Late Evening Outdoor Group Portrait Settings Help

GlennG · 09-28-2016, 12:38 PM

Greetings, all. In this post I am seeking advice for how to improve the IQ of late evening group portraits. I recently took some photos of small groups (typically 1-6 people) of high school students in the late evening at a pretty and natural outdoor setting. I was mostly happy with the results, but have thought I could improve on my efforts. The day was overcast, with very even but fading light by a lake. I wanted the students appropriately exposed, but also wanted to have some of the pretty setting show up in the photos as background. I used a Sigma 610 Super flash mounted on my K-5. I used the flash's diffuser panel. The lens was DA*16-50.

These are my settings I used for nearly all photos:

- JPEG setting, maximum quality
- manual exposure mode for camera
- auto-focus mode
- auto white balance
- ISO 1600 - high enough to enable a "fast enough" shutter speed for hand holding
- 1/25 shutter speed - long enough to expose the natural setting appropriately, and also slower than sync speed
- f/7.1 on the lens - small enough to keep subjects' faces all sharp and get the background enough in focus
- Flash was set on manual at 1/32 power setting - enough to illuminate faces about right.
- working distance from me to subjects was about 10 ft.

As I left the photo session, which was loosely controlled (all of us parents photoing all of our kids), I felt that I had done about as well as I could to achieve good IQ and felt that I was about at the light and equipment limit. But maybe that is not true and there was room for improvement which I am not aware of. For example, could I have used a wider aperture, still achieved good sharpness, and then lowered ISO to achieve better IQ? Would shooting in raw have helped here? Or, shoot from a tripod and use an even slower shutter speed (and go to a lower ISO)? Or, is stepping up to a K-1 the only real improvement in this situation?

Thanks for your suggestions and experiences here.

**TER-OR** · 09-28-2016, 01:09 PM

Usually with group photos you're far enough away to have a wider aperture. That would let you bump your shutter speed and avoid subject motion blur.

How did the photos turn out?

I have seen - and used - some homemade larger diffusers which worked well. Better than a diffuser card built into the flash. It does take some practice, though.

aleonx3 · 09-28-2016, 01:16 PM

I would shoot RAW instead of JPEG (better control on ISO noise and WB), shutter speed at least 1/125 and aperture around f5.6. I would prefer bounce flash on a large surface than a diffuser in that situation but you just have to make it work whatever you can get.

**clackers** · 09-28-2016, 02:55 PM

Some nasty little contradictions in rhose settings, Glenn. Shutter speed too slow for a group photo, ISO quite high, very weak flash output.

We can't really tell without seeing your results, but I guess that might have privacy problems with your subjects. 😊

IMHO, you'd shoot RAW, on a tripod, and expose for the sky, not the subjects. P-TTL and FEC will handle them, and fast. They've got to be very still, because the 1/32 flash power tells me there was a lot of ambient light around.

Best image quality? Shoot twice at ISO 100, once exposed for the group at 1/180s, get them out of the frame and take a second shot long exposed for the sky, combine in Photoshop.

Last edited by clackers; 09-28-2016 at 03:03 PM.

GlennG · 09-29-2016, 07:24 AM

Thanks for the responses, all. I will try to incorporate your suggestions next event. Here is an example photo with just my daughter, but the other shots with more than one person were roughly similar. The light in the natural setting behind her is representative of the amount of ambient light actually present at that location at that time. As mentioned above, the day was overcast, and evening light fading, so the light was even, but not real bright. Even at a low flash setting, the light on my daughter is too bright/harsh, and I still see more noise in the photo than I'd like. For sure I need a better diffuser/technique here. I'm not sure what the deal is with the noise in these series of photos, as I've taken shots with my K5 at iso 1600 before and was very pleased with the low noise, but these seem to have a lot more than usual. Again, I appreciate the good input. Thanks.

Edit - sorry about the sideways orientation - how do I fix that here?

**TER-OR** · 09-29-2016, 12:44 PM

To me it looks like good old flash burn. Blown highlights. I usually try to reduce that in Lightroom with highlight and exposure adjustment. Sometimes a couple other adjustments. I think that image is not beyond improvement. I started just shooting RAW to make those adjustments easier. You may be able to do some of that in-camera too.

GlennG · 09-29-2016, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by TER-OR

To me it looks like good old flash burn.

I agree, and thanks again for the feedback. Looks like I could have gone to 1/64th on the Sigma flash, which is as low as it will go. I could also get a good diffuser, and/or aim the flash upward and bounce off its small, built-in card.

