On-camera flash disaster - how can I do it better?
- Thread starter mhuk
- Start date
ryanyboy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,275
- Name
- Ryan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's hard to find an f/2 zoom lens in Canon EF/EFs fit, so it's f/2.8 and 1600 ISO for me. If I can push the shutter speed higher then that is a bonus.
Sorry mate - I was thinking 50mm prime.
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Sure, I understand that. I now have a couple of fast primes, but they are reserved for desperate times, when a 17-55, 16-35 or 24-70 won't cut it. I prefer to use zooms if the light allows.
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Yeah, no problem. WEX does them for £38 http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-lumiquest-quik-bounce/p1031217
On the 80/20 thing, you can vary that quite a lot, in two ways. You can use just one flap obviously, or with both flaps open (so you get maximum bounce softness) varying the zoom on the flash head makes a very useful difference.
I just tried it now, as I've never put a figure on it before, and with the wide panel on my 580EX folded down I get 0.8 stops more light going forward than when it's zoomed out to 105mm, when more light is directed straight out of the top for bounce.
Putting it another way is probably more helpful - zooming the head allows you to adjust the ratio of bounce-to-fill, which is not only handy to alter the effect, but probably a lot more useful to allow you to use slightly higher ceilings which is the difficulty I usually face at functions and so on.
And bearing in mind that with all these devices the biggest contributing factor to the image is actually the ceiling, which becomes your primary light source in bounce flash, having some control over that is very good indeed. Taking together the increase in bounce light out of the top plus the reduction in fill, that's a total of 1.5 - 2 stops variation in bounce-to-fill balance
OP
mhuk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 196
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why those settings? It was my first fashion show and a google the night before suggested similar settings and I had to start somewhere
For some shots I was using f4 or f4.5 but the sun was coming/ going in all afternoon (there was a big window off to the right but with a fairly hefty set of curtains on it). I went for ISO800 rather than ISO1600 because I was trying to minimise noise (it's only a 20D). The shots looked OK to me and I wanted the dress/ model to clearly be the subject of the photos although I do understand what you mean about ambient light and the background - at the time it didn't cross my mind. My thought process was something like: click: did the flash fire, is it in focus, is it over exposed, is the model in a good pose.
Can you explain that a bit futher I'm not sure what you mean? I was limited for umbrella placement - there were chairs for people to my left although I possibly could have moved the umbrella more to the left and I stood on it's right side (I was stood on the left of it).
EDIT: sorry! now I see you're referring to the first photo. The settings were those still dialled into the camera and it was over before it started. I tried bouncing off a few walls and then she was off. Next time I'll take control. My indoor shots are normally that bad
Thanks for alll the extra links for modifiers - I'll look soon.
For some shots I was using f4 or f4.5 but the sun was coming/ going in all afternoon (there was a big window off to the right but with a fairly hefty set of curtains on it). I went for ISO800 rather than ISO1600 because I was trying to minimise noise (it's only a 20D). The shots looked OK to me and I wanted the dress/ model to clearly be the subject of the photos although I do understand what you mean about ambient light and the background - at the time it didn't cross my mind. My thought process was something like: click: did the flash fire, is it in focus, is it over exposed, is the model in a good pose.
Can you explain that a bit futher I'm not sure what you mean? I was limited for umbrella placement - there were chairs for people to my left although I possibly could have moved the umbrella more to the left and I stood on it's right side (I was stood on the left of it).
EDIT: sorry! now I see you're referring to the first photo. The settings were those still dialled into the camera and it was over before it started. I tried bouncing off a few walls and then she was off. Next time I'll take control. My indoor shots are normally that bad
Thanks for alll the extra links for modifiers - I'll look soon.
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Why those settings? It was my first fashion show and a google the night before suggested similar settings and I had to start somewhere
Of course. I've been in your shoes too, and learned the hard way. My first wedding shoot was not great. Luckily it was for friends and un unpaid favour. I was, in fact, a guest, but there was no pro hired and I was the only person with a DSLR at the wedding. I'd only had the camera for three months and the flash for a week. I was shooting with the 17-85 zoom. Nothing like being thrown in at the deep end.
