# Lighting question?



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

Okay, so I have a wedding this weekend and it will be my normal style and lighting situation except for one request I had from the mother of the bride today. 
At the reception venue there is this massive, yet really beautiful, Christmas tree that is fully lit and decorated and the MOTB asked if we could take a couple of family pictures by this tree. 
The reception hall will not have very much light at this time because we will be into the reception at this time, so just the soft ambient lighting from the main lights and then the lights that the Christmas tree will put off. I want to keep it a warm Christmas feel, (very close knit family) and play off of the glow the tree puts off. I don't care about WB, catchlights, and all the jazz. This is more of a sentimental type thing. How would you achieve this look with a group of about 5-6? Would I need maybe one speedlight just to fill? Thoughts?


----------



## JAC526 (Nov 29, 2012)

I love the x-mas light bokeh balls as a background.  Could you use FP sync for the flash thereby allowing you to shoot at a wide aperture?

I think that would be nice.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 29, 2012)

I would think that one gelled & diffused speedlight on low power (<1/16) would work nicely.  Adust so that you can use a slow shutter speed (1/60 - 1/45) to take maximum advantage of ambient and go for it.


----------



## MK3Brent (Nov 29, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> I love the x-mas light bokeh balls as a background.  Could you use FP sync for the flash thereby allowing you to shoot at a wide aperture?
> 
> I think that would be nice.


Careful though, very easy to have OOF people with shallow d.o.f


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 29, 2012)

You're shooting a wedding... and asking about lighting? Seriously?


----------



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

tirediron said:


> I would think that one gelled & diffused speedlight on low power (<1/16) would work nicely.  Adust so that you can use a slow shutter speed (1/60 - 1/45) to take maximum advantage of ambient and go for it.



Yeah. I was thinking for sure low power and one speed light possible two depending on how dark it will really get by that time.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> You're shooting a wedding... and asking about lighting? Seriously?



Yep! Seriously.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 29, 2012)

kathythorson said:


> Yep! Seriously.




Wow.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 29, 2012)

You should do at least one shot that everyone expects.....










And then take one that's not expected..... the stuff you have to work with, herding cats.







They'll give a laugh out of it.



Shot with a hotshoe mounted SB-800 bounced off the ceiling.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 29, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Yep! Seriously.
> ...


In fairness to the OP, group portraits with a Christmas tree as key light are NOT the norm in my wedding experience.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 29, 2012)

tirediron said:


> In fairness to the OP, group portraits with a Christmas tree as key light are NOT the norm in my wedding experience.



Norm or not, a paid "professional" shouldn't have to ask such a basic question. 

Put the people in front, put a fill flash on an umbrella, and use a low shutter speed.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

tirediron said:


> ChristopherCoy said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



Thanks tirediron.  Yes, this isn't my norm either so that is why I asked.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Nov 29, 2012)

tell them to be really still, put the camera on a tripod or brace it against something (table, chair, etc.).  Shoot low shutter like 1/10 and use lowest ISO you can.

OR

On camera flash geled and bounced.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > In fairness to the OP, group portraits with a Christmas tree as key light are NOT the norm in my wedding experience.
> ...



Actually, there are many ways to go about this shot Chris. I don't want it to look like a run of the mill group portrait in front of a tree. I can think of many ways to do this shot w/o asking on a forum, BUT I asked for input to see if anyone had any creative ideas that might add to my vision. I would have got this shot with or w/o the help of the forum, but I value the input from the members here. Did you need anything else from me, because I am actually booked through September of next year with weddings and really don't need your approval unless you would like to take one of my last few openings of 2013.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> tell them to be really still, put the camera on a tripod or brace it against something (table, chair, etc.).  Shoot low shutter like 1/10 and use lowest ISO you can.
> 
> OR
> 
> On camera flash geled and bounced.



Thanks Robin.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 29, 2012)

kathythorson said:


> Actually, there are many ways to go about this shot Chris. I don't want it to look like a run of the mill group portrait in front of a tree. I can think of many ways to do this shot w/o asking on a forum, BUT I asked for input to see if anyone had any creative ideas that might add to my vision. I would have got this shot with or w/o the help of the forum, but I value the input from the members here. Did you need anything else from me, because I am actually booked through September of next year with weddings and really don't need your approval unless you would like to take one of my last few openings of 2013.



No thanks, I know how to light and shoot my own scenes. 

