Body mounted flash and orientation for landscapes vs portraits

[TimHughes]

The situation freshest in my mind is one I can't share due to privacy arrangements with the couple. I'll see if I can find some examples to post.

I can try and describe the situation - it's a photo taken of 6 people around a table with a 35mm f1.8 lens. There is some movement, and a small kid in the photo, I am at f6.3, 1/125 and the ISO is 2500. The photo looks ok but at 100% it's all looking a bit wishy washy. There's no motion blur, but it's just a bit underwhelming. The same photo at ISO 400 with flash would have looked so much crisper, with more detail and of a better quality.

Trying to imagine - ISO 400 to 2500 is two and a half stops, meaning you would loose a lot of ambient. My guess is that with a speedlight at ISO 400 it would look very harsh regardless of bounce card etc unless you where lucky with a convenient white wall behind to bounce off. F6.3 is a lot of DOF, could you trade some of that for ISO if needed (although you have D500 so should not be necessary?) could be a case where a small amount of direct fill is a winning strategy.

 

[TimHughes]

Admittedly I have increased the exposure in PP by half a stop - that could be part of the reason. There were bright windows in the background, and I was on matrix metering. Perhaps some exposure compensation would have helped with the final result

Backlit is tricky, here is a snap metered for room plus direct fill flash, no bounce cards etc.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Backlit is tricky, here is a snap metered for room plus direct fill flash, no bounce cards etc.

View attachment 243167

That fill is nicely balanced. it only shows under her arm, and under the skirt of the old lady, but you would not notice it if you were not looking for it.
The back light makes the picture as it adds rims and modeling.

 

[gilbouk]

That fill is nicely balanced. it only shows under her arm, and under the skirt of the old lady, but you would not notice it if you were not looking for it.
The back light makes the picture as it adds rims and modeling.

I think I need to learn how to identify good and bad lighting to be able to improve. I do too much PP without really appraising / understanding what I should have done with the flash in the first place

 

[TimHughes]

That fill is nicely balanced. it only shows under her arm, and under the skirt of the old lady, but you would not notice it if you were not looking for it.
The back light makes the picture as it adds rims and modeling.

Thanks Terry

 

[DemiLion]

I have six fully "intergrated" flashes as you called them.
can I use them.? Yes
do I use them ? Very rarely.

Have I shot weddings..? Several hundred.
The best that I see today seem to be taken with natural light, indoor and out. With some shots taken with portable studio heads.
in bright light nothing can beat the use of a reflector, held by an assistant or dresser.

I still use a similar technique when the situation demands it, I use a mini flash on the camera as a master and a more powerful one used high up at arms length as a mainlight slave. I always have at least one light stand in the car but rarely use it, it is just too much bother. I usually set both flashes on manual rather than ettl.

All of that completely misses the point that you were trying to belittle someone for not being able to hold a flash in one hand and camera in the other by telling them that it's common practice in the press. It isn't.

 

[gilbouk]

Trying to imagine - ISO 400 to 2500 is two and a half stops, meaning you would loose a lot of ambient. My guess is that with a speedlight at ISO 400 it would look very harsh regardless of bounce card etc unless you where lucky with a convenient white wall behind to bounce off. F6.3 is a lot of DOF, could you trade some of that for ISO if needed (although you have D500 so should not be necessary?) could be a case where a small amount of direct fill is a winning strategy.

Yes it would look pretty harsh, I'd probably notch down the shutter speed to try to compensate. Would I be better increasing the ISO too? Its been a habit of mine to stick to ISO 400 and TTL, and try to keep my f stop low, and if not - my shutter speed low instead

 

[gilbouk]

Backlit is tricky, here is a snap metered for room plus direct fill flash, no bounce cards etc.

View attachment 243167

Did you take a test photo first to meter for the room correctly, and then did you add the fill flash using manual settings or TTL? Again how many photos were required with the flash to get it right?

