I'm wondering how best to cope with a situation.

I was asked to get some shots at church this weekend. Yesterday, at a wedding, I was after some "generational images" to illustrate a "project" unrelated to this specific wedding event. This image was shot with WB set for flash. The colors are true for "the people". (ignore the fact that the bride's eyes are closed; I trashed this shot )

WB-Flash.jpg (155.29 KiB) Viewed 1005 times

Today I was shooting a special service for a slideshow destined for the church website. I do not use flash when shooting actual services; this is available light using my fastest lens with WB set for tungsten. All colors are true.

WB-Tungsten.jpg (255.25 KiB) Viewed 1006 times

I know what's happening. The flash illuminates the foreground and doesn't reach as far as the background mosaic which, thus, comes out orange because it is only lit by the church lighting (incandescent lights). I don't think having a more powerful speedlight (more than twice the cost of my Nikon SB600) is the answer. I think that would simply blow out the foreground ... right?

Because I don't do this as a profession I'm not about to buy seven to eight hundred dollars worth of remote speedlights in order to reach into the background.

I was shooting Raw so I suppose I could double-process in ACR, once as flash and again as tungsten and then use a mask to blend the two images. Does anybody have a better bright idea?????

Rusty

Rusty,
I think your analysis of the situation is right on. With flash, the foregound gets lit by the flash, but there is not enough light for the background. A larger flash is not the answer. If you get a more powerful flash, it will not change a thing. The flash itself meters the light coming back from the area of focus and shuts itself off when the light reaches the correct value. This usually occurs in an extremely short time, perhaps 1/1000 sec or less. Because most cameras are automatically set for 1/60 sec when the flash is turned on, The background is exposed for 1/60 sec to ambient light only.
With a larger, more powerful flash, it would shut itself off sooner, perhaps in 1/2000 sec, so that the main subject would still be lit properly; the background might be slightly brighter, but probably would remain the same, basically being exposed for the same 1/60 sec to ambient light.
I don't know of an easier way to fix this other than remote speedlights, which are not cheap and do require advance planning, or by processing the photo twice in Raw as you suggested and blend the two images.
Perhaps someone with more experience using remote speedlights can provide a better solution.
Joe

Did you think of using a warming filter on the flash?

Short of using multiple speedlights you have the problem of dealing with two distinctly different types of lighting for which there is no white balance that will work. I would go for a WB that will light your main subject correctly and do the best you can with the background in PP.

Thanks, you three confirmed and clarified my thoughts.

Joe, I didn't think it all the way thru. A more powerful flash wouldn't blow out the foreground -- the TTL System would simply shut off the exposure faster to compensate.

Michel, that's probably the only thing that would work -- change the nature of the strobe light to "act like tungsten".

I concluded that post processing isn't worth the effort and, apparently, the professional wedding photographers don't think so either. I looked back at images of my daughter's wedding from that church some years ago and see exactly the same thing...

WB-Courtney.jpg (233.74 KiB) Viewed 948 times

This photographer was using film; the orange is even more pronounced.

Thank you again for commenting.

Rusty

Rusty, Is this what you had in mind? I added a hue/saturation adjustment layer and desaturated the yellow channel. Didn't need to do any masking/blending.

WB-Flash.jpg (125.93 KiB) Viewed 933 times

The background looks more true, but the problem, and it may not be that big of one, is that in desaturating the yellow channel to tone down the background, the skin tones of the people were also desaturated. This may be OK as long as its not pushed too far, but could easily be overdone if you're not careful. I think Rusty's original idea of double processing and blending would ultimately be the best, but would be a bit more work in getting it right. If you're only concerned with a couple of pictures it may be worth the extra effort. If you're dealing with a large number, it may not be.

That's pretty good, Linda.
Could even use the built-in mask of an adjustment layer if it starts screwing up "the people".

Gene, I think this is exactly why the professional wedding photographers don't bother. They take so many images, and time is money. Get the people looking right, that's what they are hired to produce images of, the background isn't important.

Rusty

PS - one funny aside. I was told that the cute little flower girl in my group shot has been bouncing off the walls for a month, just can't wait for her aunt's wedding so she could wear her princess dress

Gene, I think this is exactly why the professional wedding photographers don't bother. They take so many images, and time is money. Get the people looking right, that's what they are hired to produce images of, the background isn't important.
Rusty

Very true.
Other reasons wedding photographers do so:
- They generaly have powerful strobes, sometimes slave units.
- Flash photography gives them standard lighting, much easier to control while shooting and in postprocessing.
- Having standard lighting makes it easier to make albums with consistent lighting
- Mixing lightings is too hazardous for them. Not only WB, but also mixing slow available light shutter speed with high speed flash.
- Photos of celebrities in magazines are a cultural reference, that kind of flash look is expected in a wedding.
- They often shoot available light in typical situations to give the mood of the wedding. Wide angle and details are a nice complement to group shots, this can be done without flash. A few shallow depth of field portraits are welcome.