Troublesome pix in the setting sun

adbsgicom

Ignore the forced smiles and some of the softness, what I'm trying to figure out is how one best uses that 'magical light' around sunset that just seems to give me fits. My daughter is a huge squinter, so perhaps that eliminates a whole raft of potential shots for her since once the sun gets to 90-degrees to her face the eyes go shut. These were taken before I started learning here, but are illustrative of general issues I seem to have near the golden hour. I've been following couple of posts in the People forum about balancing the flash color, but this is more about angles (or at least so it seems).

Using the sun as a hair light seems to work okay. No flash in this shot, just had to bring up the exposure a tiny bit, and push the WB a bunch to the yellow/magenta since her face started off very blue.



This is SOOC: So the blue is because her face is effectively in the shade. What is considered the right thing to do here for processing? Is this a shade shot so the WB should move way over to the orange side and then her hair becomes much more firey? The second shot seems too warm (5700K/+5) but bumping it down seems almost like a knife's edge to it feeling blue. I think it is how her hair influences the perception of her face. Does one have to get creative with how the color balance is applied across the image here?






This is SOOC. I now her pose is all wrong (too squared). The shadows stink and the shadow line is really hard. If she turned any more into the sun, she would have had little slits for eyes. Is this where you fill flash with a gel'ed flash to try to cover the shadows on both halves of her face, or do you try to time opening her eyes and clicking the shutter? This seems to be in the area of where that wonderful light would be at its best use.



Thank you for your time and feedback.

B Rock

I've always been under the perception that you shoot in open shade in these situations. By using foliage as shade you get hot spots throughout that make it hard to expose for each section as well as balance the colors correctly.

The first shot does not look too bad to me. The hair is slightly overexposed but if you exposed for the hair I think the face would be too dark. I wish she was turned more so you could see more of her eyes but I think your more worried about light then poses!

I like the second picture a lot. As far as how to balance it SOOC that is difficult for me to answer. In this situation I find myself opening two versions of the raw file and adjusting color for specific parts of the image. You can then overlay them in photoshop and erase certain portions of each image to get the correct color balance.

As for the third photo, I don't know what to tell you here. Possibly a reflector on camera left would help open up those shadows.

I played with the second one a bit. Hope you don't mind. It is in an unlisted gallery on my smugmug. If you want me to take it down just let me know!

adbsgicom

Was your edit with the dual-adjust flow you were talking about?

There were taken in a fairly open space on top of a high-point in Austin back in February. So once you move into full shade the color of the light will be a bit different relative to mid-day, but how does the angle of the sun's rays play into creating shadow and contrast in that case?

Also on the third its really more of a question of what people do with this light. If the sun fills the role of a key light, she's blinded or squinting. If I move into shade, what is physically different about the light in that shade other than it won't be quite as blue. If the color is the only difference, doesn't it all come out in wash once you set the WB?

Thanks.

B Rock

The shot I posted is what I was talking about yes. I layered both shots you posted, painted away parts to reveal the best colors. Then I popped it a bit and used the history brush to bring the hair back to a more neutral blonde.

Your other questions are probably best answered by someone with more experience. I understand your issues but don't have an answer haha. I've been reading as much as possible to help myself and haven't found the answer to these types of issues. I end up having to spend lots of time in post production fixing issues like these. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can chime in and give us an answer!

Halite

It seems in all these examples that while the sun is heading toward the horizon, it's still high enough above the horizon that the light is still full, undiffused sun--more golden than noonday, but still kinda harsh, don't you think? As a result, as you pointed out, the light is pretty contrasty and potentially unflattering. To counteract this effect, the light has to be diffused or balanced.

The simplest way to diffuse the "magic hour" light is to wait until the sun has moved lower so that it is diffused by the horizon. Thus the magic hour is more like the magic 15 or 20 minutes--short but sweet! Otherwise, move your subject into a spot where some foliage or something provides a bit of diffusion--not necessarily full shade, but slightly dappled light could be nice.

To balance the light either a reflector or a flash can do the job. Be careful with the type of reflector. I've found that with strong sun a metallic reflector can bounce light that is harsh enough to make your model squint as badly as if she were looking straight into the sunlight. White fabric is probably best here, but even standing near a light colored wall can help to fill in shadows.

As far as flash, I think you've been following the other threads where this has recently been discussed. So I won't repeat what's been said there. The only thing I'll say is that how we deal with the color temperature of light is a matter of personal taste or artistic style. Play around with your flash with and without various gels. Also, muck around with the white balance settings across the whole image or selectively with masks. As you do this, you will think less about formulas and standardized approaches and more about what you could achieve artistically in a given situation. And when you find something you like, try to remember what you did so you can repeat it (I learned to take notes because I've been oh too forgetful in this regards sometimes)!

adbsgicom

Thanks Halite. Now that sunset isn't 8pm and its not still over 100 degrees at sunset, I'll be able to coax my model out for sunset shooting. The 15 minute window you are referring to, is that just before the sun goes down, or that little window where the sun is down, but there is a ton of glow still? I'm assuming the former.

Halite

adbsgicom wrote:

Thanks Halite. Now that sunset isn't 8pm and its not still over 100 degrees at sunset, I'll be able to coax my model out for sunset shooting. The 15 minute window you are referring to, is that just before the sun goes down, or that little window where the sun is down, but there is a ton of glow still? I'm assuming the former.

The window is right as the sun is hitting the horizon until it is below. You can get some really nice images with the sun no longer visible, especially if you introduce flash.