**clackers** · 09-29-2016, 09:06 PM

No, the card is really for catch lights in the eyes, you need to illuminate the subject with a big enough key light.

Can I suggest either a small softbox or a Rogue Flashbender? That with going down a stop with the flash and going up one in the background would look great (I know these things are subjective, but it's too dark for mine).

Or embrace the darkness and put a flash back there lighting up part of the foliage as well for interesting depth to the pic.

The important thing is, you have choices, and you can practice them without pressure before they're actually needed. Here's a selfie test of a setup. Note that the flash is now off-camera to get a more 3D effect:

wildman · 09-29-2016, 11:41 PM

Can't help but wonder if he couldn't get by with a single well exposed RAW file with no flash and correction later in Photoshop.
With two conflicting light sources of similar intensity it seems to me he's really unnecessarily complicating things. Flash makes sense in the controlled environment of a studio but out in a park? After all the K5 has a fair amount of DR from my experience.

**clackers** · 09-30-2016, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by wildman

Flash makes sense in the controlled environment of a studio but out in a park?

See my photo above, Wildman ... that's in a park - a sunset happening along the treeline.

Originally posted by wildman

Can't help but wonder if he couldn't get by with a single well exposed RAW file with no flash and correction later in Photoshop.

Look at that background at ISO 1600 and 1/25s!

If the ambient and subject light levels are the same, you now want 1/60s or faster ... not for camera shake, but for subject movement.

This is going to be too dark.

All noise reduction destroys details, and the PP can create artefacts like the green dots on her lips and teeth in your example.

GlennG · 09-30-2016, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by clackers

The important thing is, you have choices, and you can practice them without pressure before they're actually needed. Here's a selfie test of a setup. Note that the flash is now off-camera to get a more 3D effect:

That's a pretty good exposure and thanks for sharing the concepts. Part of the issue for me is the whole dynamic of the shooting event and that is even another limitation by itself. No one of us in these situations is a paid photographer, or even the "main" photographer, and both the kids and parents tend to want things to move along very quickly, so it seems the event affords no time to do some simple experiments to get it better. Is it possible for a helper to hand hold the off camera flash, so at least you don't have to move around a flash stand? I really like off-camera flash results that I've seen from others, but to be honest, I am such an amateur that I don't have either the radio triggers or the skill to do it right. I would have to get that and practice. You are 100% correct in that a person needs to practice without pressure to get the skill level up.

Originally posted by wildman

Can't help but wonder if he couldn't get by with a single well exposed RAW file with no flash and correction later in Photoshop.
With two conflicting light sources of similar intensity it seems to me he's really unnecessarily complicating things. Flash makes sense in the controlled environment of a studio but out in a park? After all the K5 has a fair amount of DR from my experience.

That may be best of all. I tried a few shots without flash and they seemed excessively dark when reviewing them on camera at the site. I like your edits here and that is about the level of brightness I was desiring for both subject and background. Wonderful things can be done in post and I was trying to avoid it so I could share the results very quickly. I seem to get bogged down very quickly when doing post processing and don't get things on Flickr for sharing until much later than desired. Sounds like another couple of skills I could get better at.

Thanks again to both for the great suggestions. Now I think these are pointing me in some directions I can go to improve the results. Thanks. Glenn

**clackers** · 09-30-2016, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by GlennG

That's a pretty good exposure and thanks for sharing the concepts. Part of the issue for me is the whole dynamic of the shooting event and that is even another limitation by itself. No one of us in these situations is a paid photographer, or even the "main" photographer, and both the kids and parents tend to want things to move along very quickly, so it seems the event affords no time to do some simple experiments to get it better.

You shot in manual, GlennG, P-TTL is fast. You can get the look you were aiming for in your daughter's shot by choosing say, -1eV or more for the Exposure Compensation (to darken the background), then 0 to -1eV for the Flash Exposure Compensation, and leave it up to the camera.

But if there was a procession of kids all posing for the same shot, you could just get it right in Manual with the first one or a stand-in, then repeat the lot with the same settings. Very quick too, with consistency.

Originally posted by GlennG

Is it possible for a helper to hand hold the off camera flash, so at least you don't have to move around a flash stand? .

Yes, you can even use a parent as your so-called 'Voice Activated Light Stand'. Put the flash and diffuser on the end of a monopod for extra reach/height.

Originally posted by GlennG

I really like off-camera flash results that I've seen from others, but to be honest, I am such an amateur that I don't have either the radio triggers or the skill to do it right. .

? Radio trigger/receiver pairs can be bought for less than $100. That's amateur pricing.

