# Catchlights and outdoors...please help



## Photos de l'amour (May 2, 2010)

I have been experimenting and am in need of some help.  I try my hardest to search and find the answers but this time I have to post a question. 

I have no lighting equipment and am wondering how you get catchlights when you photograph outside in the shade.  Last time I used my reflector and and it helped but this time I couldn't "catch" the light.

Do I need an off camera flash and if so, how do I set that up?  Is there any way to use the camera flash for this??


----------



## TylerF (May 2, 2010)

the built in flash is usually no good. you might be able to get away with dialing the power down but im not too sure. off camera flash usually is the easiest way to do it. a reflector placed strategically could do it too. try moving to the edge of the shade so you can grab some of the sun


----------



## Big Mike (May 3, 2010)

If all you are looking for it catch lights, then the on-camera flash should work just fine.  
If you need fill light, then the on-camera flash can work well too.  

The main reason to get the flash off-camera, is that we want our main/key light to be off axis, so that we can see light and shadow on the subject/model.  But fill light isn't supposed to cause shadows, so it can be on axis.  

Even if you flash isn't powerful enough for fill light, it should still be able to put a small catchlight in your subject's eyes.

But I would still say that a big reflector is a better way to get nice catchlights.


----------



## Christie Photo (May 3, 2010)

Photos de l'amour said:


> ...wondering how you get catchlights when you photograph outside in the shade.



Well...  moving your subject into the shade is a good start with outdoor portaits, but if all the light you have is shade, then all you have is fill lighting.  Move your subject to the edge of the shade and use the open sky as your main light.  Then you'll see the catch lights.

I hope this helps.

-Pete


----------



## syphlix (May 3, 2010)

everyone has already given good tips... but yea you can use the on camera flash for catchlights... just dial it way down and you'll get the catchlight without actually affecting the lighting


----------



## Christie Photo (May 3, 2010)

syphlix said:


> everyone has already given good tips... but yea you can use the on camera flash for catchlights... just dial it way down and you'll get the catchlight without actually affecting the lighting



True....  but they'll be small, bright and in the wrong position.

-Pete


----------



## Photos de l'amour (May 3, 2010)

What do you mean by dialing it down?  I do see that I have about 5 different settings for the flash, would dialing it down be picking the right one out of the choices??  
Also, I have another question....When taking a photo of a family of 7, would the reflector work for catchlights or would it not be a big enough reflection?  I have a 42" round reflector.
One more thing...When I take the photo of a family of 7, what is a good f/stop so that all the faces are in focus but the background is not??     
I took this photo but wish the background was more out of focus and that there was some catchlights.  Other than that, what do you think of the photo?  I have not done any editing yet.


----------



## TylerF (May 3, 2010)

in my opinion, i could be wrong, catch lights are more for 1 or 2 people. an entire group, not so much. unless the picture is goinf to be printed so large you can see each persons eyes. 

depending on what camera you use, you should have an option to change the power of the built in flash.

i think for the picture you posted, a flash or 2 and a reflector could have helped drastically. also, watch your background, its a bit busy and distracting. also, the fact that 4 of them are wearing some shade of green, 1 wearing brown and 2 wearing black or very dark green looks a bit odd.


----------



## aliciaqw (May 3, 2010)

Someone linked me to this site when I had questions about settings for group photos.  It helped A LOT when deciding what lens to use and what f-stop, etc.  Hope that helps!

Online Depth of Field Calculator


----------



## Photos de l'amour (May 3, 2010)

Ok, I have been working on this photo all day!  Am I wasting my time??

I have changed the color of the shirts so they match better and blurred the background.  I tried to brighten the eyes a bit and soften the skin.  What do you think? 
This is actually me and my family and I took it with a remote shutter.  So I know it's not perfect but would like to hang it on my family portrait wall.  Do you think it is good enough for that????


----------



## ghpham (May 3, 2010)

Hmm...you seem to suffer from what I go through all the time when taking family pictures.  Frankly, the composition is boring because everybody sits in the same line (I do this ALL the time).  Perhaps break up into smaller groups, some kids in front your husband and you sitting and some kids in the back forming a triangle.  For instance, your boys can kneel in the front, and your girls stand/kneel in the back.  You can then use a long lens for tighter crop and the background will be blurred more.


----------



## g-fi (May 3, 2010)

I actually don't have a problem with the composition, though I agree that it's pretty "typical family portrait". That's not necessarily a bad thing! However, I think that the PP on this is a little bland and flat. This is what I would do with it if it was a picture I took....







But that's just my take. I like a more dramatic PP look.


----------



## Photos de l'amour (May 3, 2010)

That was totally my plan but the grass was soaking wet!  This is the only other pose I could think of since we could not sit on the grass.  :x


----------



## ghpham (May 3, 2010)

Photos de l'amour said:


> That was totally my plan but the grass was soaking wet! This is the only other pose I could think of since we could not sit on the grass. :x


 
oh...haha.  Well then, if you are happy with the shot, frame it


----------



## Photos de l'amour (May 3, 2010)

I do see that is looks drab.  I played with it some more and came up with this.  I think it will work until I can take another.