The big lesson for me was to have a fast lens (f/2.8 or faster) and to shoot with manual exposure to avoid exposures bouncing all over the place as background lights and windows could easily screw things up. The flash should not be doing the bulk of the work. Use it to top up the ambient rather than replace it. It is good for adding a catchlight to the eyes, adding a bit of "pep" to the subject and filling shadows. Bouncing will help lighten the room too, but the room should not need much extra illumination if you mix in a decent amount of ambient light in the first place
As far as noise is concerned, at "normal" print sizes and viewing distances a well exposed shot from a 20D should be just fine. I think the results should be equal to the 30D, and I see no problems with my 1600 ISO shot with the 30D. The key is good exposure.
Always be wary of judging the exposure from the preview image on the camera's LCD screen. In low ambient light your eyes pupils will open up and the image may look bright, even if it actually isn't. Pay attention to the histogram. If there is a big gap at the right, especially when the image is filled with a white dress, then your exposure is wrong. If you are not familiar with "Expose To The Right" (ETTR) technique then check it out - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml.
You might also find it worth looking at the Planet Neil website for lots of useful tips on flash photography and "dragging the shutter" - http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/
Hope that helps.
OP
mhuk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 196
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That helps a lot - many thanks.
Some of what you've said I "know" but putting knowledge into action is not quite the same. I shoot in manual and I always try to check the histogram (mainly to check exposure is somewhere in the right area) but working out what's wrong and correcting it is still a work in progress. I know that I still know less than I don't know
Despite the responsibility (I initially said no) of shooting a friend's wedding and all the inherent dangers, of which they are aware, it has really concentrated my mind and I feel I've learnt more in the past 4 weeks than in the past 3 years. As for lenses I have two f2.8 (17-55mm and a 70-200 ISL) and the f1.4 50mm.
I'm a guest at a wedding before the "big" one so will be practicing when it doesn't matter quite so much.
Some of what you've said I "know" but putting knowledge into action is not quite the same. I shoot in manual and I always try to check the histogram (mainly to check exposure is somewhere in the right area) but working out what's wrong and correcting it is still a work in progress. I know that I still know less than I don't know
Despite the responsibility (I initially said no) of shooting a friend's wedding and all the inherent dangers, of which they are aware, it has really concentrated my mind and I feel I've learnt more in the past 4 weeks than in the past 3 years. As for lenses I have two f2.8 (17-55mm and a 70-200 ISL) and the f1.4 50mm.
I'm a guest at a wedding before the "big" one so will be practicing when it doesn't matter quite so much.
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Just remember that flash exposures can be as easily fooled by large expanses of white (or black) as a regular exposure. There is a good reason the FEC control goes to +3 as well as -3. When shooting a large area of white/light you may well need to dial up the flash power to +1 or more. With a bright backlit sky you may need to go higher still, especially if your subject is pale as well.
Of course, the brighter you make the ambient exposure the less influence the flash has on the scene, so the less margin there is for the flash exposure to be responsible for screwing things up. Conversely, the more you depend on the flash the more you must be ready to twiddle the FEC control, depending on the reflectivity of your subject and scene.
BTW, do shoot raw, as it will help no end with sorting out WB after the event, as well as giving you more flexibility to patch up exposure errors and deal with noise and sharpening with more finesse, if you need to.
If you choose to shoot in AV mode then be aware that by default the 20D will go into "fill flash" mode, so it will automatically put you at risk of slow shutter speeds in order to pull in sufficient ambient light. In low light you might see shutter speeds around 1/40, or less, if you are not careful. Shooting manual for the ambient will stop the camera from catching you unawares. The flash will make up the shortfall, within reason.
Lastly (for now) avoid the scattergun approach to shooting. If you are having difficulties then take a moment to work out what is wrong and how to fix it. Just firing off loads of shots in the hope that some may magically turn out OK is unlikely to work terribly well. That's another lesson I learned from my first wedding. All in I shot around 700 frames. I ended up keeping maybe 160, and many of those were nothing to be excited about. But sometimes it is more about the memories than the technical perfection. The B&G were delighted with them, even if I wasn't.
Of course, the brighter you make the ambient exposure the less influence the flash has on the scene, so the less margin there is for the flash exposure to be responsible for screwing things up. Conversely, the more you depend on the flash the more you must be ready to twiddle the FEC control, depending on the reflectivity of your subject and scene.