And for clarification, you didn't ask for "creative ideas" that might add to your vision. You asked how to light a group of 5-6 people in front of a Christmas tree for that warm glowing feeling. 

And for the record, your number of bookings doesn't designate your lighting knowledge.


----------



## MOREGONE (Nov 29, 2012)

tirediron said:


> I would think that one gelled & diffused speedlight on low power (<1/16) would work nicely.  Adust so that you can use a slow shutter speed (1/60 - 1/45) to take maximum advantage of ambient and go for it.



When I read gelled, I am thinking of a colored gel. Can you please expand on what this means? Thanks


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 29, 2012)

MOREGONE said:


> When I read gelled, I am thinking of a colored gel. Can you please expand on what this means? Thanks




Colored plastic filters that go over a flash head to change the color or temperature of the light output.

Filters, Diffusers & Gels| B&H Photo Video


----------



## BobSaget (Nov 29, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > In fairness to the OP, group portraits with a Christmas tree as key light are NOT the norm in my wedding experience.
> ...



I don't think it's a good idea for us to try to stifle each other when getting advice from colleagues; especially when specific. I don't know of too many professions that don't benefit from research and reaching out for advice.  I'm in home building and I'm sure we all prefer that I research how to accomplish tasks instead of taking a chance on your structure with a "whatever, I'm a pro" attitude.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 29, 2012)

BobSaget said:


> I'm in home building and I'm sure we all prefer that I research how to accomplish tasks instead of taking a chance on your structure with a "whatever, I'm a pro" attitude.




Speak for yourself. I wouldn't hire anyone who had to ask for instructions first.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2012)

I did a little testing on this six years ago, trying to figure out how to get decent Christmas tree lighting + portrait lighting in a living room setting. I still have two galleries of basically SOOC images up on the web. You can look at the here and see the EXIF info and the SOOC results. ALL of the lights in these sets are MINI-lights...not big, old-school, thumb-sized bulbs, but mini, incandescent bulbs. TODAY, *even brighter mini-LED* bulbs are readily available. But again, I did not have LED bulbs, which in my experience seem much brighter than the mini-incandescent bulbs I used!!!
minilights gallery 1 Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com


First try&#8230;learning...at   minilights gallery 1 Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

 Second try, a little bit different effect: minilights gallery 2 Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

 Keep in mind, these were one- and two-person shots...they were the only two people at home...I wanted the lights to appear "glowing", and "diffused", and "colorful".

First off: the lights looked best when exposed at TUNGSTEN WB....they really,really did, so I set the white balance to Tungsten. The mini-lights are weak, and so need to be exposed at a high-ish ISO, like ISO 400. At a wide f/stop like f/2.8, which captures a lot of light, over the slooooooow shutter speed of 1/30 second. Wide f/stop caused large bokeh balls ONLY when soot from FAR BACK, and *using a long focal length lens to magnify the size* of the lights that were rendered OOF. Think 70-200 zoom lens, wide-open...and on Canon 5D the 70-200/2.8 L-IS USM gives football-shaped, cat's eye bokeh....the Nikkor 70-200 VR (mark I) on an APS-C body gives rounded OOF bokeh balls, due to smaller format, and less mechanical vignetting.

To bring the flash exposure in-line, I used an orange filter, a CTO gelatin taped to the flash. I used the Nikon TN-A1 filter. It did NOT TAKE MUCH flash power to equalize with a slow, wide-aperture, ISO 400 exposure, so the flash was dialed down to like 1/4 power...or maybe even 1/8 power, depending on the flash and the light modifier used. I think if I were to revisit and reprocess the .CR2 or .NEF files from these two tests, I could make them look a lot better, but it's years ago now. I shot the majority on the D2x as I recall, and it is one CRANKY MO-FO on highlight vs shadow exposure...with a newer camera, this would be a lot easier!


----------



## texkam (Nov 30, 2012)

Are you shooting in raw? Shouldn't have to sweat the WB settings. Can certainly be tweaked in post.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 30, 2012)

Here is another gallery showing the HUGE differences in rendering of the lights between the Canon 70-200/2.8 L-IS USM on a full-frame camera, and the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR on a 1.5x body. As you can see, the Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS-USM produced very strong "cat's eye bokeh", which means the OOF points of light were rendered as sort of football-shaped, NON-round shapes. The smaller-sensored Nikon camera, with its corresponding lens, gave ROUNDED circles.

