# How to get a sun-shiny, illuminated picture like the pros take.. =)



## Lyns06 (Sep 3, 2012)

I'm going to assume that there are many factors in the reply to this questions, but going as basic or as complicated as you like, could you tell me how to get that "illuminated" shot that photographers get? 

I can often see it with my eye, but getting the camera to capture it is another thing. Any advice? Is this more of a camera issue or editing? Thanks!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 3, 2012)

illuminated? Do you mean properly exposed? Why don't you post some links to some photos that exhibit what you are speaking of?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 3, 2012)

Or do you mean that warm sun flared look?


----------



## paigew (Sep 3, 2012)

Both of these are backlit and shot at the 'golden hour'.


----------



## KmH (Sep 3, 2012)

I think the OP means a strongly backlit shot.

To balance the bright back lighting the photographer has to use strobed light in front of the subject (on the shaded side of the subject) so the subject isn't just a silouette.

A pro would use a light meter, or experience to measure/guestimate how much back lighting there is (incident light), and use that info to set the power level of the strobed light (flash).

Someone that doesn't have a light meter or much experience making that kind of a photo can use trial and error and looking at the histogram/photo on the rear LCD to determine an acceptable combination of back and fore lighting.


----------



## Lyns06 (Sep 3, 2012)

That's exactly what I was looking for. The "strong backlit" shot that you're talking about is what I'm aiming for. My problem was that whenever my eye would see the backlight, my camera would the backlight and a silhouette on the subject. 

So, would you suggest I get an external flash? The only flash I have right now is the internal one. If so, what exactly do I look for in one? Any suggestions. 

Any other suggestions for how to get the kind of shot in the images above. The poster said something about the "golden hour;" I'm assuming that is morning and evening? Is this correct? Thanks, guys!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 3, 2012)

Lyns06 said:


> That's exactly what I was looking for. The "strong backlit" shot that you're talking about is what I'm aiming for. My problem was that whenever my eye would see the backlight, my camera would the backlight and a silhouette on the subject.
> 
> So, would you suggest I get an *external flash*? The only flash I have right now is the internal one. If so, what exactly do I look for in one? Any suggestions.
> 
> Any other suggestions for how to get the kind of shot in the images above. The poster said something about the "golden hour;" I'm assuming that is morning and evening? Is this correct? Thanks, guys!



Yes - Off camera flash will produce best results


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 3, 2012)

You should have said FaceBook PRO's (rather than just pro's)... I would have known what you were talking about!  This look is really popular with that ilk!

and yes... Flash is a good idea!


----------



## TamiAz (Sep 3, 2012)

I would do a search on You Tube for videos on off camera flash..You'll find a bunch of information. This is something I'm currently working on.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 3, 2012)

yeah...basic rundown:


----------



## Lyns06 (Sep 4, 2012)

Thanks so much, guys! You're incredibly helpful! And, yes perhaps Facebook Pro.. but I think it's still pretty and leaps and bounds ahead of my work. =)


----------



## Dao (Sep 4, 2012)

A big reflector also help in case like that.


----------



## paigew (Sep 4, 2012)

Lyns06 said:


> Any other suggestions for how to get the kind of shot in the images above. The poster said something about the "golden hour;" I'm assuming that is morning and evening? Is this correct? Thanks, guys!



The images I posted were done without a flash/reflector. I spot metered for the subjects skin. 

In photo#1 my settings were f2.5, ss 1/400, iso 100. In the family shot it was f4; ss 1/250; iso 200. 

The  golden hour refers to the hour after sunrise and before sunset when the  sun is low in the sky providing light that is softer.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Sep 4, 2012)

If the pros are doing it, you can almost bet there is off camera lighting or reflectors supplementing the ambient. It can be done without those however, but from what I've seen mostly with mixed results and the aide of pretty obvious overprocessing in PS, or losing lots of detail in the subject.

YMMV, as will the opinion of many folks you talk to.

My vote is for OCF.