No photographer, amateur or pro, was born with the skill to use a flash, either ... everyone learns it by doing.

09-28-2016, 12:38 PM	#1
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824	Late Evening Outdoor Group Portrait Settings Help Greetings, all. In this post I am seeking advice for how to improve the IQ of late evening group portraits. I recently took some photos of small groups (typically 1-6 people) of high school students in the late evening at a pretty and natural outdoor setting. I was mostly happy with the results, but have thought I could improve on my efforts. The day was overcast, with very even but fading light by a lake. I wanted the students appropriately exposed, but also wanted to have some of the pretty setting show up in the photos as background. I used a Sigma 610 Super flash mounted on my K-5. I used the flash's diffuser panel. The lens was DA*16-50. These are my settings I used for nearly all photos: - JPEG setting, maximum quality - manual exposure mode for camera - auto-focus mode - auto white balance - ISO 1600 - high enough to enable a "fast enough" shutter speed for hand holding - 1/25 shutter speed - long enough to expose the natural setting appropriately, and also slower than sync speed - f/7.1 on the lens - small enough to keep subjects' faces all sharp and get the background enough in focus - Flash was set on manual at 1/32 power setting - enough to illuminate faces about right. - working distance from me to subjects was about 10 ft. As I left the photo session, which was loosely controlled (all of us parents photoing all of our kids), I felt that I had done about as well as I could to achieve good IQ and felt that I was about at the light and equipment limit. But maybe that is not true and there was room for improvement which I am not aware of. For example, could I have used a wider aperture, still achieved good sharpness, and then lowered ISO to achieve better IQ? Would shooting in raw have helped here? Or, shoot from a tripod and use an even slower shutter speed (and go to a lower ISO)? Or, is stepping up to a K-1 the only real improvement in this situation? Thanks for your suggestions and experiences here.

09-29-2016, 09:06 PM	#8
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	No, the card is really for catch lights in the eyes, you need to illuminate the subject with a big enough key light. Can I suggest either a small softbox or a Rogue Flashbender? That with going down a stop with the flash and going up one in the background would look great (I know these things are subjective, but it's too dark for mine). Or embrace the darkness and put a flash back there lighting up part of the foliage as well for interesting depth to the pic. The important thing is, you have choices, and you can practice them without pressure before they're actually needed. Here's a selfie test of a setup. Note that the flash is now off-camera to get a more 3D effect: Last edited by clackers; 09-29-2016 at 09:54 PM.

09-29-2016, 11:41 PM	#9
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Can't help but wonder if he couldn't get by with a single well exposed RAW file with no flash and correction later in Photoshop. With two conflicting light sources of similar intensity it seems to me he's really unnecessarily complicating things. Flash makes sense in the controlled environment of a studio but out in a park? After all the K5 has a fair amount of DR from my experience. Last edited by wildman; 10-04-2016 at 03:04 AM.

09-30-2016, 06:16 AM	#10
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by wildman Flash makes sense in the controlled environment of a studio but out in a park? See my photo above, Wildman ... that's in a park - a sunset happening along the treeline. Originally posted by wildman Can't help but wonder if he couldn't get by with a single well exposed RAW file with no flash and correction later in Photoshop. Look at that background at ISO 1600 and 1/25s! If the ambient and subject light levels are the same, you now want 1/60s or faster ... not for camera shake, but for subject movement. This is going to be too dark. All noise reduction destroys details, and the PP can create artefacts like the green dots on her lips and teeth in your example. Last edited by clackers; 09-30-2016 at 06:24 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Travel Late Evening Shot	Janse	Post Your Photos!	5	04-26-2016 01:40 PM
Nature Late Evening Daffodil	Dewman	Post Your Photos!	2	03-11-2016 09:05 PM
Outdoor Settings	jbuck92	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	18	12-30-2011 12:48 PM
Landscape Late Fall evening	Myoptimism	Photo Critique	4	11-29-2009 06:18 AM
ND Filter for outdoor group shot	mattrickman	Photographic Technique	18	04-02-2009 06:59 AM

09-28-2016, 01:09 PM	#2
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Usually with group photos you're far enough away to have a wider aperture. That would let you bump your shutter speed and avoid subject motion blur. How did the photos turn out? I have seen - and used - some homemade larger diffusers which worked well. Better than a diffuser card built into the flash. It does take some practice, though.

09-28-2016, 01:16 PM	#3
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	I would shoot RAW instead of JPEG (better control on ISO noise and WB), shutter speed at least 1/125 and aperture around f5.6. I would prefer bounce flash on a large surface than a diffuser in that situation but you just have to make it work whatever you can get.

