| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2004 12:07:16 PM · #1 |
I've just been hired to photograph a birthday party at a restaurant. My current experience includes small group portraits and candids, I've never shot an event before and would appreciate any tips/advice you can give me.
They want a group shot that includes about 40 people (the place is pretty dark). If allowed by the restaurant, I can bring my studio lights - two 360 w stobes and one 160 w with umbrellas. Any suggestions on how to set up?
They also would like me to circulate during the party. My current flash is a 380EX speedlight. Will this do the trick? I have a 24-70 2.8L lens that weighs too much to carry around, or my cheapo kit zoom lens, or my 100mm portrait lens. I was thinking about investing in a 50 mm lens. What would you use?
I have three 512 cards and two batteries. Am I forgeting anything? Oh yeah I have a 10D.
Thanks for taking the time to help a newbie! |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:17:48 PM · #2 |
I've shot stuff like this.
Make a note of the ceiling height and the wall color. Even if the venue is almost completely dark, if the surfaces reflect well then you can relax.
Bring your lights. Test shots are to be expected. Don't feel nervous as they all watch you thinking that you should only have to take one shot. Let someone (the group leader, etc) know that you'll need about 1/2 hour to do lighting tests (do these before the group assembles for the big shot, then do a few more when they're all together). IE try different settings and lighting setups to find a suitable one for the location.
No worries, everyone has to do it. Good luck!
P.S. A group of 40 is hard. Use stairs if possible. Don't be scared to give direction, let everyone know that no-talking during the shot is necessary to get it done right quickly!
Message edited by author 2004-10-25 13:20:18. |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:36:36 PM · #3 |
For a group of 40, in a restaurant, you'll need something reasonably wide angle, like the 24-70 you mentioned. It is unlikely you'll be able to get far enough away with something like a 50mm to get the whole group in.
Try and avoid as much as possible, shooting a big line-up - it looks pretty crappy. You want to construct little groups of people - certainly
some crouching/ sitting, others behind, 3 layers if you can get it if it works for the group. Also realise that you then have a DoF needed that's probably more than 2.8 at that distance - something closer to 5.6 on that lens is maybe what you need to get a sharp enough shot.
With that, you then need enough light to let you use that aperture at a reasonable ISO - neat image is a really bad idea on this sort of shot as you'll have a lot of smallish heads - needs plenty of light, rather than hoping you can 'fix' it later.
Another good option for a group that large is if you can get above them on a balcony or something, and shoot down towards them as a group, circled around the person who's birthday it is, as the focus point, all looking up at you. You'd need to light them from above then - it is unlikely that an on-camera flash will give you enough light though.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:45:55 PM · #4 |
hmm yea, Gordon, maybe his 380EX will work? I'm not familiar with that flash. I use a 550EX which I know would do it.
I agree about the positioning. And shooting from above if possible.
I helped shoot a group at a wedding, it was the ENTIRE guest list..at the church! We got as high as possible on steps and had the group fill the area at the bottom (maybe in a restaurant that could be a lobby????).
Never fun. If you're shooting from above you could have everyone do a big 'cheers' with wine glasses, bottles, etc or even have them hoist the bday guest onto their shoulders in the middle. Just ideas. People seem to really like the 'cheers' shots. |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 03:22:50 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
hmm yea, Gordon, maybe his 380EX will work? I'm not familiar with that flash. I use a 550EX which I know would do it.
|
Well, it certainly has a lower guide number (38 vs 55). I'd worry about even the 550Ex covering a group of 40 though, with the fall-off towards the edges probably being noticable, unless you have other light sources in there.
A 380, at 24mm, at around f5.6 should work up to about 6m at ISO 100
The 550 under the same conditions would work up to about 9-10m, though that's all pretty subjective, depending on what you think well exposed is, and so on.
If you are going to bounce it, you need to consider that the subject is effectively 1.4x further away and consider if that is beyond your guide numbers (even ignoring the further diffusion of using the bounce surface).