I'm guessing once you have the recipe right you can continue taking photos of activity in the room from the same position without adjustment to your settings

 

[TimHughes]

Yes it would look pretty harsh, I'd probably notch down the shutter speed to try to compensate. Would I be better increasing the ISO too? Its been a habit of mine to stick to ISO 400 and TTL, and try to keep my f stop low, and if not - my shutter speed low instead

If people are moving around then I’d kept the shutter speed and increase the ISO. Experiment with it before your next shoot. Personally I’m allergic to ISO 400 with flash as that is my cameras default auto ISO setting for flash which usually gives me terrible results. I have had some near misses nearly forgetting to switch to manual ISO when I put the flash on. 2500 is common, 6400, sometimes more is usually ok too.

 

[TimHughes]

Did you take a test photo first to meter for the room correctly, and then did you add the fill flash using manual settings or TTL? Again how many photos were required with the flash to get it right?

I'm guessing once you have the recipe right you can continue taking photos of activity in the room from the same position without adjustment to your settings

Exactly, you get your recipe and stick to it. As I recall spot metered for the subjects and TTL with flash exposure compensation -2 or even -3. Took 2 shots, don’t recall test shots. Another benefit if this works is you can use jpg direct from the camera and save yourself a lot of pp.

 

[gilbouk]

Exactly, you get your recipe and stick to it. As I recall spot metered for the subjects and TTL with flash exposure compensation -2 or even -3. Took 2 shots, don’t recall test shots. Another benefit if this works is you can use jpg direct from the camera and save yourself a lot of pp.

I think I'm a good way off from being able to confidently shoot in jpg.

So with you shooting manual ISO, how do you gauge how much to use when using fill flash? Do you just use the metering indication in the same way as without flash bringing it close to 0?

Sorry for all the questions but I've always been confused with how to change flash exposure compensation, is it done on the flash gun or on the body. I've tried on the body and wondered why the compensation adjustment isn't reflected on the gun too.

 

[TimHughes]

I think I'm a good way off from being able to confidently shoot in jpg.

So with you shooting manual ISO, how do you gauge how much to use when using fill flash? Do you just use the metering indication in the same way as without flash bringing it close to 0?

Sorry for all the questions but I've always been confused with how to change flash exposure compensation, is it done on the flash gun or on the body. I've tried on the body and wondered why the compensation adjustment isn't reflected on the gun too.

No worries, happy to help plenty of people have helped me with my questions.

In this case for events with people moving around, rarely good places to bounce, and low light then what I do is:

1. Meter the same as without flash. Manually Adjust ISO up or down if brighter or darker than the meter expects ie not always 0 unless it’s an average scene. Spot meter a grey card in extreme cases.

2. Put the flash on my small bracket close to the lens to minimize shadows and point it directly forward. I find the modifiers to soften make no difference unless they are big and you are really close to the subject. So you’re working with a hard light and the question is how much do you need to give enough fill and catch light.

3. On my camera I have a menu option for controlling the flash this include flash exposure compensation (fec) which I set to -2 or -3 for this type of setup.

Some flashes, like my Godox, don’t let you adjust the fec in camera if it is changed on the flash. Putting it back to zero on the flash gives my camera control of fec again.

Hope this helps

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Flash on camera never makes beautiful light. At best it can be adequate.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I do find e.g. Neil van Niekerk does very well in making flash not look like flash by bouncing etc.
And "can use flash" and "can use flash well" are also different things

 

[Phil V]

I think I'm a good way off from being able to confidently shoot in jpg.

So with you shooting manual ISO, how do you gauge how much to use when using fill flash? Do you just use the metering indication in the same way as without flash bringing it close to 0?

Sorry for all the questions but I've always been confused with how to change flash exposure compensation, is it done on the flash gun or on the body. I've tried on the body and wondered why the compensation adjustment isn't reflected on the gun too.

I don't know about Nikon - but I'd never shoot any ambient auto settings when using flash - it introduces too many variables. I always use TTL flash though unless in a completely static situation.
As Tim says though f6.3 is a lot of DoF for the shot you described, with well over a meter of DoF (back of fag packet numbers) F4 would get you almost a meter and a stop and a half of breathing space.
You can use either the camera or the flash to set your FEC - I always use the camera because it's in my hand, I rarely touch the controls on the flash - almost everything can be done from the camera and it's simpler to have one place to look for errors.

