DSLRUsers.com

In late December I'll be shooting at a kindergarten Christmas party. I'm not sure which building it will be in, but both are very wide, with high ceilings. The shoot will be between 2:30 and 5pm, and I don't know how much natural light will make it through the windows, especially given that the weather here in Taiwan has turned and it's very likely to be overcast or raining outside. Please note that the following shots are not professional, they're all candids I've taken from day to day and on special occasions. I don't even charge for them, I usually just hand them out to the parents on CDs. But I would really like to lift my game, as some of the parents would be happy to pay for good quality photos, and I would like to supply them. Some of my experiments in a more professional presentation are here (admittedly still rather amateurish).

I usually shoot vertical bounce with an SB800 (camera is a D80), but when I need to pull back wide or zoom in close at range, I find the light drops chronically short, and I end up with dark shadows in the background and horrible things happening to colour.

Here are some reference shots. These were taken in the evening in one of the buildings (ISO 500-640).



Colour balance isn't good, and you can see the light dropping right off after the front row. Let's turn around and shoot the kids and see what happens.



Pretty horrible. The two nearest kids are slightly overexposed, one or two kids in the middle are probably close to ok, and the rest are in shadow. Rear wall looks dark and grungy.



Same again. Anything past the front row is a gamble. Top right corner is in shadow again. Getting close up, I have a lot more fun.



But that's not a zoom at range, that's physically close. Zooming in at range, I lose light fast.



Now here's the same building in the early afternoon, with plenty of light coming through the windows. These were all ISO 320.

Closeups are fine, even at range.





Background lighting through the windows is a real help.



Now here's the other building (all these were ISO 500-640). Closeups are fine in close physical proximity.





But it's wide and high, and swallows light. The background here just doesn't even get touched by my ceiling bounced SB800.





On sunny days I get a real boost from the natural light, but note the contrast between the brightly illuminated right side and the inadequately lit left hand side, with the left already darkening into shadow.



There are limits to what I can do by simply bumping up the ISO. I prefer to stay inside 640 if possible, and shoot between 320 and 500 by preference. I can do this at range with ISO 320, but not with 800 (it just goes all mushy).

Of course I know one of the problems is that I'm not using fast glass. This is my only lens, which starts at 3.5 and leaps eagerly forward through the f stops as soon as I start to zoom. At present faster glass is not an option, and there's no such thing as a fast 28-200mm or similar zoom unless I spend a lot more money than I have. I am thinking of setting up a pair of SB600s on a tripod thus (those of you who haven't seen Al Jacobs' products before, you have now), each strobe powered by a Tuxedo, and triggered from the on camera SB800. I already use a Tuxedo for my SB800, and I can thoroughly recommend them.

The questions are:

* Where to put them so that they fill out the background without getting in shot?

* Bounce flash, umbrella, or softbox?

* Both pointing the same way, or in two different directions?

* Or should I be doing something else entirely?

Sorry this is a long post, but I've been taking shots in these locations for over a year now and I am increasingly determined to try and get it right since I am not managing them well. I need to overhaul my technique, and I need some advice on how to do that. Thanks for any suggestions.

I am no expert but would suggest,

1. Hire a faster lens for this occasion; F2.8 or 1.8 maximum aperture
2. Maybe try a shoot through umbrella as a directional key light and a bare flash as fill.
3. Use color correcting gels or switch off the fluoro lights

If you haven't already, check out Strobist; strobist.blogspot.com

Hope this helps but I am sure other more experienced people in the forum may be of more help.

Woosh. That's lot of photos posted.

The way I see it, you have two issues:
1. White balance is a bit all over the place
2. Light fall off as you gt further from the light source.

#2 is always an issue with flash. THey are a small intense source of light. Basic physics means that intensity will reduce rapidly with distance (Technically called the inverse cube law.). The only way around this is to increase the number of lights. or the absolute distance so that slight changes in distance are just that as a proportion of the total distance to the light source (i.e. use the sun) You have already said that is not an option. so you need to go with number of lights. Using only 2 or 3 to light that area evenly will always be problematic though.

#1 is partly because you have flourescents in the mix, but mostly because you have multiple sources of light with different characteristics. You could turn off the overhead lighting. Problematic. Or you could use it and turn off the Flash. The room looks well lit. Perhaps you could use the room lighting only. Do a white balance test in advance (Shoot a white card, then adjust the WB so it IS white) and then use the results either in camera ( can your camera do a preset WB?) or in post (Shoot RAW). This assumes that all the bulbs in the ceiling are the same type - generally, but not always, true in a commercial setting. If they are not, it may be worthwhile changing a few so they all match.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm going to see if I can find out tomorrow which building we'll be using. If it's the rented building, then changing the lights is going to be out of the question. If it's the school building, changing the lights might still be out of the question. But tomorrow I'll grab a white card and take some shots in the school building (with and without flash), and see what it looks like.

I've been thinking about lens choice as well. Would it be worth eschewing a zoom and instead investing in an 85mm 1.8D (which I would use for portraits later anyway), or a 135mm 2.8?

Check out the full Nikon's CLS - speed of light video which shows in one section shooting a group photo in a large room with 2x SB800's from memory...

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/10/ni ... ovies.html

Something every SB owner should check out!

Jonathan

Thanks, that was a very useful video. I took some experimental lighting shots today, after I discovered which building we'll be using (we'll be using the one which is easier to manage, thankfully).

As it happens, I stopped off today at a mate's place (another avid photographer, far better equipped than myself), and discussed the situation with him. He immediately offered me his SB800 to use along with mine, and also insisted that I use his 24-70 2.8D. He gave me a play with it today to see what it was like. Wow. That's the first time I've used AFS. Amazing. At first I couldn't figure out why everything I pointed the lens at was already in focus, regardless of the distance, and then I realised that the lens was actually focusing, just so fast and so quiet I could barely notice.

I have since discovered, after reading some reviews (not simply Big Ken's), that this is a well regarded lens which should prove extremely useful in this particular situation. I look forward to using it.

Fortigurn wrote:As it happens, I stopped off today at a mate's place (another avid photographer, far better equipped than myself), and discussed the situation with him. He immediately offered me his SB800 to use along with mine, and also insisted that I use his 24-70 2.8D. He gave me a play with it today to see what it was like. Wow. That's the first time I've used AFS. Amazing. At first I couldn't figure out why everything I pointed the lens at was already in focus, regardless of the distance, and then I realised that the lens was actually focusing, just so fast and so quiet I could barely notice.

I have since discovered, after reading some reviews (not simply Big Ken's), that this is a well regarded lens which should prove extremely useful in this particular situation. I look forward to using it.

You mean the AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G (it lacks a aperture ring - hence is a G lens) I own this lens, and it is beautiful! I love it and am sure that you will enjoy using it as well.