White Balance/Exposure Help

[ajohnw]

I looked at the lot.

Not to my taste but you seem to have mostly obtained the skin tones you want or at least got close

It's noticeable that in general most of the indoor shots show more detail in the wedding whites. They are too bright in nearly all of the exterior shots. Some have lost all of the detail over too large an area.

Some of the "item" shots, ring, cake etc are NVG. I feel those need a more traditional approach. They need to look better than they did in real life - just like a few of them do. A ring needs to look as good as it did in a jeweler's window. Personally if I shot a pair of shoes I wouldn't chop the top off them.

Some of the blacks are dead solid in at least one shot. That's a complete no no to me and is one of the reason people hire a pro but some people don't even notice.

Your problems all seem to be down to the correct use of curves from raw. The dresses for instance are in the highlight area so can be controlled separately. Combining that with a change of the exposure setting can also help in this area. I don't use Adobe products but you may need to use ACR to do this effectively. There is some old information on this area mostly applying to Nikon but could be of some help here

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/downloads.html

It also looks like the curves the site provide can be be used in PS. One of them was called the white wedding curve but is now one of the point and shoot curves as it does the same thing. On Canon the mid tones may not need lifting. There is some good advice on the use of curves - simple smooth ones are usually best.

The other thing that can help is the camera profile used. Adobe provide several. Some on here stick to adobe standard but if a lot of shots are being processed it's probably worth trying all of them to see if any speed up workflow.

One thing that can help when people are having problems is to upload a complete raw file to say filebin.net and allow people to work on it and tell you what they did. It's helped me a lot at times but do make sure there is not too much clipping in the shot especially in the dresses. If you upload jpg's on here something around 1500px wide is best but lost / messed up highlights can't be recovered. A lot can usually be done to the rest.

Whoops forgot white balance - the adjustments are likely to change that as well so it's hard to be sure at just what stage that needs to be done. Maybe initially and a final slight touch up. For me camera white balance always gets close.

John
-

[Manfred M]

As I said, not my style but some people do like it.

In this shot I used flash and bumped the ISO. In Post I added a white vignette.

Look how washed out the skin tone is in the face of my grandchild. There is no detail and no texture at all.
This was an impulsive, happy snap taken and no setup was done. (Crappy BG. I can remove the tile grout in the BG if I wish but since it is a crappy shot I won't bother.)

Andre - The look (no shadow detail in the face) is the result of using on-camera flash in your shot. This look is quite typical, This is of course why people are told to get the flash off the camera's hot shoe. The reason for this look in the Mendez shots are related to shooting on an overcast day; with some help from the snow; the light is diffuse, so no shadows.

Similar result, but for totally different reasons.

Doing the same thing outside, on a bright day, especially when you got snow around, makes it easier when you understand how to drag the shutter while using flash. You also need to understand how to use manual WB. (BTW this was shot in JPeg.)

Dragging the shutter is used to control the ambient light impact on the image; for a given ISO, aperture controls the amount of light that the flash contributes and shutter speed controls the amount of ambient light that impacts the image. When I look at your metadata; it looks like you were shooting at synch speed (1/250th); no dragging the shutter in this shot, it appears.

[Manfred M]

Technique which I use is spot metering with single focus point on face (most of the times on eyes). Unless the background becomes extremely bright or extremely dark, I stick to this method.

If you are metering this way, I hope you are also compensating for the fact that the eyes are not equivalent to neutral gray. I am trying to understand why you would be using this method; when I spot meter; I will take a number of readings to understand the light in the scene and will then use that to figure out how to expose.

What I will sometimes do is use the back of my hand, in the light I am shooting in to get a reading, but will compensate +1 to get a more appropriate exposure. Lighter skin requires more compensation, and darker less; but skin tones do vary, so a single "rule" does not work.

[chauncey]

you can virtually guarantee that her technique is likely done in-camera as there seems to be little or no post-processing

Based on my own recent experience with a "professional photographer", I would suggest that, for the
most part, PP is not in their playbook...they don't choose to devote the time.

