Morgan Trinker

In yesterday’s post, I began a discussion about how I use the light sources I am given in any situation to take my images in the direction I want them to go in. A lot of times, that means making a call on whether or not to use my flash, and if I do use it, how I choose to use it. Now, in Part 1, I didn’t use flash for any of the images, but instead talked about how I changed my settings and positioned my subjects to accommodate the different lighting scenarios. I feel like I should explain more about why I chose not to use my flash. This is sort of my philosophy: I really only want to use flash for creative purposes (i.e. funky off-camera lighting, light painting, backlighting dance floor shots, etc.) OR out of absolute necessity, to get a “safe shot.” Therefore, the only times during a wedding when I’m actually using the flash would be for creative portraiture, or as a safety net when I’m shooting a dark ceremony and/or reception space. And even in the latter case, I don’t always use my flash, which I’ll get to here in a minute. So for all those candids I was capturing, I wanted the images to look realistic and to represent moments exactly as people would remember them in their minds. And believe it or not, most people’s memories don’t involve flash. They remember things with all their imperfections- with florescent lighting or moody darkness or colorful stage lights or dreary skies or whatever the case may be. So with that in mind, I tend to avoid using my flash. Even if it means skin might have a color cast to it, or there are some shadows here and there. One of my goals, particularly when it comes to weddings, is to keep my images as true as possible to what the naked eye sees (with a little creative post-processing flair, of course! ;) ). When I do use my flash, I either do it completely off-camera, or I point it in a direction other than directly at the subject, in order to create “bounced light,” which tends to have more dimension and softness.

So with that it mind, let’s move on to the second half of the images I wanted to share from Crystal and Luke’s wedding. Below, these two photos of my friend Carrie were taken without flash. Because Carrie has such that sultry Marilyn Monroe thing going on, I took her and her beer into the restaurant portion of the venue, where there was some warm, moody, overhead lighting. For the photo on the left, I had her point her chin up a little to get rid of those pesky shadows over her eyes. As a result, I think the ambient light works really well. Very dramatic. And I like that it’s warmer than a flash would’ve been. For the photo on the right, I wasn’t directing Carrie. She was talking to Ethan, who was standing over to the side, and I liked the candidness of the moment (and those little dimples forming on her cheeks as she was half-smiling!). So yes, there are some semi-harsh shadows. But again, I think for the drama of the look, it works. As a bonus, because I was shooting wide open and had my shutter speed as slow as I felt comfortable with, and because I repositioned myself slightly, I was able to get even MORE ambient light, in the form of those beautiful light blobs (bokeh) in the background. So, a slightly different shot, but same dramatic effect.

When it came time for the ceremony, I would be lying if I said I wasn’t sweating bullets a little bit (okay, a LOT). It was sort of a do or die situation. Because the room doubles as a music venue, it is really dark, and the only lighting was pink and purple and blue and on the stage. Oh, and the aisle was pretty short, so there wasn’t any room for error. To flash or not to flash? That was the question. So here’s what I did. I had my second shooter Ethan stay positioned at the end of the aisle for the entire ceremony, so that I could be certain he would get all the necessary shots, while I moved around some and tried to see if there were any better angles. I also went ahead and put my flash on my camera, ready to be turned on at any moment if I couldn’t make the shot work without it. I set all my settings to expose properly without flash, so that when I did need it, I could just flip the on switch and the camera would automatically adjust the power of the flash to fill in what I needed it to. Another reason I wasn’t stoked on the idea of using flash at all during the ceremony (aside from the fact that I find it completely distracting to everyone else, and I already feel really self-conscious about calling too much attention to myself during such a sacred moment) was that I prefer to bounce my flash, but the ceilings were high and black as the night sky. Not an ideal surface to bounce light off of. So while I did use my flash for the processional and recessional, for fear of not getting the “safe shots,” I much prefer the shots that Ethan got with no flash, as illustrated below. Sure, he had to crank the ISO all the way up to 1600 (and on a 40D at that, which isn’t quite as equipped to handle those high ISOs). Sure, there is a purple glow over everyone’s faces, which is almost reminiscent of the “Violet, you’re turning violet!” scene in the old Willy Wonka movie, in which they clearly made Violet turn violet by shining increasing bright lights on her face. However, this is how everyone in that room will remember this moment. It was dark, and there were purple lights. And honestly, besides the fact that it looks more true to what the naked eye was seeing, I just think it looks pretty darn cool.