The key to all of this when shooting events / weddings, is to work out a fairly simple recipe so you don't have to think about your settings and you can just get on with the important stuff. I have C1 set to Manual exp ISO800, 1/100 and f5.6 which I can go to for any inside shots where the flash will take control (recessional and register signing - grab and grins). My normal shooting mode is auto ISO close to wide open Aperture priority (so adjusting the aperture and EC are the only variables).

 

[gilbouk]

No worries, happy to help plenty of people have helped me with my questions.

In this case for events with people moving around, rarely good places to bounce, and low light then what I do is:

1. Meter the same as without flash. Manually Adjust ISO up or down if brighter or darker than the meter expects ie not always 0 unless it’s an average scene. Spot meter a grey card in extreme cases.

2. Put the flash on my small bracket close to the lens to minimize shadows and point it directly forward. I find the modifiers to soften make no difference unless they are big and you are really close to the subject. So you’re working with a hard light and the question is how much do you need to give enough fill and catch light.

3. On my camera I have a menu option for controlling the flash this include flash exposure compensation (fec) which I set to -2 or -3 for this type of setup.

Some flashes, like my Godox, don’t let you adjust the fec in camera if it is changed on the flash. Putting it back to zero on the flash gives my camera control of fec again.

Hope this helps

Thanks Tim, lots of food for thought, and I'll definitely be trying your technique to see how it improves the results. I always thought that a higher ISO was to be avoided so will be keen to sample how it looks with flash. I've never ventured above ISO400 when using flash which is probably why I haven't always had the results I've wanted - particularly in extremely dark situations which give ugly results. The other thing I've been doing is using slower shutter speeds than without flash, as low as 1/60 - when I want more ambient light which has helped somewhat.

 

[DG Phototraining]

Does it just come with practice? How do you manage with a 35mm in extremely small / cramped ceremonies? Looking at your photos it looks like your venues are on the grand side

Not really - most of the time during the Ceremony I'm less than 6ft from my couples so they only just fit from head to waist on the 35mm

If it was even closer I'd have to shoot on my 14-24 as the main lens, but I'd much prefer not to

When using primes you learn to 'see' in that field of view and place yourself accordingly, zooms make for lazy composing in my experience (I'm not saying you're lazy btw, it just made me lazy) and you can't maintain the same look throughout a Wedding if some are shot at 24, 27, 31, 40, 46, 53, 66, 70 mm

There is no 'right' way to do this though, so just do what you're comfortable with and be open to ideas on how to improve and where you may also find your style & equipment choices change too. I was happy on DX and with using flash far more than I do now, but as my photography improved I realised my equipment didn't allow me the look I was after, switching to FX and primes has helped me achieve that

Dave

 

[gilbouk]

I don't know about Nikon - but I'd never shoot any ambient auto settings when using flash - it introduces too many variables. I always use TTL flash though unless in a completely static situation.
As Tim says though f6.3 is a lot of DoF for the shot you described, with well over a meter of DoF (back of fag packet numbers) F4 would get you almost a meter and a stop and a half of breathing space.
You can use either the camera or the flash to set your FEC - I always use the camera because it's in my hand, I rarely touch the controls on the flash - almost everything can be done from the camera and it's simpler to have one place to look for errors.

The key to all of this when shooting events / weddings, is to work out a fairly simple recipe so you don't have to think about your settings and you can just get on with the important stuff. I have C1 set to Manual exp ISO800, 1/100 and f5.6 which I can go to for any inside shots where the flash will take control (recessional and register signing - grab and grins). My normal shooting mode is auto ISO close to wide open Aperture priority (so adjusting the aperture and EC are the only variables).

Again thanks for your input Phil. I have always aired on the side of safety with my f stops as I find too often in PP that group photos have some of the people being out of focus. I find that even when filling a frame with 2 people, I need to be using f8 to get good eye sharpness on both people. Will the same apply when I make the move from DX to FX? I understand that the further away from your subjects, the lower the f stop you can use.

Good info about exposure comp - I always used the flash exposure compensation on the flash itself even with my SB-700 as I wasn't sure why, when I used the option in body why the flash gun wouldn't show the same adjustment I had made in the body.

I was confused when you said this

but I'd never shoot any ambient auto settings when using flash

and then this:

My normal shooting mode is auto ISO close to wide open Aperture priority (so adjusting the aperture and EC are the only variables).