[ajohnw]

Dragging the shutter - better called syncro sunlight as it gives some idea of what it actually does. A search for that term is likely to come up with a description of what is actually going on. It can be done at any speed within reason even when flash sync was a mere 1/60 eg

http://www.tpub.com/photography1/ph20993.htm

Very commonly used in hammer head wedding photography days but it needs a fair degree of judgement to use effectively. Nothing automatic about it at all.

John
-

[Manfred M]

Based on my own recent experience with a "professional photographer", I would suggest that, for the
most part, PP is not in their playbook...they don't choose to devote the time.

Exactly. As one of the wedding photographers I know quite well told me; "do the math".

If the photographer does 1000 shots during a wedding / reception and he spends 30 seconds a shot, culling, PP and packaging (that includes getting ready to make prints and / or electronic versions for a CD / DVD), that would be well over 8 hours of non-stop work. Lightroom is his "best friend".

Part 2:

If the client ordered large prints (8" x 10" / A4) and larger, these would go into Photoshop for retouching. As the photographer told me; if the client is going to pay $100 and up for a single print, then I will spend 10 minutes of so cleaning it up and doing basic retouching.

[ajohnw]

Based on my own recent experience with a "professional photographer", I would suggest that, for the
most part, PP is not in their playbook...they don't choose to devote the time.

They vary WM. As an example not long after I joined CinC Colin posted a portrait and there was some talk about not being able to pp jpg's. I downloaded it to prove a point and found that the blacks were clipped. Colin had run the shots through a standard preset he uses for shots like that one which automatically clipped blacks at a certain level to minimise noise problems - he posted another one and i recovered a lot of hair detail that was in dense shadow once the detail was there.

I'd guess Colin like service will only be obtained from a one man business that can show good results and it will cost. Forget it if it's a company unless you pay their top rates and some of those wont even have one. It's a problem with social photography - cost. Some one who is capable of doing first class work is going to expect to be paid for it. I also think that the OP is wrong in trying to duplicate some one else's work but if it brings in money fine. It doesn't totally apply in this case but links have been posted to some famous wedding photographers work were apart from the "look" the photography is crap. The answer to compete with that is something like the look and better photography. It will compete eventually but it wont offer people a cheap option.

At least it looks like the OP can organise people, a good start. I did wonder on a few if he/she keeps an eye on backgrounds more in relation to how they will turn out after PP. Also on posed shots sometimes the venue offers better places to shoot in terms of lighting and the background. The latter is probably more important given PP and decent exposures.

I have a lot of 2nd hand wedding photographing experience but the person concerned wasn't totally dependent on that sort of work for income. That must be tough. As money came in from elsewhere it allowed him to up his prices for social work and people paid for the standard of work he produced. That aspect has to be a fact of life. A part time job in some other area can help with income.

John
-

[chauncey]

Years ago, just for grins, I served as a second shooter at a wedding. My instructions were simple...
shoot anything except the bride/groom. Took about thirty shots and turned over about ten shots
to the pro after I PP'd them...2 hrs work...he used one image that was mine.

That is no way to make a buck. Giving anesthesia was a lot easier for me.

[arihn]

Thank you all for the feedback. I will go out into the wild and aim to shoot perfectly, but I do like creative flair and putting shoes off to the side and centering the rings in the photo-total personal choice. The first step in shooting is really, and honestly how you all suggest: do the math. I am going to research more threads, and follow some of your suggestions. Again, I only shoot raw (I think some people may have skipped that post). I did like the coloring in on the photo of the baby. btw. I am struggling with many difficulties with being a self-taught photographer and I am finding this site very useful. Cheers.

[Manfred M]

I did like the coloring in on the photo of the baby. btw. I am struggling with many difficulties with being a self-taught photographer and I am finding this site very useful.

That does explain some of your comments and questions; I had been wondering about if that is the case.

By self-taught, does this mean you just go out and shoot, or does this mean you are reading books on photographic techniques or are watching online tutorials?

Part of the issue of being self-taught is that it is often quite difficult to get feedback on your work, as you are doing all the judging of it and doing so in a bit of a vacuum, with little or no external critique. The same issue goes for both the technical and artistic parts of photography (i.e. you don't know what you don't know). The two issues with your images that Bill pointed out in Post #18 fall into this category, on the technical side.