So here, you can see a bit of a contrast between what a shot looked like when I fired the flash, and what it looked like when I didn’t. The one on the left? It’s a safe shot. Luke’s face is evenly lit, and he has a nice, happy expression. But the shot on the right? I was on the exact same settings, but because I turned the flash off after I got the safe shot, I got this. This much more dramatic, dimensional, and in my opinion, interesting image. I love that the contrast of the light coming from the stage highlights every nuance in his expression. And I chose to make it even more striking by doing a black and white conversion, to keep the focus on that priceless look on his face.

Here’s another example of why I didn’t use the flash during the ceremony. I just love this.

Again, no flash. I just wanted to show that because of all the ambient purple, blue, and yellow lighting, I chose to play it up by running a couple of my fave actions on low opacity: Get Faded (Winter) from TRA and Memory of a Friend from Jesh de Rox.

Okay, so here’s an example of an instance when I needed an extra light source, but I didn’t use my flash. I always carry a few Sunpak Readylites with me. They’re these brilliant little flashlights that pack a powerful punch. I first saw them in action in a seminar with John Michael Cooper and I thought they were genius. Here’s why I like them: For one, they’re cheap. $25 a pop. Not bad at all. For two, they’re a continuous light source, meaning I can adjust my settings while the light is shining so there’s no guesswork and fumbling around to properly adjust my off-camera flash. For three, they provide a warm (and to me, more natural) light, versus the cool white light of a flash. Now, on the downside, the life of the battery is only about 15 minutes, and it takes 4 hours to recharge, so you have to conserve the power and wait to turn them on until literally the moment you need them. But since I always carry three of them, I haven’t run into a situation when I’ve run out of power and not been able to use them. So in the shot below, I had Ethan stand to the right of me and hold it slightly above the cake, aiming down. The angle, once again, creates interesting shadows and dimension, and for some reason, I just love this shot. I think it has something to do with this elegant white wedding cake against the backdrop of a cracked and stained concrete wall. But I digress.

Below, I used my flash for both shots, but just bounced it from different angles. I prefer the shot on the right because it’s MUCH more dimensional.

So, obviously, I didn’t want to shoot the entire first dance with flash. But one thing I love about dancing shots is playing with my shutter speed, slowing it down (sometimes wayyyy down) to get some motion blur. Because in my opinion, pictures of people moving around should convey that. I want there to be energy and life in those kinds of photos, so it’s one of the times that turning off the flash (which freezes motion) and slowing down the shutter speed is really beneficial. Like this:

For the rest of the reception photos, I alternated between flash and no flash. One instance when I pretty much always use flash is when people stop to pose for a photo. I just feel like those are the kinds that should be sharp, evenly-lit, and relatively “safe.” So in the image below, I bounced my flash at the ceiling (while having that little plastic flap thing raised up to also bounce some light directly at them. As you can see, I’m very technical.) But, I have to say I actually like flash in this instance because of the way I had my settings. By keeping my shutter speed pretty slow, I allowed all of that lovely golden ambient light to wrap around them and highlight their hair. Had I been shooting at, say, 1/500 of a second, the flash still would’ve lit them properly, but then it would have abruptly dropped off and left the background completely black, which would have made this look like just an ordinary snapshot. Not nearly as interesting. But this? I like.

Many times, at receptions, I will set up an off-camera flash on a light stand to provide nice, dimensional side or back lighting. To see examples of this, see Lindsay and Michael’s wedding and Susan and Lane’s wedding. In those cases, I set up my Lumopro flash [which is strictly manual, and pretty cheap- good for off-camera use] on a light stand, set the power to 1/32, and attach a Pocketwizard. Then I keep my main flash on camera, attach the other Pocketwizard via a sync cord to my camera [and if I’m not using a flash on my camera, I can just attach it via hotshoe, which is nice], and then I straight up ghetto rubberband the Pocketwizard to the flash to hold it on. So in those situations, I’ve got light coming from my main camera, which is often bounced, as well as directional/back/rim lighting coming from the off-camera flash. When I want to play around artistically, I typically turn my on-camera flash off and move around to play with that off-camera light, either by getting really cool, contrasty shadows, colorful flare, or silhouettes where the subjects are completely dark, but are rim-lit by the flash behind them. One of my goals this year is to invest in another off-camera light set-up (with flash, PW, and stand) so that I can have two set up opposite each other and not have to use any on-camera flash at all. We’ll see how that goes. One thing to remember when you’re using that off-camera light, and just in general if you’re having trouble syncing your flash, is to slow down that shutter speed. It took forever for this whole concept to click for me because I would get so frustrated when I first started using my PWs and flashes. Then I read a golden nugget from Scott Kelby— your shutter speed has to be 1/250th of a second or slower to be able to sync the flash. Since then, I’ve discovered that I like to keep my shutter speed at 1/60th of a second or slower when using flash to let in all the ambient light to balance it out (like in the photo above). In any other case, I don’t feel comfortable shooting at those shutter speeds, but the beauty of the flash is that it freezes your subject. And the cool thing about this is that you can play with dragging your shutter and creating sweet light painting and ghosting effects, which can be fun to do for dancing photos.