We took some more where we were walking towards the camera but they didn't turn out that well.  Any secrets to those kind of shots?


----------



## keith foster (May 3, 2010)

I think you did a nice job with this family portrait, especially the pp version with the tighter crop and blurred DOF.  I don't know what else you could have done under the circumstances without somebody getting wet.

There are a couple of ways you could make the "family walking toward the camera" pose work.

#1  Set it up and then have someone else(a friend) hit the shutter.  If you are actually walking then the focus point will change after you set it and run to get into the picture so it will be tough shot to take AND be in.

#2  Have everyone placed and posed so that they look like they are walking but are not actually moving.  I have done this a couple of times with sibling shots where I didn't have much room for them to actually walk.  It works but might take a few tries. 

You have a beautiful family.  They must be much more cooperative than mine for you to be able to get them all together and smiling!


----------



## Derrel (May 3, 2010)

You were working in what I call Open shade with backlighting. I can see by your EXIF information that this was shot at f/5.6 at ISO 250 at a shutter speed of 1/250 second. I tried my hand at your retouched version, and "lifted" the shadows up, so that the lower tones were brighter, and a bit closer to the backlighted areas behind the family. THat was an effort to create a lighter, brighter look to their faces and clothing, to try and get that light,bright,airy "spring-time feeling". A small shot of flash, with the flash right in the hot shoe, right on-axis, would have given pretty much the same effect, but with a lot more latitude in post processing. If the original was shot in RAW mode, I think there's probably enough exposure to make a good original file without too many problems.

Here's a quick adjustment of the very small file from the web, going for a light,airy spring-time lighting look.


----------



## keith foster (May 3, 2010)

Nice job on the edit Derrel!


----------



## Photos de l'amour (May 3, 2010)

This was shot in RAW.  But do you think that what I shot it at was right?  I am still trying to understand that part of it all.  How to know what f/stop to put it at.

What do you think about the shirts....is the color change good enough so that you can't tell?  It was really hard around my hair.  I don't know how you are supposed to do it so I just started experimenting in PS and came up with that.

When you talk about the flash...I know what on the hot shoe means but what does right on axis mean? :blushing:  I don't have a flash, just the on camera one.  Do you think I need to get a flash?  I have been looking at the SB-600.  What do you think?  The whole flash thing sounds so confusing.   I read the strobist site but it is still confusing, lol.


----------



## ghpham (May 3, 2010)

For outdoor and there is plenty of light, I will use an ISO 200 (for Nikon).  I usually shoots in Aperture mode, so my next step is to adjust the f/stop.  If I want a shallower depth of field, I dial for lower f/stop.  The shutter speed will automatically compensate for a correct exposure.  For more of the scene to be in focus, I'd raise my f/stop.  You need to experiment until you develop a sense for the f/stop to use.  It still doesn't come to me automatically as yet.


----------



## Photos de l'amour (May 3, 2010)

Well I knew that part.  I shoot in Aperture mode all the time.  But I just wanted to start in Manual mode and am not quite sure how to.  I need to do more research.


----------



## Derrel (May 3, 2010)

Photos de l'amour said:


> This was shot in RAW.  But do you think that what I shot it at was right?  I am still trying to understand that part of it all.  How to know what f/stop to put it at.
> 
> What do you think about the shirts....is the color change good enough so that you can't tell?  It was really hard around my hair.  I don't know how you are supposed to do it so I just started experimenting in PS and came up with that.
> 
> When you talk about the flash...I know what on the hot shoe means but what does right on axis mean? :blushing:  I don't have a flash, just the on camera one.  Do you think I need to get a flash?  I have been looking at the SB-600.  What do you think?  The whole flash thing sounds so confusing.   I read the strobist site but it is still confusing, lol.



Yes, f/5.6 at 1/250 at ISO 250 in brighter, open shade is a reasonable exposure. f/5.6 at that camera-to-subject distance gives a bit more background depth of field than I think you might want. Opening up the lens a little bit more, to f/4 at 1/500 second, would probably give the slightly less in-focus background, which would be a safe,adequate depth of field for people all lined up at very close to the same, camera-to-subject distance. You can shoot flash at 1/500 in FP SYnch mode, or stray at f/5.6 at 1/250 and shoot "regular flash". "on-axis" flash means flash that is right above the lens,and not coming in from an angle to the side or from high or low. On-axis light is awful for main light, but makes excellent fill-in lighting. In this case, the main light is coming from the open shade under the canopy of the trees in the park.

The SB600 flash is a reasonable flash to buy. The SB900 is a bit more powerful,and a lot more pricey. For this kind of shot, you do not really "need" either a really powerful,nor a really ultra-sophisticated flash unit, so the SB 600 is ample really. The SB 600 is not the most powerful nor the most-complicated flash available, but for this type of shot, all you need is just a little "kiss" of flash, so it is much more than just adequate--it's a good choice.

I thought the T-shirt color replacement on the mom's shirt (your shirt?) was really well-done...looked very realistic. I liked the height line on sissy, middle bro, little bro, dad, baby sis, mom, oldest boy...lots of dynamic head heights with really good eye-height differences...almost perfect! A good-looking crew all around. Expressions and eye contact with the camera are also quite good.