----------



## Lyns06 (Sep 4, 2012)

Thanks! Any direction on the type of OCF? I've not even begun to look at what's out there. Are there any features that are necessary or are they all pretty run-of-the-mill. I would of course look for something nice, but I have no intentions of becoming pro nor do I need equipment of that par. Thanks guys, you're priceless. I've got a feeling I'm going to learn a lot here.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 4, 2012)

ebay has served me extremely well for pocketwizard triggers and elinchrom and profoto brand lights


----------



## skieur (Sep 4, 2012)

Of course, the fast way is to just shoot in backlit portrait scene mode and have the camera pop-up the flash and calculate how much fill flash is necessary and then shoot.

skieur


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 4, 2012)

skieur said:


> Of course, the fast way is to just shoot in backlit portrait scene mode and have the camera pop-up the flash and calculate how much fill flash is necessary and then shoot.
> 
> skieur



Yeah, how does that squelch or add exposure to the background and compensate for the studio lighting adjustments for the subject?  I mean if you're into shooting "auto" modes, I reckon that methodology would work.  

One pop of my light into the Sekonic light meter and i get fstop/ambient settings AND ratio.  And tweak the wheel on the meter and it outputs settings per.

I never ever use my pop-up for anything, wish it wasn't wasting space on my camera =)


----------



## Stradawhovious (Sep 4, 2012)

Lyns06 said:


> Thanks! Any direction on the type of OCF? I've not even begun to look at what's out there. Are there any features that are necessary or are they all pretty run-of-the-mill. I would of course look for something nice, but I have no intentions of becoming pro nor do I need equipment of that par. Thanks guys, you're priceless. I've got a feeling I'm going to learn a lot here.




That's a pretty deep rabbit hole there Alice......

Just sayin.

Try the Strobist: Lighting 101 blog.

Strobist: Lighting 101

WEALTH of useful, practical and easy to understand information..... with practice assignments to boot!


----------



## skieur (Sep 4, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, the fast way is to just shoot in backlit portrait scene mode and have the camera pop-up the flash and calculate how much fill flash is necessary and then shoot.
> ...



The background stays the same exposure-wise when you are shooting outside like in the sample shots and the flash adds just enough light to the front to avoid a silhouette.  Studio lighting when you have more time, lights, and flexibility is a totally different story.


skieur


----------



## pgriz (Sep 4, 2012)

Well, once you know what you're doing, things are pretty basic.  However, getting to that point may take both lots of learning and a bit of equipment ("bit" is somewhat understated).  Quite a bit of learning applies to understanding how to "read" sources of light (primary source, secondary source, etc), and deciding when additional light (from flash(es) or reflectors) is needed and in what proportion.  That's what makes a photo "pop" - the light brings out the best of the subject.  The light colour determines if it is reddish, bluish or neutral, the light intensity determines how much light we have to work with, the light size determines whether the shadows are hard or very soft.  The light direction is also important to determine where the shadows and highlights will appear.  The balance between multiple sources generally determines the dimensionality of the subject relative to the background, and the apparent three-dimensional shape of the subject.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 4, 2012)

skieur said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



yeah, but increasing or decreasing the shutter speed will take the ambient from that "snap shottish" look and then adjusting for the amount of fill will enhance it even more.

But if snapshots like the examples are all we're after here......   I must humbly agree you're right


----------



## paigew (Sep 4, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> But if snapshots like the examples are all we're after here......   I must humbly agree you're right



WOW! Thanks man...

How about somebody else grow a pair and post some example shots for the op? That way she can decide what she likes. Since you guys have so much *cough cough* experience shooting backlit portraits....


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 4, 2012)

paigew said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > But if snapshots like the examples are all we're after here......   I must humbly agree you're right
> ...



I meant no harm, forgive me on my poor selection of words.  i thought those examples were to be* improved*, not use a camera in an auto-mode as was suggested =)


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 4, 2012)

And I'm not a pro, I'm a student learning.

