First B&W with flash

medwaygreen

medwaygreen

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,425
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Sorry for a new thread, but did not know were best to place this to get the answers I am looking for.

This is my first try with my F5 and a flash SB-22, now I felt that I got all the setting right and I tried manual with flash recommendations and P mode letting the camera do the work and all come out like this, all shots were taken with the flash set at a 40 to 60 degree angle for bounce, do you know I cannot decide if under or over exposed, I am very confused.

In the past with Manual camera and flash, I have had very little problem, if you can please help.

Richard.

13510027_zps5ce52a45.jpg
 
Last edited:
to me that looks like a colour film ,underexposed and then converted to black and white
 
No it is a B&W C41 Fuji Neopan 400 CN, so is under exposed about right? If so can you give me any tips on the setup.

Thank you for the first reply.

Richard.
 
How close to them were you and what focal length were you using? Generally I find that up to a 50mm or so 75 degrees is the best angle for bounce flash when at a 'normal' distance to a person/object.
 
You've mentioned the settings on the camera but what was the setting on the flash itself? It should've been on TTL since the SB-22 has full compatibility with the F5.
 
s162216 said:
How close to them were you and what focal length were you using? Generally I find that up to a 50mm or so 75 degrees is the best angle for bounce flash when at a 'normal' distance to a person/object.
Click to expand...

This one about 6foot with a 50mm f1.8 afd nikkor lens, with the flash at about 45 degree,s.
 
freecom2 said:
You've mentioned the settings on the camera but what was the setting on the flash itself? It should've been on TTL since the SB-22 has full compatibility with the F5.
Click to expand...

Yes TTL set on the flash.
 
Was the camera on matrix metering? If the wall behind the couple was quite light, it might have fooled the camera into under-exposing.
 
medwaygreen said:
This one about 6foot with a 50mm f1.8 afd nikkor lens, with the flash at about 45 degree,s.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you've set it at too deep an angle for it to be effectively bounced off the ceilling so its been bounced more off the rear wall, in future at that sort of distance just set it to 75 degrees as that will be enough, only use 45 when your going to be much further away; think about it, mentally comapare the angles, you want one where the light will hit the ceilling approximately halfway between the flash and the subject.
 
The skin tones look about the right exposure to me, I think it's just a case of too similar tones resulting in a flat image. Try boosting the contrast and doing some dodging and burning to give it some contrast and then see what you think.
 
have you got any better looking frames on the roll that didnt use flash ?
i was just going down the lines of the processing being right ,,,
 
Strappy said:
Was the camera on matrix metering? If the wall behind the couple was quite light, it might have fooled the camera into under-exposing.
Click to expand...

Yes the camera was in it,s matrix setting and all the shots were taken against the same wall colour, you may have something there, next time I will try different BG,s,:thumbs:
 
s162216 said:
It sounds to me like you've set it at too deep an angle for it to be effectively bounced off the ceilling so its been bounced more off the rear wall, in future at that sort of distance just set it to 75 degrees as that will be enough, only use 45 when your going to be much further away; think about it, mentally comapare the angles, you want one where the light will hit the ceilling approximately halfway between the flash and the subject.
Click to expand...

Thank for that tip, I will incorporate that in my next flash session, thank you.:thumbs:
 
Kev M said:
The skin tones look about the right exposure to me, I think it's just a case of too similar tones resulting in a flat image. Try boosting the contrast and doing some dodging and burning to give it some contrast and then see what you think.
Click to expand...

:) you lost me at dodging and burning, I did try to boost the contrast in PS, but there was only a very slight improvement.:thumbs: Thank you.
 
donutagain said:
have you got any better looking frames on the roll that didnt use flash ?
i was just going down the lines of the processing being right ,,,
Click to expand...

Good point, yes I have had some excellent results from outside work on the roll in fact some of my best B&W, the problem surrounds all of the indoor flash shots, which are all very similar to the one shown. Thank you.
 
medwaygreen said:
:) you lost me at dodging and burning, I did try to boost the contrast in PS, but there was only a very slight improvement.:thumbs: Thank you.
Click to expand...

If you watch the histogram in whatever photo editor you use and apply a contrast change it will basically move some of those tones in the middle out towards the black and white areas and apply it to the whole image unless you're just doing it on a selected area.

Dodging and burning is a darkroom technique which can be applied to photoshop etc.

Burning in is where you expose a part of a print to more light and this makes that area darker. If you have a blown area with little detail it is sometimes possible to expose that area some more to get the details onto the paper. You can use the same technique to make and area darker than it really is.

Dodging is where you block the light from the paper, making an area of the image lighter. You can use this to bring back shadow detail in an area of a print that is too dark as standard or just brighten an area for aesthetic purposes.

Without seeing the negative or the straight scan it's hard to say just how good the automatic exposure was but as I said I don't think it is a million miles away, perhaps just a tad under.

What colour is the wall behind you, is it a light shade? It is a dominant part of the frame compared to your and your mrs so it may have tricked the camera's metering into underexposing. Some +ve exposure compensation would have helped with this.
 
^^^^

Thank you for that reply Kev, very informative, I will try and give some of that a go, but anything that move past the basic,s in PS trend to have me at a loss.

The wall behind is an off white and has been suggested may have been the major factor with the camera,s metering system, it was an F5.

I am grateful for your and everyone else's replies, I will be more confident next time and take these tips into account.

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top