Another random note when you're playing with flashes and gels that hasn't been discussed in these recent threads: look at how the intensity of the color output of a given gel varies tremendously based on the strength of the flash setting. It also changes based on how tightly you put the gel on the flashhead. These effects can work for or against your intentions. You just have to be aware they happen and how to control them to achieve your goals.

divamum

Only just saw this thread, Andrew (and thanks for your pm).

:lurk

angevin1

Halite wrote:

The only thing I'll say is that how we deal with the color temperature of light is a matter of personal taste or artistic style. Play around with your flash with and without various gels.

Yep! The issues I see in your above photos is:

1. Light too harsh

2. no flash.

And the only issue I ever really run in to shooting this scene is getting a scrim for my lens in place ( to kill the orbs). I regularly shoot at one to two hours before sunset, I'd prefer a bit later, my clients don't.

I have a huge tendency to agree with Halites suggestion that it all is a matter of taste: light, lighting and processing. I started subscribing to Vanity Fair, just to see different takes on all of the above. And you can see that every imaginable (supposed) faux-pas is regularly put to use in advertisements.

taste...

LKN Dave

Interesting Article on sunset portraits.
I don't know if this will help, but there is an interesting article at the strobist.com

adbsgicom

LKN Dave wrote:

I don't know if this will help, but there is an interesting article at the strobist.com

Thanks for the link. I guess it is an artifact of the manual settings on the strobes that he is waiting for the afterglow to come to the right value. Seems you can nominally have the TTL do the stobe strength and use the FEC as necessary to set the sunset exposure independently (at least on Canon you can). I'll have to see if he ever did the TTL method that he indicated he was going to do.

Still useful data.
Thanks!

Halite

adbsgicom wrote:

Thanks for the link. I guess it is an artifact of the manual settings on the strobes that he is waiting for the afterglow to come to the right value. Seems you can nominally have the TTL do the stobe strength and use the FEC as necessary to set the sunset exposure independently (at least on Canon you can). I'll have to see if he ever did the TTL method that he indicated he was going to do.

Still useful data.
Thanks!

He's waiting for the afterglow to come to a value where the subject is correctly exposed at FULL POWER by the speedlight without the sky in the background blowing out from overexposure. This is based on the limitations of the relatively low light output of a speedlight versus the power of the sun. If the photographer were using several speedlights in this situation, or a big studio setup, then he/she would be able to balance the light on the subject while keeping the exposure of the background down at a level where the sunset is nicely saturated.

adbsgicom

Halite wrote:

He's waiting for the afterglow to come to a value where the subject is correctly exposed at FULL POWER by the speedlight without the sky in the background blowing out from overexposure. This is based on the limitations of the relatively low light output of a speedlight versus the power of the sun. If the photographer were using several speedlights in this situation, or a big studio setup, then he/she would be able to balance the light on the subject while keeping the exposure of the background down at a level where the sunset is nicely saturated.

Ahhh. Okay, I get it. Once the afterglow is down below the Full power, one can keep lowering the power and opening up the aperture to get additional shots after that initial time. Slowly it permeates the thick skull.....

adbsgicom

Ignoring the hot/sweaty/tired kid, and the fact that my DW was annoyed that I was taking one more picture (so this was my one and only shot), I wanted to check out the setting sun back-drop (it amazing how many days in a row one can be totally consumed with other crap when the sun is going down...). I didn't have a gel for the flash, and of course it was sitting right on the hotshoe, but I think it still worked pretty well. Her face is a bit flatter than I'd want it to be (nothing to bounce off of). The evening sky is still blown a bunch, but nothing like I was having trouble with the the hair light turned out very well (IMO). Other thoughts?



f/7.1 ISO 200, 1/200sec 70mm Canon 5Dmk2

rwells

Hey Andrew,

I don't know if your a follower of Neil van Niekerk or not (www.planetneil.com), but if not, you really owe it to yourself to absorb his great info.

I've just finished reading his excellent book, On-Camera Flash - Techniques for Digital Wedding and Portrait Photography

While it's main thrust is using your flash on-camera, his whole thinking process about using flash applies to off-camera flash also. I purchased the book and thought, I'll skim through this and hope I pick-up something from it. While it's easy to turn to most any page and say, yeah, that's not earth shattering info, when you progress through the book, a lot of things start dawning on you. Yep, even some Ah-Ha moments in there.

I must say, I like Neil's line of thinking concerning flash photography better than the mindset I've had. It's a more logical approach than what I've been using.

I'm reading it again to absorb more from it. The first time through, I'd get side-tracked with my mind thinking "Hmmm, if I did it this way in this situation, I could do xxxxxxxx".

Didn't mean to give a book report, but to point you in the right direction for your original requested info.

adbsgicom

rwells wrote:

Hey Andrew,

I don't know if your a follower of Neil van Niekerk or not (www.planetneil.com), but if not, you really owe it to yourself to absorb his great info.

I've just finished reading his excellent book, On-Camera Flash - Techniques for Digital Wedding and Portrait Photography

Yeah, I've read the book, and have been trying to internalize the math so to speak. Usually it ends up something along the lines of oh, wait, almost, damn... But practice turns to reflex. You will notice that the shutter was pegged at 1/200....Though in this case, I could have easily dropped the ISO to 100 w/o over burdening the flash. I need to make a pass-2 on the book once I finish the other one I'm reading to try and get it all to settle in a bit deeper. He's also coming to Austin in November, so I'm going to go to the class for a bit of hand's-on learning and real-time feedback. This will be my first-ever class/lab, so we'll see how that experience goes.