I guess I don't understand what ambient auto settings are?

When shooting in aperture priority, are you not worried that the shutter speed will drop to below where you want it to be? Do you have a cap on your max ISO in your Auto ISO settings? I've been shooting manual with a cap on AUTO ISO for flash at ISO400 (which I'm going to change now). I've been keeping aperture around f4, and upping that when I want more than one person to be in focus - while at the same time reducing the shutter speed). Largely I've been using the bounce card.

 

[gilbouk]

Not really - most of the time during the Ceremony I'm less than 6ft from my couples so they only just fit from head to waist on the 35mm

If it was even closer I'd have to shoot on my 14-24 as the main lens, but I'd much prefer not to

When using primes you learn to 'see' in that field of view and place yourself accordingly, zooms make for lazy composing in my experience (I'm not saying you're lazy btw, it just made me lazy) and you can't maintain the same look throughout a Wedding if some are shot at 24, 27, 31, 40, 46, 53, 66, 70 mm

There is no 'right' way to do this though, so just do what you're comfortable with and be open to ideas on how to improve and where you may also find your style & equipment choices change too. I was happy on DX and with using flash far more than I do now, but as my photography improved I realised my equipment didn't allow me the look I was after, switching to FX and primes has helped me achieve that

Dave

I completely understand what you are saying - I'd love to go prime, and looking at your photos on your website, I love love love the separation of your subject from the background. I just don't think you could get that with a 2.8 zoom, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm a DX shooter so not sure how things look on FX with similar f stops) I don't imagine you can shoot wide open all the time though with the requirement to nail AF much more critical. Do you stop down a bit to get a higher keep rate during the ceremony for example?

Until I'm more confident, and have 2 bodies - I'd just panic being in the situation of having a 35mm and not being able to fit the couple in, and not being able to back up anymore because of a wall - or having a situation where I need more wide and realise there's nothing I can do to get the shot because of lens choice. I also have a tendency to chop the things off more when using a prime - like the top of heads. Having some safety space around your subjects also gives you the ability to correct verticals if your photos are squint. So I guess you need to be pretty accurate at framing, particularly if you don't have that safety space if you were to have shot wider.

 

[DG Phototraining]

I completely understand what you are saying - I'd love to go prime, and looking at your photos on your website, I love love love the separation of your subject from the background. I just don't think you could get that with a 2.8 zoom, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm a DX shooter so not sure how things look on FX with similar f stops) I don't imagine you can shoot wide open all the time though with the requirement to nail AF much more critical. Do you stop down a bit to get a higher keep rate during the ceremony for example?

Until I'm more confident, and have 2 bodies - I'd just panic being in the situation of having a 35mm and not being able to fit the couple in, and not being able to back up anymore because of a wall - or having a situation where I need more wide and realise there's nothing I can do to get the shot because of lens choice. I also have a tendency to chop the things off more when using a prime - like the top of heads. Having some safety space around your subjects also gives you the ability to correct verticals if your photos are squint. So I guess you need to be pretty accurate at framing, particularly if you don't have that safety space if you were to have shot wider.

'Safety' is what shooting wide and cropping gives you, so if you feel you need that safety then you DO need it - so keep doing it - for now

If both an FX & a DX are shot at f2.8, then the look of the DX at the same framing will be more like the FX was shot at f4 - so there's about a stop of difference in the look at the same aperture

I generally shoot everything at f2.5 as its the best compromise for me between the shallow depth of field I like and a better quality from the lens than f1.8 gives me; that said, I'm perfectly happy to shoot at f1.8 too when needed for effect or in the darkest of environments

I shoot most of my Group photos at f4 on my 85mm - and I'm sure that surprises you (most people in fact lol) - and yes that means I am shooting from 20-30 metres away at times

The only time I venture to f5.6 is for the biggest 'Everyone' group, which is shot on my 35mm

I can't recall the last time I went to f8 or above at a Wedding, it may never have happened

Dave

 

[Phil V]

I guess I don't understand what ambient auto settings are?