Also, particularly with a 'wide' group, it is tough to get an even illumination from a single point source.
Message edited by author 2004-10-25 15:31:40.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 09:55:34 PM · #6 |
| Thank you for the ideas, detailed information and good wishes. I really appreciate the positive support I've received here at DPC. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:26:44 PM · #7 |
Found this in my portfolio. This was shot with a 420EX as the main light, slightly bounced, with a 24-85 lens. Main problem is the lens wasn't so great and got significantly small off towards the edges.
In many ways I think this would be a good example of what not to do :) |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:38:33 PM · #8 |
Try to get your hands on a wider lens. I find my 17-40 to be advantageous in these situations, as you're able to get closer at 17mm, and the flash is more effective. I recently saw a wedding photographer using a Sigma 14mm on an Elan 7e for group shots, with good success. Shoot in RAW and, if you're using Photoshop CS, you can use the vignetting function to lighten the edges up if there's light falloff.
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 23:38:50.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:47:11 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Try to get your hands on a wider lens. I find my 17-40 to be advantageous in these situations, as you're able to get closer at 17mm, and the flash is more effective. I recently saw a wedding photographer using a Sigma 14mm on an Elan 7e for group shots, with good success. Shoot in RAW and, if you're using Photoshop CS, you can use the vignetting function to lighten the edges up if there's light falloff. |
I'd agree. I've since got that 17-40 for this and a variety of reasons. It isn't so much a light fall off, as a sharpness fall off. The people around the edges get very soft. I had originally intended to shoot this outdoors and not use flash at all, but as it was shot at 6am and the sun wasn't up yet, I didn't have much in the way of options. I actually used a garage door to reflect light and act like a huge diffuser.
Certainly a 24 (with a 1.6x crop) isn't the best lens choice for that sort of shot and one of the Canon consumer grade lenses like the 24-85 also isn't really sharp enough to get away with something like this where fine detail is important.
I was quite happy that with 100 people and myself actually in the shot as well, that I even got everyone in the frame, with their eyes open.
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 23:51:48. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:54:00 PM · #10 |
Yeah my post was more for the original poster, sorry. I knew you had the 17-40. I'm amazed that so many people with 1.6x cameras want a 24-70. I found my 28-105 frustrating enough to want something wider almost right away, and the 24-70 would be much the same. I'd much rather have the 16-35 if I needed a normal 2.8 zoom. Not quite as sharp, but then if sharpness were my main concern (over convenience) I'd go 24 or 35mm L prime. I'm planning on one of the 1-series cameras as a present to myself when I graduate in a few years, and even then I still think the 17-40, 50, 70-200 combo I've got going right now will be the ticket.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 12:00:51 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I'm planning on one of the 1-series cameras as a present to myself when I graduate in a few years, and even then I still think the 17-40, 50, 70-200 combo I've got going right now will be the ticket. |
I'm still twisting in the wind on that one as well. I've got the money
sitting there to get a 1DII, just got final confirmation the graduation,
but can't help wondering if it is really worth it. I've shot with a 1DII
a few times and it seems largely overkill for almost anything I'd be
doing with it. I'd be forced to take up professional sports photography
just to not feel stupidly over-equipped. So much so that I'm thinking about just getting a 20D instead.
I agree with your 17-40, 50, 70-200 set though, I've been heading in
roughly the same direction. Only advantage is the high speed focus of
the 2.8 aperture lenses though, which you'd miss out on the 17-40, but WA have a lot more restricted lens focus travel anyway so it doesn't seem to matter so much. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 12:07:17 AM · #12 |
The features I like in the 1-series bodies are the larger sensors and the waterproofing. I agree it's overkill in a lot of respects, but the 1.6x crop just slays me. Living in Texas you don't get a lot of rain I guess, but the weather's just a bit wilder up in these parts. The 20D is interesting, for sure, but not enough of an upgrade for me to consider given my current situation.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 12:47:47 PM EDT.