But for Crystal and Luke’s reception, I was pretty happy with all the accent light coming from the stage and from the rest of the room, which alternated between warm yellows and cool blues and purples. So I decided to just work with what was already there instead of against it. Pretty much all the dancing shots (which were taken right by the stage, where all the purple light was coming from) were taken without flash. And again, I like this because it’s how someone would remember it in their mind. And again, I just think it looks cool. :)

The getaway was another one of those make-a-snap-decision moments. I wanted to convey motion and energy and let all of those lights coming from the restaurant play in the background. But on the other hand, this was one moment where I wanted Crystal and Luke to be in focus and well-lit. The solution? Bump up my aperture a bit for extra insurance on the focusing side of things. Slow down my shutter speed to create motion and to paint with the ambient light in the background. And finally, turn on my flash to light up and freeze Crystal and Luke, as well as the marshmallows that were being tossed at them. Does that make sense? I’m sure I explained it terribly. I guess what I’m saying is that if I had treated this image like I did the one of them dancing (where I also had a very slow shutter speed) by not firing the flash, there would have been too much motion blur and I would have risked not getting them lit and in focus. During the first dance, I had a solid four minutes to play around with different angles and settings to get different looks, but here, I literally had about ten seconds to get it right. So I had to make sure I got it right.

And finally, this shot of them being carried away through Market Square. I basically kept my settings exactly the same, but for whatever reason the flash didn’t fire. However, I guess by some miracle I was holding the camera steady enough to get everything relatively in focus, even shooting at 1/13th of a second. If it hadn’t been for that slow shutter speed, though, I wouldn’t have gotten all that wonderful ambient light from the restaurants and the street lights. So, if I had thought it through before taking it, I would’ve increased my shutter speed and bumped up my ISO quite a bit to compensate. But you know what? I believe in happy accidents, and sometimes the least thought-out images are some of my very favorites.

So, in conclusion, here are my final thoughts on the whole issue of whether or not to use your flash or work with what you’ve got. It seems that the running theme through this whole thing has been that the kind of light I like is natural (in a sense that it’s what the naked eye sees, not necessarily that it’s just sunlight) and dimensional. The thing is, this kind of light can be achieved with or without flash. Honestly, I think a lot of it comes down to personal preference. But I would encourage you, if you’re solely a natural light photographer, to make sure that it is only because you prefer the look and is not just because learning how to creatively use flash to your advantage scares you. Again, like I said, I still have a loooong way to go before I feel like I’ve “mastered” my flashes. But I am willing to keep trying, keep playing with it, keep learning. Because I don’t want to make a choice when it comes to lighting just because I have to, because I don’t know how to do anything else.

I hope that someone out there found this rambler of a post helpful in some way. If you did, please let me know in the comments below! I would love to keep doing posts like this if I feel like other people are getting something out of it. And feel free to email me with other questions or comments you might have! I definitely have a list stored away of FAQ post topics, so I’ll try to cover everything little by little if I can!