When shooting in aperture priority, are you not worried that the shutter speed will drop to below where you want it to be? Do you have a cap on your max ISO in your Auto ISO settings? I've been shooting manual with a cap on AUTO ISO for flash at ISO400 (which I'm going to change now). I've been keeping aperture around f4, and upping that when I want more than one person to be in focus - while at the same time reducing the shutter speed). Largely I've been using the bounce card.

Sorry I should have been clearer. When I described my ‘normal’ shooting mode, that’s no flash, just ambient.
My flash shooting mode is Manual* with TTL flash.
*thats proper manual, no auto ISO.

Yes I have a minimum shutter speed set with auto ISO, I’d never dream of capping my ISO, noise is always preferable to movement.

 

[DemiLion]

Backlit is tricky, here is a snap metered for room plus direct fill flash, no bounce cards etc.

View attachment 243167

I hate to be pedantic, but that isn't fill.

Your flash is providing the primary light source.

If the primary light source were the ambient (and properly exposed), then the windows wouldn't be blown.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I hate to be pedantic, but that isn't fill.

Your flash is providing the primary light source.

If the primary light source were the ambient (and properly exposed), then the windows wouldn't be blown.

It is most certainly balanced fill in the full meaning of the words.
The windows as the main source of light in the room are of course at the extreme and partially burnt out in the way you would expect them to be.
had the flash been any more powerful you would have lost the entire ambiance.
the back light is providing all the modeling and most of the reflected light in the room. The flash has only lifted what would have been the extreme shadow side.

 

[sk66]

I'm using custom bracket's mini RC https://www.custombrackets.com/products/cb-mini-rc it gets the flash close to the lens axis so orientation does not matter so much and it avoids the tell-tale shadows under noses that you get from the normal on camera flash position.

Should be just that much better for causing red eye. I honestly have never heard of someone wanting to put the flash more in-line with the lens (other than ring lights), that's the complete opposite of what most flash brackets are intended to do (in part). But, unless you are really close, the small angular difference a 6" change in position makes is pretty negligible; so it probably isn't really any worse most of the time.

One thing to note if you're using a flash bracket take care with AF assist from the flash in low light and wide open apertures as the bracket changes the distance to subject and can cause softening of the image.

I don't understand this... every version of flash based AF assist I have ever seen only throws a pattern of light on the subject to give the camera something to focus on. How does that change the focus distance?

 

[sk66]

When using primes you learn to 'see' in that field of view and place yourself accordingly, zooms make for lazy composing in my experience (I'm not saying you're lazy btw, it just made me lazy)

IMO, this is backwards. Your position should be chosen for the perspective you want, and then the FL is chosen for composition... you're letting the lens dictate one/both of those things for you.
If you don't have a choice in the position (distance/perspective) then all you have left is FL, but that's really not much of a choice. And if you don't even have that choice, then you're screwed.

and you can't maintain the same look throughout a Wedding if some are shot at 24, 27, 31, 40, 46, 53, 66, 70 mm

There is no 'right' way to do this though, so just do what you're comfortable with and be open to ideas on how to improve and where you may also find your style & equipment choices change too. I was happy on DX and with using flash far more than I do now, but as my photography improved I realised my equipment didn't allow me the look I was after, switching to FX and primes has helped me achieve that

Dave

What "look" does a FL create?
Every lens receives exactly the same scene and light as every other lens, and indeed the same as your eyes do. The only difference is which portion of that scene/light it is going to allow through, and how much it will have to magnify/reduce that FOV to make it fill/fit the image circle. I.e. the only thing a lens' FL does is "crop" the scene as it is presented to you.

 

[sk66]

Until I'm more confident, and have 2 bodies - I'd just panic being in the situation of having a 35mm and not being able to fit the couple in, and not being able to back up anymore because of a wall - or having a situation where I need more wide and realise there's nothing I can do to get the shot because of lens choice. I also have a tendency to chop the things off more when using a prime - like the top of heads. Having some safety space around your subjects also gives you the ability to correct verticals if your photos are squint. So I guess you need to be pretty accurate at framing, particularly if you don't have that safety space if you were to have shot wider.

These are very real and valid concerns... handheld shots are almost never perfectly composed. I suppose if you want to turn on the viewfinder grid and slow things down you could get closer to ideal. That is, if you even know what that actually is/will be at the time you take the shot.

