Practicing Outdoor Flash Portraits - Advice Requested

[Braineack]

I FINALLY convinced my wife to pose for me because I have a few people interested in outdoor portraits so I wanted to go out and test my method before I do them.

In shade it makes sense to me.

I first took my base meter. I took a meter reading of F/4 at iso 320 and 1/125.


DSC_7418-1 by The Braineack, on Flickr

then I added flash and got a meter reading of just over f/6.3:


DSC_7423-2 by The Braineack, on Flickr

Then I just reposed the flash to model the light and picked a better focal length, and backed off the power a touch:


DSC_7427-3 by The Braineack, on Flickr


boom. great.



Now, where I need a little help...

I had her stand just out of the shade of the trees and put the sun on her back. I metered around f/11 with it just under her chin facing where the camera would be. But that led to a black image. When I metered behind her I got f/5.6 and ended up with this:


DSC_7442-4 by The Braineack, on Flickr

but when I tried to add flash, I wasn't sure where I'd want my meter to read and I was pretty much just doing guess and check method at that point, only ended up with this:


DSC_7445-5 by The Braineack, on Flickr

not entirely happy with it, the flash really didn't fill in, it's obvious I needed more.

What's a good methodology I can use to nail this sort of shot?

 

[W.Fovall]

I use f4 at 200mm at iso100-200 at 1/250th sec with umbrella and speedlight off camera. set to 1/2 power manually in front and above subject I always keep f/4 and 1/250th and only adjust flash output to get the exposure..

 

[pjaye]

Will be watching this thread. I finally got a decent flash and am so totally lost.

 

[W.Fovall]

I think in that last pic the sun is coming straight down, try again when the sun is further down in the sky. I usually wait tell the sun is low enough for the model to block the sun with her head and her face is completely in shadow then use the flash to fill it in. you cant really over power the sun with the flash.

 

[tirediron]

First of all:

-When you're talking about meter readings after adding flash, are you using a flash meter?

-For the sunlit images, what modifier were you using and where was the light with respect to the model?

-Are you shooting in full manual mode?

 

[Braineack]

I use f4 at 200mm at iso100-200 at 1/250th sec with umbrella and speedlight off camera. set to 1/2 power manually in front and above subject I always keep f/4 and 1/250th and only adjust flash output to get the exposure..

We'll go back outside again in a few hours to try again when the sun's a bit lower. But the idea should still be: take an ambient reading, set the camera, meter the flash until you're getting your f-stop, and then take badass pics. correct?

 

[Braineack]

First of all:

-When you're talking about meter readings after adding flash, are you using a flash meter?

-For the sunlit images, what modifier were you using and where was the light with respect to the model?

-Are you shooting in full manual mode?

yes, using a light meter.

beauty dish. about 45° off to the side, not high enough. For this shot I was having trouble figuring out where to meter ambient. I was shooting towards shaded woods, but she was fully in sun and it was very bright from the direction I was shooting into the sun from. It was getting pretty windy and we called it a day so I could just take a look at the first few.

yes.

 

[Derrel]

Here's how the tonalities map out in monochrome






The main issue I see is the weird colored lighting that results when a lot of the light is filtered through deciduous trees, like oaks and maples...the light is reallllly "green". Eliminating the weird-colored light and eliminating the influence of the mixed lighting consisting of shade + flash shows how these barely-manipulated B&W images are in terms of the flash-to-ambient lighting ratios you achieved. Danged near perfect for the situation, I think.

 

[tirediron]

I use f4 at 200mm at iso100-200 at 1/250th sec with umbrella and speedlight off camera. set to 1/2 power manually in front and above subject I always keep f/4 and 1/250th and only adjust flash output to get the exposure..

We'll go back outside again in a few hours to try again when the sun's a bit lower. But the idea should still be: take an ambient reading, set the camera, meter the flash until you're getting your f-stop, and then take badass pics. correct?

That's the basic idea yes; I generally start by going for the mean subject exposure (face) to be ~1/2 stop over ambient.

 

[W.Fovall]

I have never "taken a reading" I just tell the model to go stand over there and then I set the basics at f4 @ 1/250th iso200 and take a few snaps tell the model is about 2 stops underexposed then turn on the flash at 1/2 power.

I use f4 at 200mm at iso100-200 at 1/250th sec with umbrella and speedlight off camera. set to 1/2 power manually in front and above subject I always keep f/4 and 1/250th and only adjust flash output to get the exposure..

We'll go back outside again in a few hours to try again when the sun's a bit lower. But the idea should still be: take an ambient reading, set the camera, meter the flash until you're getting your f-stop, and then take badass pics. correct?

 

[tirediron]

Here's how the tonalities map out in monochrome ... The main issue I see is the weird colored lighting that results when a lot of the light is filtered through deciduous trees, like oaks and maples...the light is reallllly "green". Eliminating the weird-colored light and eliminating the influence of the mixed lighting consisting of shade + flash shows how these barely-manipulated B&W images are in terms of the flash-to-ambient lighting ratios you achieved. Danged near perfect for the situation, I think.

Good eye Derrel! On the crappy monitor I'm using right now, her skin tones actually look too red.

 

[Braineack]

Here's how the tonalities map out in monochrome ... The main issue I see is the weird colored lighting that results when a lot of the light is filtered through deciduous trees, like oaks and maples...the light is reallllly "green". Eliminating the weird-colored light and eliminating the influence of the mixed lighting consisting of shade + flash shows how these barely-manipulated B&W images are in terms of the flash-to-ambient lighting ratios you achieved. Danged near perfect for the situation, I think.

Good eye Derrel! On the crappy monitor I'm using right now, her skin tones actually look too red.

that's just me. I tend to go really red/warm with my stuff.

Less red:

DSC_7430-Edit-1 by The Braineack, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

Good eye Derrel! On the crappy monitor I'm using right now, her skin tones actually look too red.

She looks lightly sunburned to me, in most of these, but most especially #2 and #3, where she looks, well like all-day-with SPF 24, but still sunburned.

The second to the last shot, the closeup one,I see the "green pollution" as I call it, fringing the sides of her face, and that shot shows a lot of hair blurring in the wind, which looks nice, and just the teeniest eye-dot of flash...the thing about that shot is that the BLURRING on the hair shows us that the vast majority of the exposure is ambient light, not flash. I thought the best way to see the ratio of daylight to flash would be to convert to monochrome, so we could see the tonality, and not have to look at the light coloration.
****
After I posted, within seconds, Braineack posted the above shot in POst #12...she still looks pretty ruddy to me..too sunburned for my taste.

 

[Braineack]

Could be my crappy monitor, she's pale and uses tanner. Look decent on my end...

Round two will happy fairly soon.


even less red:


DSC_7430-Edit-1-2 by The Braineack, on Flickr

 

[Braineack]

Better catch lights.

No sunburn.



Erin Posing for me by The Braineack, on Flickr


and better job using sun as rim:


DSC_7470-2 by The Braineack, on Flickr