You hear the phrase “natural light photographer” a lot these days. Many photographers prefer to exclusively use natural light (i.e. sunlight, window light, etc.) when they shoot… meaning, flash is the enemy. And don’t get me wrong- I love a good soft, dreamy, warm natural light photograph. I think they’re timeless and classic and clean and fresh. For many, they bring to mind the simplicity and beauty of film. Totally agree. And yes, I think that the flash built into most cameras is not the loveliest thing ever. Washed out faces, red eyes, one-dimensional flat images? Not so pretty. I’ve heard it said, and again, I agree, that one of the quickest ways to improve the quality of your photographs is to either turn your flash off or get it off your camera. However, I don’t always think that flash has to be the enemy. When I have the freedom to play with off-camera lighting, I absolutely love it. The fact of the matter is that it’s just another available light source, same as the sun or a lamp or the glow of a sparkler. The key is just knowing how to manage and manipulate your light sources to your advantage. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have this all figured out. There are still many aspects of off-camera lighting that perplex me, and it’s something I’m really pushing myself to learn more about and feel comfortable with. And there are a lot of lighting situations which could take a photograph in so many different directions, and it’s up to me, as the artist, to decide which direction to go in. And that can be a lot of pressure! But what I’m finding, the more I shoot, is that I have to trust my instincts.

As I mentioned last week, Crystal and Luke’s wedding presented a whole host of lighting issues and challenges for me and Ethan, who was shooting with me that day. There were many moments when I was tempted to just freak out about everything, but I kept reminding myself that I am the professional in the situation. It’s my job to make the best out of everything, because frankly, a wedding day does not, in fact, revolve around what works best for the photographer. (If that were the case, I would have made a deal along time ago with God about this whole rain on wedding days thing. No, Alanis, it is not ironic. Sometimes it just STINKS.) There are many factors that I can’t control. Obviously, the weather. And I can’t control how the quantity and size of windows in the dressing room. I can’t control the stage lights in a dark ceremony space. Wedding days are full of surprises at every turn, and things almost never go as planned. So while shooting Crystal and Luke’s wedding, I had sort of an epiphany. I realized that while there are many things I can’t control, I can control how I use the equipment I have and the light sources I’m given, and sometimes I just have to have confidence that I know what I’m doing and can handle it, even if the circumstances aren’t ideal.

So for all you other photographers out there who struggle with how to handle your light (because, as we all know, it’s ALL about the light), whether it’s harsh sunlight or an overcast sky or florescent overhead lighting or your flashes, I thought I’d revisit my thought process that day and share the metadata from a selection of my images, and why I chose to use the settings that I did. Am I an expert? Heavens no. But I do know that so many times I’ve wondered what is going through other photographers’ minds as they shoot, and why they prioritize some settings over others, and how they use and manipulate light to achieve certain looks. Plus, I don’t know what it is about seeing the metadata information, but I just totally geek out over it. I don’t know why.

Oh, and first off, you should know that I shoot in manual mode 100% of the time. I feel it’s the only way I have complete control over my exposures, but I know there are others who shoot aperture priority a lot too. To each his own!

Okay, so one of the first things I did when I arrived at the venue was shoot the details. Typically, for jewelry, paper goods, shoes, etc., I like to use window light. (Wide windowsills are one of my best friends!) I just think that nice, soft, directional light adds so much dimension and really lets the details shine in their own glory without a lot of background distraction. One of the really tricky things about this particular venue was that it was DARK. Not only because it was literally raining cats and dogs outside all day, but also because all the windows had that UV-blocking dark coating on them. Awesome. And most of the spaces were REALLY tight, so I couldn’t do a lot of spreading out. But in this case, I still wanted to use that window light, so I simply bumped up my ISO to compensate for the darkness. In both of the shots below, I was also shooting wide open, because those low apertures really put the focus on the objects and let everything else fall into a nice, soft blur. By setting my camera to the lowest aperture and the slowest shutter speed I feel I can shoot to avoid hand-shakiness and keep everything in focus (which for me, is 1/60 of a second), I knew that the lowest ISO I could use without resorting to flash was 500. So 500 it was!

The room where the girls were getting ready was actually what the venue called the “artist’s apartment,” where they let musicians stay who come to the venue to play. I was hopeful that with the lofty feel of the building, that there would be big, bright windows and high ceilings, but unfortunately the windows faced a wall and between the rain and the UV coating on them, offered very little light. So basically all I had to work with were the overhead florescent lights in the kitchen part of the room. (If there had been other rooms that were more open and well-lit, I might have suggested moving to them for a few of the key getting ready shots, but there really weren’t any other options, and I was prepared to tackle the situation head on.) Typically, overhead lighting in general, and particularly when it’s florescent, is not that flattering because it causes harsh shadows and contrast and has a greenish tint to it. However, I made this next shot work to my advantage because to camera left was a full-length mirror, which was reflecting back the overhead lighting and filling in some of the shadows for more even light. Then, when I edited, I just did a little white balancing, and then used a couple of actions to emphasize the red and pink tones over the green ones. The most important part of the photograph, in my opinion, is Crystal’s joyous expression, so to me perfecting the color was not a huge priority.