BTW, do shoot raw, as it will help no end with sorting out WB after the event, as well as giving you more flexibility to patch up exposure errors and deal with noise and sharpening with more finesse, if you need to.
If you choose to shoot in AV mode then be aware that by default the 20D will go into "fill flash" mode, so it will automatically put you at risk of slow shutter speeds in order to pull in sufficient ambient light. In low light you might see shutter speeds around 1/40, or less, if you are not careful. Shooting manual for the ambient will stop the camera from catching you unawares. The flash will make up the shortfall, within reason.
Lastly (for now) avoid the scattergun approach to shooting. If you are having difficulties then take a moment to work out what is wrong and how to fix it. Just firing off loads of shots in the hope that some may magically turn out OK is unlikely to work terribly well. That's another lesson I learned from my first wedding. All in I shot around 700 frames. I ended up keeping maybe 160, and many of those were nothing to be excited about. But sometimes it is more about the memories than the technical perfection. The B&G were delighted with them, even if I wasn't.
If you're limited to on-camera flash then I think your only real option is to bounce it. By all means you could spend dosh on some modifiers that you then have to carry around with you (and in all likelihood wont have them to hand when you need them),
...or you could use the wall.
Without seeing the layout of the place it's difficult to say, but in that situation I think you'd have been better getting you (and more importantly, your flash) closer to the wall. That way you are turning the wall into a giant softbox (it might even help zooming the flash way out to 24 and popping the wide angle diffuser). That way you are turning the wall into your light source. In necessary bump the flash EV up if you need more light (or shoot manual flash) and open up your aperture for more flash exposure. If the view has got a bit of depth to it that the light cant fill, consider dragging the shutter to get some ambient fill.
The fact that it looks slightly off white in the background might even help warm up the light a little and help her grow.
I think the key to this one was moving your position.
Ideally get some triggers and go full off camera!
Starabo
...or you could use the wall.
Without seeing the layout of the place it's difficult to say, but in that situation I think you'd have been better getting you (and more importantly, your flash) closer to the wall. That way you are turning the wall into a giant softbox (it might even help zooming the flash way out to 24 and popping the wide angle diffuser). That way you are turning the wall into your light source. In necessary bump the flash EV up if you need more light (or shoot manual flash) and open up your aperture for more flash exposure. If the view has got a bit of depth to it that the light cant fill, consider dragging the shutter to get some ambient fill.
The fact that it looks slightly off white in the background might even help warm up the light a little and help her grow.
I think the key to this one was moving your position.
Ideally get some triggers and go full off camera!
Starabo
OP
mhuk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 196
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks again for the info - it's all much appreciated. Now to find somewhere similar to Birmingham Council House where I can practice and a willing victim, sorry model...
The first photo is on-camera flash in eTTL (no EV), camera in manual.
The second photo is off-camera flash ( 2 flashes in manual mode + a big umbrella), camera in manual. All are RAW.
Slightly off-topic, how much improvement in picture quality would I see if I used a 5D2 in low light shots over a 20D in the same situation? How does 17-55mm on 1.6x body compare to a 24-70mm L on a FF body? Any other benefits?
The first photo is on-camera flash in eTTL (no EV), camera in manual.
The second photo is off-camera flash ( 2 flashes in manual mode + a big umbrella), camera in manual. All are RAW.
Slightly off-topic, how much improvement in picture quality would I see if I used a 5D2 in low light shots over a 20D in the same situation? How does 17-55mm on 1.6x body compare to a 24-70mm L on a FF body? Any other benefits?
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
20D to 5D2, in terms of noise, night and day mate. And a big jump in sharpness. Even comparing a 7D to a 5D2, with roughly similar pixel count, the improvement is substantial - the pixels are twice the size. It's a long time since I had a 20D but I would guess that you'd be about three stops better off noise-wise with the 5D2 - massive
Perfect wedding weapon I'd have thought. You'll also love the bigger, sharper LCD - it's a horrible little thing on the 20D.Apart from noise and sharpness, at the same f/number you get less depth of field with full frame - equal to about one and a quarter stops (f/number x crop factor).
