I got home and a fellow local photographer mentioned that it might have been worth trying.
    urbanaries wrote:
    Did you use a tripod?

    I brought my tripod but ended up shooting handheld.

    Couple of reasons I didn't use the tripod: 1) Limited space (pic below shows basically where I was standing - right where the flooring changes from tile to carpet), 2) Every few minutes of course someone would walk in or out getting water / going to the restroom / taking a baby out / etc. and I'm sure the tripod would have been in the way 3) The speaker was moving around a bit and I can usually handhold the 18-200VR to pretty slow speeds.

    I also braced heavily against the door frame that I was standing in.

    Here's the pic; I was standing where the floor changes from tile to carpet:

    382900882_gySv6-L.jpg
    John in Georgia
    Nikon | Private Photojournalist
  • EarthDogEarthDog Registered Users Posts: 123 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    jhelms wrote:
    Yep, I was talking about the graduated ND filter...

    Might have been worth a try, but I suspect it would have been visible in your shots, with those very light walls.
    Once upon a time, they all lived happily ever after.
  • david_hdavid_h Registered Users Posts: 463 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    I think you have done a pretty nice job with these - fix the white balance and you'll be good to go.

    I'd import the jpegs into lightroom and white balance adjustment will be easy, download the 30 day trial and play if you don't have the software already. like tomauto says you'll be able to click to set a WB on the lady's white camisole and then sync the setting to the rest of the images - a couple of minutes work at most.

    Personally I wouldn't worry two hoots about blowing out the windows, indeed, I'd be inclined to blow them out completely.

    I also wouldn't bugger about with jpegs anyway - just use raw so you can make the decisions not the camera.
    ____________
    Cheers!
    David
    www.uniqueday.com
  • crockettcrockett Registered Users Posts: 180 Major grins
    edited October 18, 2008
    Some comments....

    You say no tripod because it would be in the way but then say you were bracing yourself against the door frame. Hogwash...there is tons of room for a tripod, that is a double door, just place it exactly where you are using the door frame as a brace to get the speaker on stage right and then pick the tripod up and shift it to your left on the opposite side of the door frame to get the speaker stage left. If anyone gets up who is too large to fit through that space you just lift it and move it to the side for a couple seconds and your back in business.

    However, I wouldn't have approached it that way. Arriving early I would have seen that mixture of light and immediately knew I was shooting in RAW, first and foremost. No matter how confident I am in nailing the white balance, it's just not worth the risk. We pay a lot of money for these fancy smancy cameras and we need to leverage their capabilities.

    Next I would "convince" anyone and everyone, that I would be placing two small flashes (gelled and with diffusers) on stands (the little foot pedals they come shipped with) directly next to two monitors already on stage with wireless radio triggers. Snapping test shots and adjusting WB until it looked good. I've read that Nikkon cameras have a setting that works very well for tungsten lighting, the Canons auto setting is "not so good." The church is already fine with the monitors so they would be fine with 2 little speedlights which no one will see anyways. After they see that a couple of your test flashes are hardly noticable, they'd be fine with that as well, I bet. I would also dump the music stand unless the speaker was using it. Even if a singer was coming out later. I'd convince them that they would be carrying the music stand on to stage.

    With the flashes you should be able to shoot hand held at ISO 400 and also have the ability to move around. I like using the wireless ETTL on the Canon but in this case I wouldn't dare try it because it is sketchy when the master flash has to look into the sun as it would be doing here with those windows. I don't know if the Nikkon system works the same way or not. The bonus with the Nikkon system is that you don't need to have a flash on camera, you can do this with just one flash. You put the camera in "commander" mode and then have a single flash on stage which it will trigger. (At least this is my understanding, and again I don't know if it would work because of those windows).

    Not having all that. Put it in RAW, set white balance to tungsten. I would place a white towel on that music stand. Snap test shots until is perfectly exposed. Forget the windows they don't exist. You can tell everyone they were high priced pieces of art "solid white patches". Switch the camera to those manual settings (of course adjust for the best aperature / shutter speed combo). If needed use a tripod on every single shot. I'm not familiar with "VR" but even with the Canon IS at 200mm I get too nervous going below 1/125. I would just pick the tripod up and move it around chimping as I go, once I knew I had a few winners, then I might get adventerous and start ripping away. But sharp images are just so much more important.

    I just briefly looked at the gallery and I believe your focus was the lady in the wheel chair (I'm assumming this is Leslie). This is why the white towel trick would have worked so well here. The vast majority of these are underexposed and by quite a bit.

    There are about one million articles in print that warn photographers not to clip in the histogram. However about zero of them ever mention that when you HAVE to make a sacrifice (i.e no fill flash to balance the backlighting) you should darn sure make sure that your main subject is properly exposed if the photos are important to you. This becomes HUGELY important when shooting jpg. Underexposed jpgs can be difficult or impossible to recover. However, if just printing 4x6 there is a lot you can do even in jpg.
  • KD5NRHKD5NRH Registered Users Posts: 30 Big grins
    edited October 19, 2008
    Wouldn't you just love to pound that architect with a shovel right about now? I mean, really, with all that backlighting, it looks like it would be uncomfortable just to watch someone on that stage for any length of time, much less try to photograph them.
    Blog - updated irregularly
    Photos - still under construction, suggestions welcome
Sign In or Register to comment.