But backlit pics where the background is so bright your entire pic is a  silhouette except what is being hit with a hot light is easily achieved  with a decent light meter.  One pop of the flash and you'll have reading  for both background and subject =)






In  this one i popped the front of the beamer with a 1200 watt Elinchrom  light wide open at grill and front plate, shooting directly into sun and glare on water.  Still  allowed for enough of the bright background's shadow on the car for the  pic to look "not fake" with the studio light.







And this one was a homework assignment self portrait gone bad shooting into hot sun!


----------



## paigew (Sep 4, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



sooo...your saying I shot these in camera auto mode? Those were shot in full manual.

As for your photos, nice snapshots...er...photos that need improvements. I especially love the flash glare on the subjects face (#1)


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 4, 2012)

paigew said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



No I was talking to the guy that suggested an auto mode, I haven't referred to you in auto in any way.

And yeah these are student "snapshots" indeed. And we were in 100 degree hot sweaty FL outdoor sun, yeah there will be a little wet sweat glare here and there with a hot flash my friend =)


----------



## paigew (Sep 4, 2012)

> No I was talking to the guy that suggested an auto mode, I haven't referred to you in auto in any way.
> 
> And yeah these are student "snapshots" indeed. And we were in 100 degree hot sweaty FL outdoor sun, yeah there will be a little wet sweat glare here and there with a hot flash my friend =)



okay thanks for clearing that up. And yes, you made my point here, flash is not always ideal (glare). I hear you about hot/sweaty. Its 100 here today :/


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 4, 2012)

paigew said:


> > No I was talking to the guy that suggested an auto mode, I haven't referred to you in auto in any way.
> >
> > And yeah these are student "snapshots" indeed. And we were in 100 degree hot sweaty FL outdoor sun, yeah there will be a little wet sweat glare here and there with a hot flash my friend =)
> 
> ...



Kewl - all is well and again I meant no harm or to cut anyone nor claiming i take shoot anything close to good pics =)

for me flash/glare was better than blowing out the background or underexposing the subject. wish I'd have kept the no flash images of the same shot, I suspect you'd agree.  I like the challenges of outdoor as much as the studio =)


----------



## paigew (Sep 4, 2012)

I'm sure! Flash definitely has its place.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Sep 4, 2012)

paigew said:


> Flash definitely has its place.



I think hell just froze over.


----------



## paigew (Sep 4, 2012)

Stradawhovious said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > Flash definitely has its place.
> ...




contrary to popular belief I have NEVER ONE TIME said flash = bad; those words were undeservedly put into my 'mouth'.  I myself own a speedlight...and I even (sorta) know how to use it. I rarely do though and am far from an expert. Now if you flash addicts would admit you don't NEED flash for a good image...THEN hell would freeze over.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Sep 4, 2012)

paigew said:


> Now if you flash addicts would admit you don't NEED flash for a good image...THEN hell would freeze over.



contrary to popular belief I have NEVER ONE TIME said you need flash  ALL THE TIME for a good image.

I merely stated that when used effectively, if can be beneficial in most circumstances.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 4, 2012)

paigew said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



You can get good images without flash... just as you can get good images with flash. 

Many of the non-flash shots I see (especially the backlit stuff), including yours.. would be improved by flash, although I know you would never admit that. Especially since you really don't know how to use one (SORTA, right?), and really have no desire to learn how to use it. 

The thing is that being able to shoot either way give you a lot more options on when and how to shoot. Why limit yourself to one, when you can have both? 

I know you have probably missed many shots (or threw them away) due to blown out background, or heavily shadowed faces.... or when it was just too dark to shoot without cranking the ISO to the max,  haven't you? Or will you even admit that?


----------



## paigew (Sep 4, 2012)

I personally do not like the look of outdoor shots using flash. Off camera or on. To me it looks fake and even when actual professionals use it I don't like it. I can appreciate a good OCF image, but it is not my style, and I would NEVER purchase one if I was a client. I have seen plenty of ocf images done in studio or bounced (inside) that do look nice though. 



cgipson1 said:


> I know you have probably missed many shots (or threw them away) due to blown out background, or heavily shadowed faces.... or when it was just too dark to shoot without cranking the ISO to the max,  haven't you? Or will you even admit that?