09-28-2016, 02:55 PM	#4
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Some nasty little contradictions in rhose settings, Glenn. Shutter speed too slow for a group photo, ISO quite high, very weak flash output. We can't really tell without seeing your results, but I guess that might have privacy problems with your subjects. 😊 IMHO, you'd shoot RAW, on a tripod, and expose for the sky, not the subjects. P-TTL and FEC will handle them, and fast. They've got to be very still, because the 1/32 flash power tells me there was a lot of ambient light around. Best image quality? Shoot twice at ISO 100, once exposed for the group at 1/180s, get them out of the frame and take a second shot long exposed for the sky, combine in Photoshop. Last edited by clackers; 09-28-2016 at 03:03 PM.

09-29-2016, 12:44 PM	#6
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	To me it looks like good old flash burn. Blown highlights. I usually try to reduce that in Lightroom with highlight and exposure adjustment. Sometimes a couple other adjustments. I think that image is not beyond improvement. I started just shooting RAW to make those adjustments easier. You may be able to do some of that in-camera too.

09-29-2016, 08:10 PM	#7
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824 Original Poster	Originally posted by TER-OR To me it looks like good old flash burn. I agree, and thanks again for the feedback. Looks like I could have gone to 1/64th on the Sigma flash, which is as low as it will go. I could also get a good diffuser, and/or aim the flash upward and bounce off its small, built-in card.

09-30-2016, 06:21 AM	#11
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824 Original Poster	Originally posted by clackers The important thing is, you have choices, and you can practice them without pressure before they're actually needed. Here's a selfie test of a setup. Note that the flash is now off-camera to get a more 3D effect: That's a pretty good exposure and thanks for sharing the concepts. Part of the issue for me is the whole dynamic of the shooting event and that is even another limitation by itself. No one of us in these situations is a paid photographer, or even the "main" photographer, and both the kids and parents tend to want things to move along very quickly, so it seems the event affords no time to do some simple experiments to get it better. Is it possible for a helper to hand hold the off camera flash, so at least you don't have to move around a flash stand? I really like off-camera flash results that I've seen from others, but to be honest, I am such an amateur that I don't have either the radio triggers or the skill to do it right. I would have to get that and practice. You are 100% correct in that a person needs to practice without pressure to get the skill level up. Originally posted by wildman Can't help but wonder if he couldn't get by with a single well exposed RAW file with no flash and correction later in Photoshop. With two conflicting light sources of similar intensity it seems to me he's really unnecessarily complicating things. Flash makes sense in the controlled environment of a studio but out in a park? After all the K5 has a fair amount of DR from my experience. That may be best of all. I tried a few shots without flash and they seemed excessively dark when reviewing them on camera at the site. I like your edits here and that is about the level of brightness I was desiring for both subject and background. Wonderful things can be done in post and I was trying to avoid it so I could share the results very quickly. I seem to get bogged down very quickly when doing post processing and don't get things on Flickr for sharing until much later than desired. Sounds like another couple of skills I could get better at. Thanks again to both for the great suggestions. Now I think these are pointing me in some directions I can go to improve the results. Thanks. Glenn

09-30-2016, 06:38 AM	#12
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by GlennG That's a pretty good exposure and thanks for sharing the concepts. Part of the issue for me is the whole dynamic of the shooting event and that is even another limitation by itself. No one of us in these situations is a paid photographer, or even the "main" photographer, and both the kids and parents tend to want things to move along very quickly, so it seems the event affords no time to do some simple experiments to get it better. You shot in manual, GlennG, P-TTL is fast. You can get the look you were aiming for in your daughter's shot by choosing say, -1eV or more for the Exposure Compensation (to darken the background), then 0 to -1eV for the Flash Exposure Compensation, and leave it up to the camera. But if there was a procession of kids all posing for the same shot, you could just get it right in Manual with the first one or a stand-in, then repeat the lot with the same settings. Very quick too, with consistency. Originally posted by GlennG Is it possible for a helper to hand hold the off camera flash, so at least you don't have to move around a flash stand? . Yes, you can even use a parent as your so-called 'Voice Activated Light Stand'. Put the flash and diffuser on the end of a monopod for extra reach/height. Originally posted by GlennG I really like off-camera flash results that I've seen from others, but to be honest, I am such an amateur that I don't have either the radio triggers or the skill to do it right. . ? Radio trigger/receiver pairs can be bought for less than $100. That's amateur pricing. No photographer, amateur or pro, was born with the skill to use a flash, either ... everyone learns it by doing.