Our recent photography workshops in Atlanta were so much fun! After a Friday-night presentation related to the business side of photography (hosted by Taproom Coffee), our students got a good night’s sleep then returned — cameras in hand — for Saturday’s hands-on PhotoWalk class. Our focus was ocf (off-camera flash), and it’s a crucial lesson for every aspiring photographer to learn. Photography at its core is “drawing with light;” so our craft relies more on learning to light a subject than it is does anything else.

The ongoing joke in our industry is, “If you hear someone advertise himself as an ‘all natural light photographer,’ that’s code for ‘I have no idea what I’m doing.” Haha! Well, that’s not always the case (although it does probably apply to many small-town wedding photographers who just lack the motivation to improve). I know just a few world-class photographers who’ve made a very intentional, stylistic choice to ditch the external lighting gear and work with what nature offers them alone. But, truth be told, they all know how to use the equipment when they have to; and they apply the same principles to finding and using “good” natural light.

For this workshop, we concentrated on light quality, quantity, and direction. In our shoots, Eileen and I use natural light when it suits our purposes, but also have our flashes and modifiers on-hand to create stellar shots whatever the situation. Let’s look at some examples!

Below is a shot I knew I wanted — a gorgeous yellow tree in full sunlight against the cloudless blue sky. It was growing out of the parking lot behind a barbecue restaurant — the only natural element in that part of our urban jungle. I could crop out the unattractive surroundings and cars by looking up. Just one other problem. How was I supposed to get a human subject into this skyward shot? I lay on the ground and had our models, John and Chantel, hover over me. But lighting became a big problem. The sun was providing only stark, “hard” light on Saturday. There was no visible detail in the couple’s clothes or on the sunny side of their faces. In short, it was a poor snapshot, not a professional portrait. So we made a small lighting adjustment, and you can see the result below.

By simply darkening the overall exposure (we always shoot in full manual), we were able to bring down those overly bright highlights. I turned the couple’s backs to the sun. Now they were beautifully backlit. But they were in complete shadow now — perfect black silhouettes against the bright sky (not shown). Next, I simply inserted my flash camera-left (on a stand with a shoot-through umbrella modifier to soften the light), then took a test shot. The flash was overly bright at first. I simply lowered the strength of the flash for the next shot, and voila! Suddenly John and Chantel were visible, perfectly exposed against a colorful background, and having a great time. Just the image I had in mind!

We all continued searching for great lighting situations on our way to the Kirkwood Urban Forest park, where most of our shooting would be done. I always like areas that offer lots of variety within a short distance, so our shoots aren’t lost on travel time. The Urban Forest would be perfect.

This tree along the way was a great example of exploring your lighting options — and deciding what your personal style is all about. Light was shining from behind the tree, illuminating its leaves nicely. I almost always allow the sun to backlight my locations. This casts shadows that show off the environment’s three-dimensional qualities, even in a 2D picture. Essentially, your eye is able to measure the shape and size of objects better when a shadow is cast toward you. I can’t move the sun; but I can move my feet and get my camera on the shadowy side of an object like this tree!

The below photograph was made with available, natural light. We simply exposed for the shadowy side of the couple’s faces. They’re under the tree in open shade, so their skin looks smooth and unbleached by stray sunlight. You can see some stray sunlight in Chantel’s hair, and of course the background is technically overly bright. In a traditionally “correct” photograph, the background might be slightly darker than your subject so that your attentions rests more on them. But the rules are meant to be broken, and this image feels more “real” because you accept the couple is under the shelter of the tree, while the sunlight adds a sense of extra warmth that we liked!

On the other hand, why not mix things up? In the image below, I lit the couple with a flash at camera-left. I set my camera for a dark exposure, meaning that you can now see all the details in the sun-drenched leaves, the sunlight in the background now looks dimmer, and the shadows are darker (almost black, as you can see on the upper part of the tree trunk and in the thick patches of leaves). The couple would be dark and shadowed as well if it weren’t for the flash shining on them, coming from just out of frame. It’s position as near to John’s right arm as possible, to get the most power out of the flash. (No, a small flash cannot overpower the sun if you park it too far away!) Having the light close to the subject and further away from my camera ensures that it will cast a shapely shadow across the models’ faces to make them look more three-dimensional.

In the scenario below, I loved the location because I wanted to shoot the repeating pattern of this row of trees, leading into the subjects. But from my position, I did not have the option of shooting with just natural light. The sun, as you can see below, was hard on the front of the trees. The leaves would just be a bright, distracting blob; Chatel’s jaw was lit brightly by sunlight reflecting off John’s white shirt; and John’s face (when he turned toward me) was speckled with light spots as the sun shown on him through overhead leave. Bleh. Flash was the solution!