It's a bit difficult to separate the technical from the artistic (compositional) side, but in reading some of the other posts, a number of the members don't agree with a couple of your compositional choices; the flat lighting and the cool tones. Most people tend to prefer people to have a slightly warmer look to them (i.e. even a touch warmer than neutral). Flat lighting is also generally not desirable as it is not viewed as flattering and tends to look amateurish (often because amateurs will use on-camera flash, which produces this style of lighting). Shadows that help define and contour a face tends to be viewed as being "better" and more "professional" lighting.

Perhaps most importantly of all, when doing this for money, it is important to understand what other people like in images, rather than following your own tastes. I expect you are trying to attract a paying clientele, so the service you are providing needs to meet what their expectations.

[William W]

(My bold & underline for emphasis)

Based on my own recent experience with a "professional photographer", I would suggest that, for the most part, PP is not in their playbook...they don't choose to devote the time.

And -

Exactly. As one of the wedding photographers I know quite well told me; "do the math". If the photographer does 1000 shots during a wedding / reception and he spends 30 seconds a shot, culling, PP and packaging (that includes getting ready to make prints and / or electronic versions for a CD / DVD), that would be well over 8 hours of non-stop work. Lightroom is his "best friend". If the client ordered large prints (8" x 10" / A4) and larger, these would go into Photoshop for retouching. As the photographer told me; if the client is going to pay $100 and up for a single print, then I will spend 10 minutes of so cleaning it up and doing basic retouching.

That is “choosing to allocate time” [for reasons] – it is NOT – “not choosing to devote the time”

There is a difference. The point being - the Professional is active in 'making a choice' and not derelict in 'not choosing'.

WW

[arihn]

Self-taught: reading AND shooting (doing). It would make no sense to learn without the other. In fact, there have been very helpful hints and lessons from everyone in the group (pretty much this has been more helpful of a thread than any I've been a part of before). Anyone who is critical is only being helpful.

[chauncey]

That is “choosing to allocate time” [for reasons] – it is NOT – “not choosing to devote the time”

Au contraire mon ami...a professional, in the truest sense of the word, does not shortcut his clients...
especially based on convenience.

[William W]

The emoticon means something but I don't know exactly what.

I will address my response to the words written - this is actually a serious subject and is relevant to the topic and content of this thread:

Au contraire mon ami...a professional, in the truest sense of the word, does not shortcut his clients... especially based on convenience.

I disagree.

But I agree that a 'professional' does (should) clearly articulate the product and service that is for sale.

Also it occurs to me that your choice to introduce the emotive phrase "shortcut his clients" is simply spin, to illicit an emotive response and further that has naught to do with a 'professional' making active choices to supply the goods and services which were (or should have been) outlined to the Client.

*

Weddings and Family Portraiture has been the general topic in this thread:

A Professional Wedding Photographer is not "short cutting" his/her clients based on convenience, if he/she supplies batched images through Lightroom - additionally there is great skill required to shoot in lighting batches to allow that batch processing to achieve quality work.

So long as Wedding Client is aware that culling and then basic post processing will be made the disc of 500 images of the 4 hour Wedding Coverage - AND - the Client (if they ask) has the opportunity to view a reasonable resemblance of the quality and consistency of the Photographer's work . . .

Then Shooting / Culling / Lightroom batch / ripping 500 images to disc / Supply to Client is no less "professional" than (as one example) for me to shoot a Portrait Sitting taking four hours and supply six, extensively "hand finished" images for the customer's selection.

There is, however a difference in both product and also the service being offered and purchased.

And probably there will be a difference in price, too.

There might also be a difference in the quality of the work - but each of us can just as 'professional' as the other - and will make active choices as to how to make and supply the goods and services, for the price that we each advertise.

*

It's the same a buying a pie to eat on the run and eating silver service - the pie shop and the restaurant can be equally 'professional' - they are just supplying different products and services.

*

It is actually quite annoying to constantly read and address complaints (not here, but elsewhere) from upset Wedding Clients who feel that they are "short changed" (or to use your term "shortcut") by their Wedding Photographer, when it was the Client themselves, who made the purchase choice essentially based upon price alone.