I have seen photos that you yourself have posted (portraits) that could have benefited by not using flash, but instead repositioning yourself/subject to make better use of the ambient light.



cgipson1 said:


> I know you have probably missed many shots (or threw them away) due to  blown out background, or heavily shadowed faces.... or when it was just  too dark to shoot without cranking the ISO to the max,  haven't you? Or  will you even admit that?



Well, no, not really...I place my subjects in ways that allow me to not NEED flash whenever possible. And actually I have missed more shots using flash than when I don't. (waiting for it to recharge) . Also I like the look of dramatic shadows, and especially in my own personal candids. I do not mind grain/noise and I frequently shoot at very high ISO. I personally feel like it gives images a certain feel/tone. I also do not like drawing attention to myself (shooting) but instead prefer to shoot without my subjects being aware. But that is my personal shooting style.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Sep 4, 2012)

paigew said:


> I have seen photos that you yourself have posted (portraits) that could have benefited by not using flash, _*but instead repositioning yourself/subject to make better use of the ambient light*_.
> 
> .................
> 
> _*I also do not like drawing attention to myself (shooting) but instead prefer to shoot without my subjects being aware*_. But that is my personal shooting style.




So  let me se if I understand this correctly........... you don't want your subjects to know you're shooting photos, yet you take the time to reposition them to take advantage of ambient lighting?

I'm curious as to how you pull this off.

Seriously. 

No foolin'


----------



## paigew (Sep 4, 2012)

Stradawhovious said:


> So  let me se if I understand this correctly........... you don't want your subjects to know you're shooting photos, yet you take the time to reposition them to take advantage of ambient lighting?
> 
> I'm curious as to how you pull this off.
> 
> ...


okay here is what I do complete with examples (because I sincerely dislike it when *people* talk the talk but can't show pics explaining it). Keep in mind these are family snapshots  

I take candids one of two ways. One would be to encourage play in certain areas (with good light). Then I watch and wait until I see the a moment/expression that I deem 'worthy' and shoot. I often set up activities with this in mind...coloring, doll play, eating, if it needs 'set up' it WILL be set up in good light.  It isn't that my subjects don't know I am shooting, but rather my shooting (flash) doesn't interfere with the activities going on. 









The other approach I would have is to position myself in good light so that I am ready to shoot when my (moving) subjects cross my path right into the perfect light. 

this photo (candid) was taken was taken using this method. Yes I had to wait for the perfect moment when he was turned to the light but that is the way I shoot (when I can at least).








then of course if my subject just happens to be in great light I will try to take advantage of that as well





I have hundreds more examples if you are interested, these were the first I saw when I went to my album.


----------



## skieur (Sep 4, 2012)

pgriz said:


> Well, once you know what you're doing, things are pretty basic. However, getting to that point may take both lots of learning and a bit of equipment ("bit" is somewhat understated). Quite a bit of learning applies to understanding how to "read" sources of light (primary source, secondary source, etc), and deciding when additional light (from flash(es) or reflectors) is needed and in what proportion. That's what makes a photo "pop" - the light brings out the best of the subject. The light colour determines if it is reddish, bluish or neutral, the light intensity determines how much light we have to work with, the light size determines whether the shadows are hard or very soft. The light direction is also important to determine where the shadows and highlights will appear. The balance between multiple sources generally determines the dimensionality of the subject relative to the background, and the apparent three-dimensional shape of the subject.



I don't disagree with anything you have said above, but it depends on the photography that you are doing, as well as the time and equipment that you have available to set up.  If you are working with models and you have "control", then you have an advantage over public relations or journalistic events where you have little or no control and the need to get the shot when it happens, irrespective of ideal lighting.  Different needs require different methods and approaches.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 4, 2012)

Stradawhovious said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen photos that you yourself have posted (portraits) that could have benefited by not using flash, _*but instead repositioning yourself/subject to make better use of the ambient light*_.
> ...



