overexposed flash photography

[wmass]

hi all,
can't find any answers via google, and have never really been successful in replicating this 'style', but i've got to say that i really like those blown out, bright white interior shots that i keep seeing.
thought maybe someone here could help to identify the strategy/equipment needed to achieve something like this...

examples:

http://iconolo.gy/sites/default/files/CCnI6YwB.jpg

http://www.ikebana-albums.com/personal/neckface-spanky-house-burns/

http://www.robertaridolfi.com/sezione2.asp?sezione=1&sottosezione=1&sequenziale=


also terry richardson's color photos almost always look like this.

is it just plain old overexposure with a flash?
or an additional flash that maybe your camera doesn't "know about"?

thanks for the help...

 

[wafflecakee]

Just yashica t4's.

 

[wmass]

i know t.r. uses one, but they can't ALL be using.

i don't want a t4, i just bought a contax t2.

 

[cosmonaut]

It looks to me as the flash was set to high or not if you like it. Get a flash meter and learn how to use it. There are hundreds of how to videos on flash technique.

 

[Ranchu]

Beat me to it, crucial to have a flash meter.

 

[willie_901]

In my work the lighting effects you are interested in are considered undesirable. And I have made many mistakes and am constantly surprised (not in a good way) in setting up my off-camera flashes that produce the the overexposed, bright, flared look in these photos.

The aperture and flash duration (commonly called the power) control the exposure from the flash. Flashes that are adjustable in 1/3 stops are common. Of course the apertures with 1/3 stops are common too. The Yongnuo yn-560 iii flashes and RF-603 radio triggers would the most economical way to get started. It is not very difficult, using a digital camera, to use trial and error to get the light from the flashes to be just at the exposure you see in these photos.

Flash mofifiers help too. If you bounce the flash off of a large white reflective surface you can alter the light. Several flashes and bounce surfaces would minimze shadows. The idea would be to make everything uniformly lit and a large white surfaces are useful for this. Silvered reflectors make the light harsher. I would not be shocked if bouncing a flash off a large mirror would produce the a unique flarey look in these examples. Flash light bounced off large mirrors can create an odd harsh look due to lots of indirect flare. The light seems to come from everywhere and somehow the indirect light gets into the lens at angles that produce a uniform flare.

It looks like one of the photos has direct flare from a flash. Again trial and error is useful to get set a flash at an angle to the lens that introduces a just the right amount of flare. A small change in angle can make a huge difference. Of course the flash power would be changed too once a useful angle was found.

I think some of these photos were made with one or more relatively high-powered studio strobes. I would use at least 3 to 5 off camera flashes to go for this sort of look. Having assistants to haul the stuff around, hold large reflectors and move lights and reflectors by small amounts would save huge amounts of time.

Despite having written about all these complicated set ups, there is a simple way to start out. All you have to do is hold a flash with the top of the flash head resting directly on the top of the lens. You would hold the flash upside down. This puts the light directly on axis and minimizes shadows. Of course you would play with the flash power and aperture to get the high key look you want. I once saw a DIY rig where three flashes were mounted on stands and the top of the flash heads rested on the lens at 120 degree angles. This made a very uniform light that had an odd, very flat look.

 

[mfogiel]

Apart from the last link, these photos are simply overexposed. To do this, you can use manual flash, or a flash linked to the camera, to which you make believe, that your film or ISO is lower, than what it is. All in all, lousy photographs. As an alternative, crank up the brightness in photoshop.

 

[wmass]

thanks for the replies, especially willie for taking the time to relay so much info.
lousy photographs in a traditional sense, maybe, but they do express something interesting and artistically valid.
i think the colors and skin tones are represented beautifully.

 

[willie_901]

Sorry.

I did not mean to imply the photos are lousy, inferior or that I disapprove of this style. Photo techniques for advertising and for artistic expression can be mutually exclusive (but not always... it depends on the product and who's buying the commercial photographs).

It's just that I accidentally make photos like this every so often and I understand what I have to do to eliminate the conditions responsible for the aesthetic look you are interested in.

