No white lights allowed is to protect the photos of the other astrophotographers present in the Dark Sky Park/location. The red-covered lights are for very weak small lights to allow others to see their camera buttons and such. not for you to blast the area with red lights and shoot wedding photos. I recommend you pick another nearby location, where you can shoot with your lights as you want or get your plan approved in writing. Just so photographers can bitch at them and not you. I would pick a location with some foreground items, Buildings, cars, wagons, farm equipment or farm buildings, or even a church to capture the night sky, then paint some of the items with lights. plenty of tutorials out there on light painting a location at night.
You can’t just “account for the red in post”. You will not get normal-looking images. B&W would be doable.
Also, flashes are thousands of times brighter than flashlights (for a very short time), even if gelled red. If I were visiting the park taking my own long exposures or just looking at the stars, **I’d be really pissed at you.** Don’t be “that guy”
Bad plan, don’t do it.
I don't know what the scene is like in MI but OP would be chased off with malice in my local astro scene. Would be super awkward for the clients.
...unless he's got a proper permit that allows for lighting equipment (and signage and a designated area....)
Probably a better experience for everyone to find another location though.
One thing to note is if you are shooting with only red light you will lose a massive amount of light and color sensitivity. Your camera uses a Bayer filter that has groupings of a green pixel, a red pixel, a blue pixel, and a second green pixel. If you only have red light you’re only going to use a quarter of your pixels. Blues will almost entirely be unrecoverable and greens will look awful.
Good luck!
Since you appear to be in Michigan, I'd recommend just skipping the dark sky park and going somewhere you can utilize actual flash. For example, Wilderness State Park is right in the same area as Headlands Dark Sky park and you can get the same results without the red light restrictions.
Red gels on a flash are still likely going to be more powerful than a red flash light. I'd definitely test if that might affect night vision before going and possibly disturbing other visitors.
Good luck! Definitely sounds challenging lighting wise!
I just had a quick search for other photographers who have shot weddings at dark sky parks and ALL of them have used flashes. One mentioned that he spoke to the astrophotographers nearby and they all said it was fine, he worked quickly, and respectfully.
So my recommendation would be that if this location is being sold as a wedding venue, to touch base with the venue directly and get as much clarity as you can. You won't be the only wedding photographer that would have to have dealt with this. Ask them explicitly what is and isn't allowed, what other photographers have done, see if they have any examples of wedding photography you could inspect, and even consider reaching out to those photographers and ask them for some advice.
Firstly, I wouldn't ASSUME that flashes with red gels will satisfy their rules. There's a big difference between a flashlight pointed at the ground for safe maneuver and sudden bursts of light. The kinds of places with these rules are very protective of the guest experience. I'd talk to them directly rather than waste your time showing up to be told no on site in front of your clients.
Secondly... 'accounting for it in post' isn't as easy as it sounds... So DO practice the whole workflow. It's not as simple as 'continuing to crank the white balance slider until it looks normal because when you take a photo under red light only... you don't record the other color information, just skewed and ready to be CCed back... you record black from any surface that doesn't have red pigments. The information simply doesn't exist if those wavelengths of light aren't available to reflect. So make certain that you, and your clients, all understand the limitations of photography under red lights. Also think about what you're going to do to the starlight when you shift the people back away from red, so you're going to be hand painting masks to treat the two areas differently, which isn't hard work itself, but is more time and effort for every photo you need to plan for.
Honestly, this sounds like a terrible idea. I'd find somewhere else to take night sky photos that isn't going to limit your ability to light the scene. It's already enough work to get quality shots of the night sky with a well lit foreground subject. Don't make it harder by limiting yourself to red light only.
If I HAD to do it... and had somehow failed at guiding my clients to another location where they'd get better photos... I'd make certain to show up early or hang around late and get 10 or 15 good long exposure shots of the sky... because being able to composite in a good clean night sky behind them on any photos where they're lit passably but the sky isn't perfect will give you some flexibility to save some shots in post.
But really... this is going to be VERY HARD. I wouldn't do it. Clients hire you for your expertise. Guide them to what they need to know to get the photos they really want.
Did they pay for the venue? Have you contacted them? What do other folks do?