Actually, it is surprisingly easy. If you crawl around the floor or the ground with really young kids, even with a camera, they quickly forget that you are there and ignore you.  You can move them around and if they are playing with another child, they soon stop noticing your presence and you can start shooting.  A wide angle prime is ideal for close-in shooting.

skieur


----------



## Stradawhovious (Sep 4, 2012)

paigew said:


> okay here is what I do complete with examples (because I sincerely dislike it when *people* talk the talk but can't show pics explaining it). Keep in mind these are family snapshots



And you NEVER miss a shot due to having improper ambient lighting. Never. Right?

Kind of the way you make it sound and I find that very hard to believe..... 

Whatever floats your goat I guess. If you want to fight ambient light for some of the shots you take, that's your choice. Just imagine though, the doors that could be opened for you if you just stopped fighting it, and learned to use the speed light you paid good money for!

I bet you'd like it. And you wouldn't even have to use it all the time!

Come to the dark side.

We have cookies.


----------



## skieur (Sep 4, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



 Well, I doubt that they were considering wireless flashes, umbrellas, gold or silver reflectors etc.  or even had them available.  Keep it simple.


skieur


----------



## paigew (Sep 4, 2012)

Stradawhovious said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > okay here is what I do complete with examples (because I sincerely dislike it when *people* talk the talk but can't show pics explaining it). Keep in mind these are family snapshots
> ...



I do know how to use bounced flash. I use it at times when I really want to take a photo and there isn't sufficient ambient light. I would post photos but like I said, I rarely use it and the shots I have are not appropriate for the internet. But most of the time I do just as my new favorite member Skieur suggests. KEEP IT SIMPLE!! 

oh, and I have cookies on my side too . 


skieur said:


> Well, I doubt that they were considering wireless flashes, umbrellas, gold or silver reflectors etc.  or even had them available.  _*Keep it simple.*_
> 
> 
> skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 4, 2012)

paigew said:


> I'm sure! Flash definitely has its place.



What is also used in the evening outside by the way is LED lithium lights that are manufactured by the drill companies.

skieur


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 4, 2012)

Monolights FTW


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 4, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Monolights FTW



Eggzackly! It's like having Sunshine on a Stick!


----------



## MK3Brent (Sep 4, 2012)

It's like having your flash....on a STEEEKK!


----------



## pgriz (Sep 4, 2012)

skieur said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Well, once you know what you're doing, things are pretty basic. However, getting to that point may take both lots of learning and a bit of equipment ("bit" is somewhat understated). Quite a bit of learning applies to understanding how to "read" sources of light (primary source, secondary source, etc), and deciding when additional light (from flash(es) or reflectors) is needed and in what proportion. That's what makes a photo "pop" - the light brings out the best of the subject. The light colour determines if it is reddish, bluish or neutral, the light intensity determines how much light we have to work with, the light size determines whether the shadows are hard or very soft. The light direction is also important to determine where the shadows and highlights will appear. The balance between multiple sources generally determines the dimensionality of the subject relative to the background, and the apparent three-dimensional shape of the subject.
> ...



The knowledge and skill needed to do a photojournalistic shoot that you are referring to is several orders of magnitude higher than what I was addressing in my comment to the OP.  I've seen good photojournalists work and have talked to them about the actual process, and they have to stop and think a little about the mechanics because they have the technique down to the subconscious level.   Being able to compose a shot that tells a story, while being jostled by other photographers and participants in the event, with little or no control over the light, and still get a shot that ends up on the front page of a major daily or newmag, is a skill that I can admire and aspire to, but I'm very far away from that level of mastery over technique.  My comment was for the baby steps...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 4, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Monolights FTW
> ...






Indeed, and at a perfect/consistent Kelvin every pop


----------