Also, you can see the size of the same minilights on a small coffee-table-sized tree, when shot with focal lengths of 24mm, 35mm, and 200mm, with the 200mm focal length having been used on both FF and on APS-C sensor sizes in the test frames of the Santa Doll. To me, the rendering of the lights looks best when they are BIG!!! I myself think the football-shaped light rendering in the bokeh from the 70-200 Canon on the 5D full-frame looked very unnatural and, well, crappy...but that's just a bias against the cat's eye bokeh shape. I prefer the ROUND look, but others might not care.

Bokeh Test Gallery Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com


----------



## unpopular (Nov 30, 2012)

Derrel - keep in mind that bokeh is affected by the relative distance from the focus point to the background, so working with a 1.5x body may affect how bokeh is rendered at any given magnification.

Bokeh is weird and difficult to really predict how it will behave.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Derrel - this is not a function of the camera, but of relative distance from focus point to background.
> 
> Bokeh is weird and difficult to really predict how it will behave.



Umm...sorry, but it can be a function of the camera, and or the lens, or the lens/camera pairing...look at the photos,dude...simply look at THE PHOTOS. "Mechanical vignetting" can be a problem....the size of the mirror box for example...and also, take a look at the way the Canon lens is constructed...pair up that baffled rear lens structure on the Canon L zoom, with the rear element very deeply-recessed and then a FF sized sensor. This issue is ENTIRELY a function of the camera/lens pairing...as the side-by-side photos show. Look also at the other photos, and the single image shot with the 200 VR at f/2.8.


 

Canon 70-200 at 200mm at f/2.8 on FULL-frame Canon 5D equals "*cat's eye bokeh*" due to mechanical vignetting. Remember, the lens needs to fill a 43mm-diameter circle on a full-frame sensor...

versus Nikon 70-200 on 1.5x D2x at f/2.8 at 200mm= *ROUND bokeh rendering* due to smaller format and no clipping of light either from the rear of the lens OR from the mirror chamber.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 30, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> BobSaget said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in home building and I'm sure we all prefer that I research how to accomplish tasks instead of taking a chance on your structure with a "whatever, I'm a pro" attitude.
> ...



Thank heavens I don't live by your logic. I can't think of anyone who knows everything. And thinking of my other profession, I would have killed alot of people by now if I didn't ask for help in my career up to this point. I am so blessed to be surrounded by people who are willing to share their past experiences with me so I can learn from their mistakes, or even gain from their successes.


----------



## JAC526 (Nov 30, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, there are many ways to go about this shot Chris. I don't want it to look like a run of the mill group portrait in front of a tree. I can think of many ways to do this shot w/o asking on a forum, BUT I asked for input to see if anyone had any creative ideas that might add to my vision. I would have got this shot with or w/o the help of the forum, but I value the input from the members here. Did you need anything else from me, because I am actually booked through September of next year with weddings and really don't need your approval unless you would like to take one of my last few openings of 2013.
> ...



Why do you come into a thread and then insult the OP and add virtually nothing but an unnecessary fight?

Next time just leave the thread alone.  I mean does no one remember the golden rule?


----------



## JAC526 (Nov 30, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I did a little testing on this six years ago, trying to figure out how to get decent Christmas tree lighting + portrait lighting in a living room setting. I still have two galleries of basically SOOC images up on the web. You can look at the here and see the EXIF info and the SOOC results. ALL of the lights in these sets are MINI-lights...not big, old-school, thumb-sized bulbs, but mini, incandescent bulbs. TODAY, *even brighter mini-LED* bulbs are readily available. But again, I did not have LED bulbs, which in my experience seem much brighter than the mini-incandescent bulbs I used!!!
> minilights gallery 1 Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com
> 
> 
> ...



This is basically what I was thinking of in my original post.  Derrel you are the man.


----------



## JAC526 (Nov 30, 2012)

kathythorson said:


> ChristopherCoy said:
> 
> 
> > BobSaget said:
> ...



I think real pro's are the first people who would say they don't know everything and it is very common for them to reach out and ask for help.