For whatever reason, someone had plugged in a lamp on the floor in the other half of the apartment, which was completely dark and had no overhead lights. So as Crystal and the girls gathered around it to get her in her dress, I decided to work with the uplighting, which I think even added a little drama, and certainly extra dimension because it was directional.

I’m not going to lie. I was a little bummed that we couldn’t do the First Look where we had originally planned, which was on the rooftop of the building overlooking all of downtown Knoxville. Would that have been super cool? Heck yeah! But the weather had other plans for us, so Ethan and I made a last minute decision to move it to a secluded hallway one floor up from the rest of the action. Could we have gone outside on the small little patio or gone to the front half of the restaurant where there was more window light (which is typically what I prefer to do)? Probably so. But again, the day does not revolve around what works best for the photographer. My first concern was that this moment be really special and private, and that Crystal not have to worry about getting her gorgeous dress dirty before the ceremony. I tried to be mindful of the fact that she had made a sacrifice of tradition to do the First Look in the first place, so I most definitely didn’t want to rob her of the beauty and excitement of the experience. So we chose this hallway, which clearly isn’t the most picturesque of spaces, but you know what? These weren’t portraits, they were moments, and even though the hallway looked like this….

…. we were able to capture some really tight shots free of background distraction and full of raw emotion, like this one Ethan took:

These next two shots are two of my favorites from the day, and they were taken in the elevator going downstairs to do portraits. The emotions and giddiness were still flowing, and the fact that I was right there with a camera in their face didn’t seem to phase them one bit, which I love. :) The lighting and color inside the elevator were pretty terrible, but a quick black and white conversion turns these into dramatic, emotional images.

So when we got outside, we literally had a tiny little patio to work with. And it was filled with tables and chairs, so we couldn’t really do any moving around. AND I was having to shoot at ISO 800… OUTSIDE. That’s how dark and dreary it was. So I kept my aperture wide open and my shutter speed low, because I wanted to keep the exposures as bright as possible, even a bit over-exposed, to make the light seem brighter and warmer. This is another one of my favorite shots:

For the big group bridal shot, I had to fit 22 people under this awning to keep them dry (while I ran out in the rain like a total nut). At first I was wishing there was a way to get an unobstructed full-length shot, but now I kind of love that they’re standing behind a gate with the fun garland on it. It feels very festive and colorful. And I like too that because I had to shoot so wide, I was also able to get in some of the building for more context and visual interest. Notice too that because I had to bump up my aperture (to ensure that I would keep everyone in focus), I also had to bump my ISO up to 1000. Scary, I know. But that’s the beauty of using professional equipment. I was confident my 5D could handle it without making the image too grainy and muddy looking. Then, in post-processing, I just did a lot of vibrancy and contrast increasing to counteract the dreariness, and overall, I think it turned out pretty nice. Is it the most crazy, creative shot I’ve ever done? No. But given the circumstances, I really think I made it work.

So I also wanted to do some individual portraits of Crystal with each of her bridesmaids. For this, I came back under the awning, had everyone else go stand off to one side, and positioned the girls right next to the edge of the gate. Then I stood on a chair (I’m always looking for things to stand on to get that extra height I so desperately need) and got pretty close with my 50mm. (Instead of going wide open though, I kept the aperture at 3.5, knowing I would have two people to keep in focus and I wanted to have a deeper depth of field. If I had been standing further away, this wouldn’t have so much mattered, because the plane of focus also depends on the distance of the camera from the subject. I don’t know… it’s a lot of technical terminology that I don’t know how to use properly, but I do know that if I want to shoot two people up close and keep both of them in focus, I need to shoot with a higher aperture.) In this situation, I think that the nice soft directional light is so lovely and adds a lot of dimension to the images (in much the same way that the window light worked for the detail shots).

This post is starting to get realllly long, and I still have a lot more I want to share, so I’ve decided to stop here and divide the topic into two posts. Look for Part 2 to hit the blog soon! To be continued….