I first exposed for my background. As you can see, the leaves became visible again, and you can appreciate their lush greenness (i.e. they’re not washed out, flaming balls of white). John’s forehead was properly exposed at this point. But his jaw and cheek — and Chantel’s face, too — were dark and shadowy. My first test shot, the flash just wasn’t bright enough. I dialed up to a stronger setting and removed the umbrella (which generally takes about 2 stops of power from the flash as its light moves through the translucent material). Finally, they were perfectly exposed, and the picture you see here was made. You can see the shadow cast on John’s collar as the flash’s light hits Chantel’s face first, then hits John. Eileen used a reflector (visible in the bottom-right corner of the below image) to reflect additional light upward from below, which helped erase the overly dark shadows being cast downward onto the couple’s necks and clothing.

The next image is naturally lit. It’s lovely as is. And since the sunlight is coming in from behind this couple, we were able to meter for the shaded part of their faces and get a proper exposure. It doesn’t really matter how bright a backlight is! Since your camera can’t see the couple’s brightly lit backs, you can let the sun shine back there all day without a worry! The same goes with flash used as a backlight: You may choose to fire off a weak, dimly lit flash to create the faintest rim of warmth across your subject’s shoulder and hair, or you may choose to create an explosion of glorious heavenly light enveloping them from behind. It’s up to you and the story you want to tell! Just be sure you can control it under given circumstances. For instance, too bright of a backlight behind a bride’s veil will make it completely disappear. That’s okay sometimes. But if you want the veil to be visible, you will need to specifically measure your backlight and keep in slightly underexposed.

This was the one patch of lush clover and flowers we found in the park. But it was illuminated by harsh sunlight that was far too bright for this portrait. (You can see how bright the sun is hitting the clover at the top of this image, near Chantel’s midriff.) The sun is huge, right? Bigger than our little earth in fact. But it’s so far away, you can close one eye and cover it up with your thumb. That’s why for photographic purposes, it’s a very small light. Small light cast hard shadows, and I didn’t want one side of Chantel’s face to glow — every pore and blemish (not that she has any) on display — while the other side became to dark to even see. So Eileen held our white, translucent reflector between the sun and Chantel. The reflector disk is relatively large when positioned close overhead, and it shaded Chantel’s entire upper body. Because of its relative size, it also pushed softer light down all around, even to the shadowed part of her face, giving this beautiful “soft” light effect. Expose. Snap. Magic!

In other cases, you can use flash to create images that didn’t even exist before. We found this grungy, abandoned house; and I loved the stripes of sunlight on the inside door. They seemed to point my attention to the open door behind. That’s where I wanted my subjects! But, as you can see, there was no light shining on them there! Drat. I could either stomp my feet and become a slave to natural light, or I can choose to master it. I exposed for the sunlight hitting the door; I made the exposure dark so I could still see the door’s grungy texture. Now John and Chantel were dark — certainly not the obvious subject of my image. Then (as seen in the second picture below) I set up my flash outside the house. The house’s wall hid it from view, and it was position slightly behind the couple — so the light illuminated their faces, but not their right cheeks. (I’m referring to their face cheeks, not their bottom cheeks. I think those ones were actually illuminated a bit. Sorry, don’t mean to be cheeky.) 😉

So, moving on.. I liked this “short light” look because the shadow being cast across their faces and toward my camera accomplished two things: first, it revealed the shape and beautiful bone structure of the models and, second, it complemented the shadowy, mysterious feel of the location. (See below.)

For our last setup, I put my flash on-camera. What?!?! Yes, on-camera. I know that’s considered a sin among photographers. But listen, I wasn’t pointing the flash’s head forward or shooting any light directly at the subject. For the first of the two images below, I literally turned the flash head 90-degrees right, completely away from the couple. The result? The light hit the opposite wall of the house we were in. The wall reflected the light back toward Chantel and lit her beautifully. The magic of bouncing flash like this is that it comes back “softer” on your subject. Sure, my flash head may be as small as the far-off sun in the sky (one reason I generally don’t want it firing directly at my subject), but when a big, nearby wall picks up my light and reflects it back, that reflected light is now coming from a huge source! It’s soft and perfect. Never be afraid to use whatever environment happens to be around you as a makeshift light modifier. Mixed with Chantel’s expression, the results here came together to create a convincingly alluring mood. On the other hand, the image on the right below is shot with natural, available light. It’s lovely as well, but simply serves another purpose and tells a different story.

Now go out there and try it for yourself. We’d love to hear your comments and questions below. If you’re part of our #BlumeEDU community, you’ll be the first to get news about our future workshops all around the country, too! Hope to meet you soon. 🙂