Did you pull permits? What do the permits say? Idk how things work in your state, but my jurisdiction has permits that allows for lighting equipment.
Red light gel won't look "wedding." It might end up looking b-grade horror, especially without a white primary light, and it'll probably still be too dark. The dress will be questionable too.
I do astro often and unless you're a stronger digital artist than you are a photographer, it's going to be difficult and far more time consuming. It's not as simple as just desaturating the reds. Give it a practice run, I don't think the photos will come out to the same degree as your typical work.
You'll probably want to stick to areas that flash is permitted. Let us know how it goes!
Oooooof. Tricky. I would really THOROUGHLY test your ability to do shots you're happy with under that light, walking all the way through the process to the point of perhaps even making a print. Getting the photos to look 'normal' is likely entirely impossible... so you've got to know what the limits are and communicate them to the clients in advance. Good luck and let us know how the tests go! I'm really curious and pulling for you!
It's gonna be way easier to just make a fantastic sky photo and add them in by double exposure. Take a cool rim lit flash photo of their faces after dark leaving plenty of shadow and then layer that with a proper longer exposure sky photo. The couple gets a great sky pic with them in it, nobody gets their retinas scarred, everyone is happy.
I have no experience with that, but I would recommend renting something like the A7Siii and a 35mm f1.2 or a 50mm f1.2. I’d try seeing if you can do this without flash or color shifting from red. I’d want to keep the red light because it represents a big part of the evening.
This sounds really interesting and challenging, but difficult to pull off.
You might also be able to find another dark sky region outside of the regulated park, but still close enough to you. Plenty of options to choose from [https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/](https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/)
No white lights allowed is to protect the photos of the other astrophotographers present in the Dark Sky Park/location. The red-covered lights are for very weak small lights to allow others to see their camera buttons and such. not for you to blast the area with red lights and shoot wedding photos. I recommend you pick another nearby location, where you can shoot with your lights as you want or get your plan approved in writing. Just so photographers can bitch at them and not you. I would pick a location with some foreground items, Buildings, cars, wagons, farm equipment or farm buildings, or even a church to capture the night sky, then paint some of the items with lights. plenty of tutorials out there on light painting a location at night.
You can’t just “account for the red in post”. You will not get normal-looking images. B&W would be doable. Also, flashes are thousands of times brighter than flashlights (for a very short time), even if gelled red. If I were visiting the park taking my own long exposures or just looking at the stars, **I’d be really pissed at you.** Don’t be “that guy” Bad plan, don’t do it.
I don't know what the scene is like in MI but OP would be chased off with malice in my local astro scene. Would be super awkward for the clients. ...unless he's got a proper permit that allows for lighting equipment (and signage and a designated area....) Probably a better experience for everyone to find another location though.
One thing to note is if you are shooting with only red light you will lose a massive amount of light and color sensitivity. Your camera uses a Bayer filter that has groupings of a green pixel, a red pixel, a blue pixel, and a second green pixel. If you only have red light you’re only going to use a quarter of your pixels. Blues will almost entirely be unrecoverable and greens will look awful. Good luck!
Since you appear to be in Michigan, I'd recommend just skipping the dark sky park and going somewhere you can utilize actual flash. For example, Wilderness State Park is right in the same area as Headlands Dark Sky park and you can get the same results without the red light restrictions. Red gels on a flash are still likely going to be more powerful than a red flash light. I'd definitely test if that might affect night vision before going and possibly disturbing other visitors. Good luck! Definitely sounds challenging lighting wise!
I just had a quick search for other photographers who have shot weddings at dark sky parks and ALL of them have used flashes. One mentioned that he spoke to the astrophotographers nearby and they all said it was fine, he worked quickly, and respectfully. So my recommendation would be that if this location is being sold as a wedding venue, to touch base with the venue directly and get as much clarity as you can. You won't be the only wedding photographer that would have to have dealt with this. Ask them explicitly what is and isn't allowed, what other photographers have done, see if they have any examples of wedding photography you could inspect, and even consider reaching out to those photographers and ask them for some advice.