Of course, you can always take the shot looser and crop in post. That will give you the same result as having used the correct FL at the time; but at the significant expense of throwing away sensor performance (light/pixels). That's how you get away with using just two bodies with fixed prime lenses...

 

[sk66]

That fill is nicely balanced. it only shows under her arm, and under the skirt of the old lady, but you would not notice it if you were not looking for it.
The back light makes the picture as it adds rims and modeling.

But the shot would have looked a lot better with a much stronger backwards bounce of the flash. Then it could have been strong enough to tame the window and highlights on heads/faces/etc without completely dominating the scene as direct/hard light. Even overhead or off to the right would probably have been better.

Direct flash is never going to look as good as bounced flash can, and bounced flash is never going to look as good/refined as off camera lighting can... you don't always have choices and then you have to compromise.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But the shot would have looked a lot better with a much stronger backwards bounce of the flash. Then it could have been strong enough to tame the window and highlights on heads/faces/etc without completely dominating the scene as direct/hard light. Even overhead or off to the right would probably have been better.

Direct flash is never going to look as good as bounced flash can, and bounced flash is never going to look as good/refined as off camera lighting can... you don't always have choices and then you have to compromise.

I too generally prefer bounced flash. But in this case the rim highllights are important, and the window is not.
however a bounced flash could have achieved an equal balance, and might have had an even better result. But we do not even know if there was a suitable back wall to bounce from. From such a close point of view a ceiling bounce probably would not have cut it.

 

[sk66]

I too generally prefer bounced flash. But in this case the rim highllights are important, and the window is not.
however a bounced flash could have achieved an equal balance, and might have had an even better result. But we do not even know if there was a suitable back wall to bounce from. From such a close point of view a ceiling bounce probably would not have cut it.

I agree... everything about the image suggest a smaller room with white walls/ceiling, but we do not know.

 

[TimHughes]

I agree... everything about the image suggest a smaller room with white walls/ceiling, but we do not know.

I too generally prefer bounced flash. But in this case the rim highllights are important, and the window is not.
however a bounced flash could have achieved an equal balance, and might have had an even better result. But we do not even know if there was a suitable back wall to bounce from. From such a close point of view a ceiling bounce probably would not have cut it.

Hi Steven and Terry, I agree off camera is best, bounce next and then on camera. In this case there was no wall behind to bounce and the reason for using it as an example of what can be achieved with direct flash.

 

[TimHughes]

Should be just that much better for causing red eye. I honestly have never heard of someone wanting to put the flash more in-line with the lens (other than ring lights), that's the complete opposite of what most flash brackets are intended to do (in part). But, unless you are really close, the small angular difference a 6" change in position makes is pretty negligible; so it probably isn't really any worse most of the time.

I don't understand this... every version of flash based AF assist I have ever seen only throws a pattern of light on the subject to give the camera something to focus on. How does that change the focus distance?

Hi Steven, I've not had a problem with red-eye. A photo editor where I am based tells me no pictures would get published with direct flash from the hotshoe producing shadows under noses etc. and this solves that problem. As I understand the AF assist it's using the pattern to measure distance so the offset can make a difference for very shallow DOF. For this reason some favor the straight mini bracket which keeps the distance the same as from the hotshoe.

 

[Phil V]

As I understand the AF assist it's using the pattern to measure distance so the offset can make a difference for very shallow DOF.

I always thought it was dumber than that, and that it simply provided a line of contrast for the AF points to pick up on.
Projecting a pattern onto a 3D object to be measured very accurately would take some computing power, and whilst I could imagine something like a D500 being capable of that,
AF assist on flashguns goes back to the 80’s, I can’t imagine an early AF camera doing it.
Add the fact that 3rd party speedlights use a different pattern and how would the camera know what it was trying to measure.

However, a speedlight on a bracket offsets the pattern where it might not fall under the AF sensors, as is often the case here, a radio transmitter with its own AF assist beam is the obvious answer.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

I always thought it was dumber than that, and that it simply provided a line of contrast for the AF points to pick up on.
Projecting a pattern onto a 3D object to be measured very accurately would take some computing power, and whilst I could imagine something like a D500 being capable of that,
AF assist on flashguns goes back to the 80’s, I can’t imagine an early AF camera doing it.
Add the fact that 3rd party speedlights use a different pattern and how would the camera know what it was trying to measure.