Additionally the vast majority of the time, when these problems are investigated, it is revealed that the Photographer clearly advertised both the service and the goods that would be provided for that price and also gave quite clear indication of the quality and style of the work (by examples) and skill level and outline of experience, (by way of biography).

That might better explain why I particularly take issue and disagree with you on the point alluding to clients, by default always being "shortcut"

You might choose to keep you viewpoint that within the definition of “professional” it then follows that every "professional" should provide always an extensively Post Produced Image to their Clients that's obviously your choice to hold what ever view you want. On that point I disagree and for the reasons given. So on that we might need to agree to disagree

However, you might also consider to choose not to use emotive words which suggest that it is general fact that Professional Photographers "shortcut" their Clients based on their own convenience when those Photographers choose to not to supply extensive post production to all their work.

It is my opinion that by choosing emotive language it just adds to an area of unwarranted disdain of the Photography Profession, which is an epidemic amongst various subsets of Wedding and Portrait Clientele. That does not forward the conversation of this thread. (Note Post #24 was taken as a serious comment to forward the conversation of the thread)

Also emotive language comments simply deflect from addressing two problems (not all, but two) that do exist:

1. Clients not taking responsibility for their purchases - I.E. not taking the time to review and assess exactly what it is that they will be buying.

2. What is being offered for sale not being well articulated, by the Photographer.

WW

[chauncey]

Consider a court case that I was involved in...one attorney goes the extra mile for that client, taking
the time to thoroughly investigate the entire gamut of issues...the other attorney shortcuts by not
doing all the investigation, thereby losing the case for that client. Which is the true professional?

IMHO, not doing the very best that you can does not meet the definition of a true professional.

[William W]

Totally different. it occurs as a silly analogy in respect to this thread's conversation and topic.

Might as well use Physicians, An Anæsthetist for example – his interrogation of all possible allergies and side-effects for every individual patient might save a life. I agree.

Photographers are selling goods and services in a different class/type of good and service - like the pie shop and the restaurant analogy: and it is then the Client who chooses what they want to buy.

If you wish to remove the word 'professional' as defined by yourself, to describe the Photographer, then that's fine by me - as this, it seems is, what you really wish to debate and the point that you wish to make.

WW

[D L]

Au contraire mon ami...a professional, in the truest sense of the word, does not shortcut his clients...
especially based on convenience.

I would suggest that in most professions, the professional always "shortcuts" the client.
Where the time/work/resources input don't add at least an equal amount of value to the client, either the professional is short changing themselves, or adding significant and unwanted cost to the client.

In your attorney analogy, I would suggest one of them is incompetent, one is competent. I agree that one would not fall into your classification of professional (although they might still get paid).

However, continuing that analogy, I would like a competent attorney that can spend the minimum amount of time on my case, and get it resolved in the quickest amount of time. They charge by the quarter hour so if there are (legal) "short cuts" that won't affect the outcome of the case, I'd be more than happy for them to take those "short cuts". Less time and money out of pocket for the same result.

You can argue how much value to the client re-touching of every photo from a wedding adds. I guess the professional wedding photographer would have to work that out, quote the client accordingly to make a profit and see how profitable their business is. Not something I have to worry about

The true perfectionist has very few options in the business world.

Does this post help the OP? Probably not. No offence if a moderator wants to delete.

[AB26]

Andre - The look (no shadow detail in the face) is the result of using on-camera flash in your shot.

The effect was possible due to using a diffuser, bouncing the flash in the right direction with an on camera SB80DX (no iTTL function).

This look is quite typical,

Wrong!
With HARSH shadow in the BG, YES!
In the shot there is NO shadow at all. None, no shadow cast by the bottle the hands the hair or the head.
NOT TYPICAL of this kind of on camera flash shot.

This is of course why people are told to get the flash off the camera's hot shoe.

To tell people that is hogwash. Nobody HAS to go off camera with flash to get a desired result. That hot shoe flash can render great results for those whom know how to use it.

The reason for this look in the Mendez shots are related to shooting on an overcast day; with some help from the snow; the light is diffuse, so no shadows.

The Mendez look is most likely from using flash.
When shooting outside in bright conditions it is easier to get the “washed out” effect when using flash.