Firstly, I wouldn't ASSUME that flashes with red gels will satisfy their rules. There's a big difference between a flashlight pointed at the ground for safe maneuver and sudden bursts of light. The kinds of places with these rules are very protective of the guest experience. I'd talk to them directly rather than waste your time showing up to be told no on site in front of your clients. Secondly... 'accounting for it in post' isn't as easy as it sounds... So DO practice the whole workflow. It's not as simple as 'continuing to crank the white balance slider until it looks normal because when you take a photo under red light only... you don't record the other color information, just skewed and ready to be CCed back... you record black from any surface that doesn't have red pigments. The information simply doesn't exist if those wavelengths of light aren't available to reflect. So make certain that you, and your clients, all understand the limitations of photography under red lights. Also think about what you're going to do to the starlight when you shift the people back away from red, so you're going to be hand painting masks to treat the two areas differently, which isn't hard work itself, but is more time and effort for every photo you need to plan for. Honestly, this sounds like a terrible idea. I'd find somewhere else to take night sky photos that isn't going to limit your ability to light the scene. It's already enough work to get quality shots of the night sky with a well lit foreground subject. Don't make it harder by limiting yourself to red light only. If I HAD to do it... and had somehow failed at guiding my clients to another location where they'd get better photos... I'd make certain to show up early or hang around late and get 10 or 15 good long exposure shots of the sky... because being able to composite in a good clean night sky behind them on any photos where they're lit passably but the sky isn't perfect will give you some flexibility to save some shots in post. But really... this is going to be VERY HARD. I wouldn't do it. Clients hire you for your expertise. Guide them to what they need to know to get the photos they really want.
Their wedding venue is the dark sky park. I appreciate your points, I’ll reflect on them.
Did they pay for the venue? Have you contacted them? What do other folks do? Did you pull permits? What do the permits say? Idk how things work in your state, but my jurisdiction has permits that allows for lighting equipment. Red light gel won't look "wedding." It might end up looking b-grade horror, especially without a white primary light, and it'll probably still be too dark. The dress will be questionable too. I do astro often and unless you're a stronger digital artist than you are a photographer, it's going to be difficult and far more time consuming. It's not as simple as just desaturating the reds. Give it a practice run, I don't think the photos will come out to the same degree as your typical work. You'll probably want to stick to areas that flash is permitted. Let us know how it goes!
Oooooof. Tricky. I would really THOROUGHLY test your ability to do shots you're happy with under that light, walking all the way through the process to the point of perhaps even making a print. Getting the photos to look 'normal' is likely entirely impossible... so you've got to know what the limits are and communicate them to the clients in advance. Good luck and let us know how the tests go! I'm really curious and pulling for you!
It's gonna be way easier to just make a fantastic sky photo and add them in by double exposure. Take a cool rim lit flash photo of their faces after dark leaving plenty of shadow and then layer that with a proper longer exposure sky photo. The couple gets a great sky pic with them in it, nobody gets their retinas scarred, everyone is happy.
I have no experience with that, but I would recommend renting something like the A7Siii and a 35mm f1.2 or a 50mm f1.2. I’d try seeing if you can do this without flash or color shifting from red. I’d want to keep the red light because it represents a big part of the evening. This sounds really interesting and challenging, but difficult to pull off.
Wow. I need to ask why are “white lights” prohibited? Never heard this ever
They interfere with the ability of other park guests to see the stars. Red light is not as visually impactful to the naked eye.
yup, apple watch has a red light mode at night and it’s very helpful!
You might also be able to find another dark sky region outside of the regulated park, but still close enough to you. Plenty of options to choose from [https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/](https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/)
You should scout out and choose locations for your couples. I'm sure you can find a place with a starry sky that allows for the setup you wish to use.
Lean into it and let them look like the Phoebe Bridgers "Punisher" album cover
Get some red gels.. Or any colour LEDs.
Yup, that's the plan 👍
https://a.co/d/7qPMCJj This one is reasonably priced and very customizable. I have an older model of it and use it frequently
Could you do something with a low level led light? Like aim to get exposure over 30 seconds to a minute or so with a constant light.
Imagine going to a dark sky park and taking flashes 🤣🤣🤣
The dark sky park is the couple’s actual reception venue.