----------



## ghpham (May 4, 2010)

Photos de l'amour said:


> Well I knew that part. I shoot in Aperture mode all the time. But I just wanted to start in Manual mode and am not quite sure how to. I need to do more research.


 
It's all about experimenting.  Again, set ISO to 200 if you have enough daylight.  For portrait, pick an aperture you think you may like depending the DOF, then set the shutter speed until your camera meter goes to neutral at the 0.  I haven't shot in full manual too many times yet, because I haven't been in a situation where I needed to.


----------



## Photos de l'amour (May 4, 2010)

That is what I don't understand.  Setting the shutter speed until the meter is at 0.  Where is this meter?  I probably already know this but am over thinking it all.


----------



## ghpham (May 4, 2010)

Photos de l'amour said:


> That is what I don't understand. Setting the shutter speed until the meter is at 0. Where is this meter? I probably already know this but am over thinking it all.


 
Look in your viewfinder and you should see some vertical lines bunch up together (usually at the bottom of the viewfinder) with "-" on the extreme left and "+" on extreme right.  The middle there should be a "0".  That is your meter indicator.


----------



## ghpham (May 4, 2010)

I should clarify...you have a Nikon D5000? you should see a series of 5 or so dots at the bottom with a "-" at the extreme left and a "+" at the extreme right.  This represents the meter reading.  For an overexposed object, you will see a series of vertical bars toward the "+" end.  For an underexposed object, you will see a series of vertical bars toward the "-" end.  You should strive for the middle ground for a "correct" exposure.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 4, 2010)

Derrel said:


> You were working in what I call Open shade with backlighting. I can see by your EXIF information that this was shot at f/5.6 at ISO 250 at a shutter speed of 1/250 second. I tried my hand at your retouched version, and "lifted" the shadows up, so that the lower tones were brighter, and a bit closer to the backlighted areas behind the family. THat was an effort to create a lighter, brighter look to their faces and clothing, to try and get that light,bright,airy "spring-time feeling". A small shot of flash, with the flash right in the hot shoe, right on-axis, would have given pretty much the same effect, but with a lot more latitude in post processing. If the original was shot in RAW mode, I think there's probably enough exposure to make a good original file without too many problems.
> 
> Here's a quick adjustment of the very small file from the web, going for a light,airy spring-time lighting look.



That's pretty close to what i did, if you want the soft backgrounds for larger groups, use a telephoto lens and compress the space. 

Also, the WB is really cold and the skin tones look pretty dead. Alot of the more popular portrait photogrpahers stick to a warmer white balance to add more yellow and red to the skin tones to make people seem more healthy and more vibrant. 

Another huge deal is that the subjects need to be bright and obvious. In the original, they're in the shade and they blend in. 

SO in PS i went to color balance, added some yellow and a touch of red, did a curves layer and brightened up the center to add a little vignette, darkened the jeans a bit, dodged the dude's face, and that's it. 











Oh yeah, it's also really easy to go overboard with the contrast, and never do High Pass unless you WANT it to look gritty. Otherwise it just screams DIGITAL.


----------



## Aayria (May 4, 2010)

I took a shot at the picture, is this more what you were looking for?  Take this with a grain of salt though, it's my first attempt at fixing up anybody's pictures on here =P

And your family is beautiful! I love the big smile on the youngest girl's face =)


----------



## Christie Photo (May 4, 2010)

Photos de l'amour said:


> That was totally my plan but the grass was soaking wet!  This is the only other pose I could think of since we could not sit on the grass.  :x



For future reference:  I always keep a couple of black trash bags in my case.  You know the kind...  I like the ones that come folded flat.  Then when I need someone to kneel or sit on the ground, I spread one on the ground and then tuck any excess before shooting.  I do this even when it's dry to protect from grass stains.  I've used my blazer in a pinch.  The brides really appreciate it.

I hope this helps.

-Pete


----------



## KmH (May 4, 2010)

Photos de l'amour said:


> I am still trying to understand that part of it all. How to know what f/stop to put it at.


For any scene there are about 6 different combinations of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO settings (the exposure triad) that will give you a properly exposed photograph.

Of those 6, 1 will be the right "artistic" combination of the exposure triad settings.

For a family portrait with no one moving you want the background blurred to isolate the subjects in the image, so you use as wide an aperture as you can withou,t sacrificing the sharpness of the focus on your subjects.

A good inexpensive book that covers that line of reasoning is:
*Understanding Exposure* by Bryan Peterson. It's a very popular book.


----------



## Photos de l'amour (May 4, 2010)

Ok, this is really helping me.  Thank you all for that.  
I will be working on using Manual mode now.

I have one one and I don't think it came out that well.

Let me know what you think...

1. 






2.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 5, 2010)

for the top one, easy on the contrast, the color is a little nuclear. 

for the bottom one, in your raw converter, burn in the highlight areas a tad, dodge the shadows. The family is the last thing my eye goes to because everything else is brighter.


----------