Similar result, but for totally different reasons.

What might the reasons be?

Dragging the shutter is used to control the ambient light impact on the image; for a given ISO,

The object of dragging the shutter is to BALANCE ambient light with flash.

............aperture controls the amount of light that the flash contributes and shutter speed controls the amount of ambient light that impacts the image.

Wrong again!
There are four factors controlling the amount of light the flash will contribute:
1. Flash output
2. Distance to subject
3. ISO
4. and Aperture

When I look at your metadata; it looks like you were shooting at synch speed (1/250th); no dragging the shutter in this shot, it appears.

Did I say I was using the technique in the posted shot? NO I DID NOT! You make assumptions and that is the mother of all...............
Do you know why I used XSync speed?

[William W]

In this shot I used flash and bumped the ISO. . .[specifically linked to by the author] . . . Doing the same thing outside, on a bright day, especially when you got snow around, makes it easier when you understand how to drag the shutter while using flash.

Firstly - it is virtually impossible to drag the shutter when shooting in a bright day and in the snow.

The mathematics to support this statement are below:

1. The typical EV of a "bright day" is EV = 15 (Typical Exposure will adhere to the F/16 Rule)

2. In a snow scene on a bright day, the EV is typically between EV = 16 and EV =17

3. The typical maximum Flash Sync of a DSLR is about 1/200s~1/250s

4. The typical Minimum Aperture of most lenses is F/22

5. The typical ISO floor of Digital Cameras is ISO100

6. The typical Maximum Working Distance of most POWERFUL Portable Hot Shoe Flash Units (at ISO100 and F/16) is about 10ft~12ft (e.g. Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT @ F/16 @ ISO 100 MWD = 12ft.) – at F/22 that MWD will decrease to about 9ft MAXIMUM.

7. In a snow scene, a typical suitable AMBIENT Exposure (that is a typical exposure that will be suitable for EV = 17), would be:
F/22 @ 1/200s @ ISO100 (i.e. two stops, stopped down from the F/16 Rule)

*

OUTCOME:

Note now, that in this “snow scene” on a “bright day” we are already at the LIMIT of:

a. the typical FLASH SYNC SPEED

b. the typical MINIMUM APERTURE

c. the typical ISO Floor

d. we only have a MAXIMUM of 10ft of Flash Working Distance

*

So these facts beg the question: how do we drag the shutter?

That to say: HOW do we use a SLOWER SHUTTER SPEED? ? ?

We have NO ISO to trade for a slower Shutter Speed.

We have NO Aperture to trade for a slower Shutter Speed.

Even if we had ISO50 - AND - also F/32 available to use, we would only be at 1/50s for our Shutter Speed, which is not very much of a drag at all - and note that closing the Aperture to F/32, we will be at a MWD for the Flash of about 6ft, which is next to useless for much Portraiture.

*

Moreover, the statement that we should INCREASE the ISO in this particular shooting scenario and that will allow us to be more capable to "drag the shutter" - is simply: nonsense.

WW

[AB26]

7. In a snow scene, a typical suitable AMBIENT Exposure (that is a typical exposure that will be suitable for EV = 17), would be:
F/22 @ 1/200s @ ISO100 (i.e. two stops, stopped down from the F/16 Rule)

Bill,
You are pulling the dam from under the duck!
EV 17? Maybe EV14 (if that high) will be more realistic for the Mendes images.
EV17 = ISO100, 1/250 at f22 not 1/200sec.

we would only be at 1/50s for our Shutter Speed, which is not very much of a drag at all -

You need not have a shutter speed of slower than 1/50sec to be “dragging the shutter”. The shutter can be “dragged” at any shutter speed slower than Xsync. The object is to correctly expose for the BG and then balance ambient light with flash light. You can even overexpose the subject by using to much flash power or moving in closer to the subject.

Moreover, the statement that we should INCREASE the ISO in this particular shooting scenario and that will allow us to be more capable to "drag the shutter" - is simply: nonsense.

WW

Who suggested that? You!
Once you have mastered the technique of “dragging the shutter” you will not make a statement like that.

PS. There is a difference between a bright day and a sunny day. You can have a very bright day without sunshine, like it is in Johannesburg at the moment.