I'm a tax accountant.  I deal with retirement plans.  If someone came to me with a question about some other tax related law.....say depreciation recapture I would have to go ask someone or spend some time doing the research.  I don't think photography is any different.  If you don't have firsthand experience with something it just makes sense to ask people who do.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 30, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Here is another gallery showing the HUGE differences in rendering of the lights between the Canon 70-200/2.8 L-IS USM on a full-frame camera, and the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR on a 1.5x body. As you can see, the Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS-USM produced very strong "cat's eye bokeh", which means the OOF points of light were rendered as sort of football-shaped, NON-round shapes. The smaller-sensored Nikon camera, with its corresponding lens, gave ROUNDED circles.
> 
> Also, you can see the size of the same minilights on a small coffee-table-sized tree, when shot with focal lengths of 24mm, 35mm, and 200mm, with the 200mm focal length having been used on both FF and on APS-C sensor sizes in the test frames of the Santa Doll. To me, the rendering of the lights looks best when they are BIG!!! I myself think the football-shaped light rendering in the bokeh from the 70-200 Canon on the 5D full-frame looked very unnatural and, well, crappy...but that's just a bias against the cat's eye bokeh shape. I prefer the ROUND look, but others might not care.
> 
> Bokeh Test Gallery Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com



I agree that the round look so much better than the football shape. I was playing last night with my Christmas tree, I will post my experiment on Monday when my double wedding weekend is over, but it was interesting. I found to get the lights to actually twinkle, like a star, my settings were like f/32, 10 seconds, and iso 1600. So, I might actually do a couple different versions of the tree and see which one I like the best. I will just shoot the family the way I normally would and then put the two together. Thank you all.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 30, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> BobSaget said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in home building and I'm sure we all prefer that I research how to accomplish tasks instead of taking a chance on your structure with a "whatever, I'm a pro" attitude.
> ...


Geezzzz lighten up there Mr. Grumpy-Pants!  I've been shooting for quite a few years, and like to think that I'm reasonably handy with a camera and light, but when I come up against a new situation, or something I've not done before, I will almost certainly have a plan in mind, but I'll also damn sure ask some others who might have done something similar for their thoughts.


----------



## KmH (Nov 30, 2012)

MOREGONE said:


> When I read gelled, I am thinking of a colored gel. Can you please expand on what this means? Thanks


Strobe lights (flash) have a color temperature that is about the same as sunlight.

When ambient light in a strobed light scene is not suppressed by using a faster shutter speed, differing light source color temperatures for flash and ambient light (mixed lighting) can conflict causing nearly un-fixable color casts.
Gelling the flash unit to match the color temperature of the ambient light source eliminates any light source color temperature conflicts. One should be sure and set the camera's white balance for the color temperature of the light used, use a gray card, and/or set a custom white balance.

For color correction use, gels have a Kelvin° color temperature specification. For example, to match the ambient light when using strobed light, one would use a sunlight-to-tungsten or a sunlight-to-flourescent gel.

A sunlight to tungsten gel would be orangeish in color, and is known as a CTO gel. To go the other way, tungsten to sunlight, you use a bluish gel known as a CTB gel.

Light Controls - Gels, an Introduction...


----------



## Derrel (Nov 30, 2012)

YEARS ago I shot a few Christmas lights shots using the very tres chic *cross-star filter*...surely you remember those (along with M.C. Hammer pants, Pat Benatar, Survivor, Ronald Reagan as President, when MTV played MUSIC videos,etc,etc). Other devices that can create a diffused effect and cross-stars are things like window screen material held in front of the lens. Shooting at a small f/stop like f/16 or f/22 or f/32 is going to make the Christmas tree lights appear pretty weak in terms of color, but it can create "starburst effects". IF that is the desired effect, I think a cross-star filter might be another way to get a similar, yet different, effect reasonably easily.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 30, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Umm...sorry, but it can be a function of the camera, and or the lens, or the lens/camera pairing




misread your OP and the point you were making. i tried to go back and correct, but unfortunately you already responded.


----------



## MOREGONE (Nov 30, 2012)

KmH said:


> MOREGONE said:
> 
> 
> > When I read gelled, I am thinking of a colored gel. Can you please expand on what this means? Thanks
> ...



Thanks. Up until I read your response, I took gels to be something that added an effect. I have a better understanding of their use to create better images, not just creative ones. Thank you.


----------



## MK3Brent (Nov 30, 2012)

MOREGONE said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > MOREGONE said:
> ...



Watch some videos from Joe McNally for some examples of WB effects with OCF and gels:

Joe McNally - Control of Color (1/2) - YouTube


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Dec 1, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> Why do you come into a thread and then insult the OP and add virtually nothing but an unnecessary fight?
> 
> Next time just leave the thread alone.  I mean does no one remember the golden rule?




You know what, you are completely right. I was wrong to post what I did. I apologize to everyone and especially to Kathy for my rude behavior.


----------