TBH I find that low f/number lenses are a bit of a mixed blessing in terms of DoF. Shooting at f/2 or so on full frame the DoF is very shallow indeed, and not always what you want. With better high ISO performance you have other options there, and it also effectively increases your flash power quite dramatically - two stops higher ISO is like using four flash guns!
OP
mhuk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 196
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No no no! Don't tell me that!
No - many thanks for that. It's near the top of my list of things I want/ need:
1. house re-roofed.
2. a camper van
3. new bike
4. 5D2 and a 24-70mm L
I lie - actually it's top of the list
Just waiting to see how much my accountant (soon to be ex-) tells me I have to pay to government.
No - many thanks for that. It's near the top of my list of things I want/ need:
1. house re-roofed.
2. a camper van
3. new bike
4. 5D2 and a 24-70mm L
I lie - actually it's top of the list
Just waiting to see how much my accountant (soon to be ex-) tells me I have to pay to government.
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
No no no! Don't tell me that!
No - many thanks for that. It's near the top of my list of things I want/ need:
1. house re-roofed.
2. a camper van
3. new bike
4. 5D2 and a 24-70mm L
I lie - actually it's top of the list
Just waiting to see how much my accountant (soon to be ex-) tells me I have to pay to government.
Not sure about the roof Mark, but I see your problem with those other essentials.
Sorry about the 5D2 comments. A couple of months ago I went to try a 7D against my 40D. As fate would have it, they also had a 5D2 so I did direct comparisons between all three.
Now for a start the 40D is a lot better than the 20D, but TBH I was looking for more from the 7D with its mega pixel count. It's better for sure, but not massively. The 5D2 was a bit of an afterthought but when I processed the images, well, they were just better. Really better, notcieably better - you don't have to pixel peep to see it.
I think I was in denial for a bit, particularly as I like to do a bit or birding and wildlife now and then, for which the 5D2 really can't compete. But then for the stuff that I do 90% of the time - portraits, social, landscape, walkabout, still life/close-up - the 5D2 is just better. Much better.
5D2 image quality is frankly stunning. You can crop it hard, you can push the ISO to ridiculous levels, you can make enormous prints and just luxuriate in the detail and subtle tonality. 5D2 is not an action camera or very good for long lens reach, but otherwise, well... My 40D and lenses is now up for sale (later this week).
OP
mhuk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 196
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Many Richard thanks for taking the time to answer my questions (especially as they're a bit off-topic). I think it's gone from a "I really want a 5D2" to as soon "as I get the money I'm buying".
The only sport that I photograph is mountain biking- the rest of my photography is similar to yours plus gigs.
You mentioned DoF - I just wondered how it compares to my Takumar 50mm f1.4 test here?
The only sport that I photograph is mountain biking- the rest of my photography is similar to yours plus gigs.
You mentioned DoF - I just wondered how it compares to my Takumar 50mm f1.4 test here?
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Bokeh is quite complicated and at least a partially subjective concept. It is mostly to do with depth of field in out of focus areas, which as I said is a bit over a stop shallower on full frame vs crop, f/number for f/number.
Next on the list I would put field of view. People say telephotos give less depth of field, but they don't. If image size remains the same (unless you compare extremes like 20mm and 200mm) depth of field remains the same too. What happens with a longer lens is that you shoot from a longer distance to maintain image size, and so the field of view is much narrower. This means there is far less background visible behind the subject, therefore it usually looks less cluttered and distracting, so the subject stands out more. The effect of greater isolation is there, but it's not a depth of field effect.
Lastly, different lenses create different kinds of out of focus highlights, and this is the subjective bit. Most people think that circular discs of out OOFH look better than hexagonal or whatever the shape of the diaphragm might be, and further, some lenses create evenly toned discs and others make discs with a brighter edge or a brighter centre. You old Takumar has brighter edges.
My personal view is that this doesn't matter that much - I prefer circular because it's just more simple and I think attractive for that reason. But I'm less fussed about whether the discs have slight rings around them or not, within reason. On the other hand, the pronounced circles you get with mirror lenses are horrible, and I once saw a shot with a Sigma macro (taken at normal distance) where the OOFH were almost striped - very unpleasant. I pointed this out to the photographer and he hadn't even noticed it, so there you go! Subjective.