However, a speedlight on a bracket offsets the pattern where it might not fall under the AF sensors, as is often the case here, a radio transmitter with its own AF assist beam is the obvious answer.

? Shouldnt you be very close for the af assist to be that small? And if so maybe the body of the light can be aimed just like the head

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What the af assist light does or not do, is a red herring, as it only comes into play at very low light levels.and not at all in silent mode. I have never ever found any sort of focus shift when using flash off camera, nor would I expect to, as it is a common technique. And the camera never has any idea where the flash is anyway. Even when it fires an af/ae preflash.
The focus assist is just that, it gives a contrast pattern to focus on, no data is involved.

 

[mike weeks]

I always thought it was dumber than that, and that it simply provided a line of contrast for the AF points to pick up on.
Projecting a pattern onto a 3D object to be measured very accurately would take some computing power, and whilst I could imagine something like a D500 being capable of that.

For many years I have been aware that some Nikon cameras use the af assist beam to focus, the camera reads the distance data from the lens and that is used to make decisions about the light from the flashgun after measuring the pre-flash and I am sure they are not alone in this


Mike

 

[mike weeks]

I hate to be pedantic, but that isn't fill.

Your flash is providing the primary light source.

If the primary light source were the ambient (and properly exposed), then the windows wouldn't be blown.

Fill flash is designed to fill in shadows, not create new ones so I concur that the flash is the primary light source

Mike

 

[sk66]

For many years I have been aware that some Nikon cameras use the af assist beam to focus, the camera reads the distance data from the lens and that is used to make decisions about the light from the flashgun after measuring the pre-flash and I am sure they are not alone in this


Mike

I think you are agreeing?
The camera always reads the focus distance with certain lenses, that's what the D is for with Nikon AF-D lenses introduced in the mid 90's. All lenses since also have distance capability (chip/communication). But the flash doesn't communicate anything about its' distance.

 

[sk66]

A photo editor where I am based tells me no pictures would get published with direct flash from the hotshoe producing shadows under noses etc. and this solves that problem.

Sounds like a very generic/oversimplified (or dumb) statement. It doesn't matter if the hard light source is a speedlight in the hotshoe, or a bare studio strobe directly behind you... many "hard light" images are published in very prominent publications.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/news/a53128/jessica-alba-march-2016/

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Fill flash is designed to fill in shadows, not create new ones so I concur that the flash is the primary light source

Mike

by definition a fill light is a secondary light source.
it is placed to fill in shadow areas created by the primary light.
In portraiture the main or primary light is placed to light the features and create shape texture and modeling.
The fill light is placed close to the camera to lift the shadows. this can be done with either a light source (flash) or with a reflector.
A tertiary or effect light can be placed to highlight hair etc.

Press and wedding photographers have traditionally used flash to lift shadows in faces, especially in bright sunshine.
Fashion and advertising photographers tend to prefer the use of reflectors for the same purpose, but do us flash setups as necessary.

 

[mike weeks]

by definition a fill light is a secondary light source.
it is placed to fill in shadow areas created by the primary light.
In portraiture the main or primary light is placed to light the features and create shape texture and modeling.
The fill light is placed close to the camera to lift the shadows. this can be done with either a light source (flash) or with a reflector.
A tertiary or effect light can be placed to highlight hair etc.

Press and wedding photographers have traditionally used flash to lift shadows in faces, especially in bright sunshine.
Fashion and advertising photographers tend to prefer the use of reflectors for the same purpose, but do us flash setups as necessary.

Sorry what are you trying to teach me that I do not already know?

That source was not lifting the shadows it was the main source of light, the window light could be called a secondary light adding edge or rim lighting

Mike

 

[Phil V]

? Shouldnt you be very close for the af assist to be that small? And if so maybe the body of the light can be aimed just like the head

It’s not a solid light, it’s a pattern of lines designed for the lines to fall under the individual focus points, there were issues with Yongnuo transmitters where the IR sender was offset a smidge and didn’t work. The fix was literally a millimetre shim.