 

[wilonstott]

I think I've unintentionally gotten this aesthetic. I have a Vivitar 2800 (simple auto-thyristor flash), and it always tends to fire a little hot (about a 1/2 stop more light than it really needs if it's set correctly); anyway, if you use a really low contrast film (Portra 400 is good, and Portra 160 may be better), then it isn't difficult.

Put the shutter speed on the highest sync speed possible. There's never any motion blur in Richardson's photos--which makes me think he's shooting at 1/125 at least--go faster if you can. Plus, by using a fast shutter speed, you have a better chance of the flash overriding the ambient light, and not getting a weird color mix from things like lamps and overhead incandescent/florescent lights (because they will effectively be underexposed).

Also, it looks like those shots were taken at a small aperture--because the depth of field appears to be fairly long (everything is in focus--no bokeh); f/16-f/8 would likely cover the spread.

If the flash is on auto (which it likely will be), I would try to avoid prominent foreground elements, because those will bounce the flash back quicker, and possibly underexpose things behind them.

Once your camera is set, do a test run, and increase your flash output by halves or thirds. I don't have a Yashica T4 or a Contax T series, but I would assume that if the flash output cannot be altered specifically, then you can get the same effect by tweaking the ISO (so instead of shooting 400ISO film on 400, set the camera at a lower ISO--like 320 or 200--because these require more flash output).

Also, you must take photos of beautiful/famous people (optional, but preferred).


When you process (if scanning)--make sure to pull all the highlights back so they aren't blown (or at least not blown to hell), and you may also want to tweak the black point so it's not off the chart. Films like Portra have a really wide latitude, so you should be able to recover nearly all of the highlights. Also, don't add saturation in post (perhaps even desaturate a bit).

That's my take.


Ninja Edit: with the 'motion blur' thing--I mean background motion blur--everything the flash hits will be frozen anyway.

 

[charjohncarter]

It is hard to do forensic on flash photos but here goes:

Photo 1 could have been done with an overexposing bounce flash off the ceiling. This tends to NOT give you harsh shadows and spreads the light all over the place.

Photo 2 looks like a camera left flash set high on a stand and again overexposed.

Photo 3s the ones using flash, all have flash placement either camera left or right but not set high and without a diffuser. The harsh shadows are very snapshot looking which I guess is what the photographer wanted.

 

[wafflecakee]

i know t.r. uses one, but they can't ALL be using.

i don't want a t4, i just bought a contax t2.

T2 will do.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I am sorry but I don't understand what are you talking about. Are you asking about hi-key or overexposed flash photography? I don't know if there is a general consent about what hi-key is but to me it was taught as a photography in which most of the image is above the 18% gray, other call hi-key a photography, usually a portrait, in which very little of the natural shadows appear, I really don't know but in any case it should not be overexposed photography. My suggestions in any case are the following.
First of all learn with digital, in the old days it was a lot of expensive Polaroids, now we have it easy. Second, five or six monoblocks give you a lot of light but also a lot of problems (not to mention the price), learn light from simple to complicated, start with one light, then add reflectors, bookhands, panels, then insert the second light etc. There are always reports of photographers using 30 lights, McNally carryng boxes and boxes of SB800 and so on but normal people are usually very fine with two lights and a few reflective panes, power and size depends on a lot of variables but unless you want to overpower the Mexican desert's sun at 1/60th of a second with a Leica M you probably don't need anything out of this world. Third, remember that you always have main and fill, forget this and you get very flat images. Then there is the hi-key, or whatever you want to do, since I am not even sure that's what you want to achieve I won't write much (besides there are tons of guides about this subject) but keep in mind that what you really want to over illuminate is usually the background and then maybe you want to take away some of the shadows, and illuminating the background is not the same as overpowering the main light, it is more like the old stripe behind the subject and also filling the shadows is again not overpowering the main but more using a panel which doesn't add problems and does the same. If I understood nothing or I wrote something stupid please correct me.

GLF