played around with the flash

U

ujjwaldey8165

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,842
Name
Ujjwal
Edit My Images
No
Tonight played around with the flash; and Steve suggested, used my digicam

A few observations from the play:

1. Natural light is the best; no artifical light can substitute it

2. Easy to play with a digicam. Hats off to those who can do it with a proper film camera. Now I can see how everyone is a studio photographer; its so easy to play around with digital. Move the light; adjust the f-stop- see the result; adjust again. Apart from 'white mopping', 'grey brooming', blackvaccuuming' etc, which can deliver an acceptable product.

3.Having played around with my digital; I am still not sure how that works for films. But now I am confident I can do it with t a digicam; and a image-editing software.

4. The only real way to learn on doing it on a film is to learn from a photographer who knows how to use films; and that costs money ( aside from finding one such person)

5. I have got a long way to go.
 
1. I'm not really sure I agree that one is better than the other - With good studio lighting you can create very interesting images - however that said, natural light sure has it's own fantastic look. Certainly natural is miles better than on camera flash!

2. Easy to play but not so easy to do well.

3. Having a light meter helps when using flash. As you shoot, you learn to see how your camera meters a certain situation and you compensate for it.

4. See 3. You can learn yourself using film too. Just means recording the findings and learning as you go along. Many great photographers learnt this way.

5. We all do :)
 
Thanks JD.

Re flash meter - absolutely agreed that its a necessityfor films. And thats not what I meant.

When I put the SB to one side; I can sort of see where the light will fall. With a digicam, it easy to check and make fine adjustments till you get the exact lighting ( i.e where it falls). With film , one has to know this by experience; and that takes loads of time, patience and competence.

This is where, I think, digital contributes to the creation of ' learn photography in 24 hours' malarky
 
Main thing that digital does is close up the feedback loop - instant display of what happened and all the camera data on hand in the exif for analysis at later date. Have to admit that only studio stuff i've done was assisting "back in the day" for a mate who was shooting advertising stuff on tranny stock (5"x4" or 120 mainly) - a good flashmeter was absoloutely essential for that - as was a healthy amount of bracketing - not good for the £££.

This is probably not the place to admit this but i've learned more new techniques with the camera in the 10 months i've had a digital SLR than in the 30 years prior that i'd had a 35mm SLR - probably down to the fact that I used to run maybe 2-3 rolls of film per holiday and not use the camera on a day-to-day basis, whereas i'm on day 291 of a photo-365 and amazingly enough haven't missed one yet! The digital has allowed me to experiement with techniques i'd never have done on film (self portraits for example - regularly takes me 300 shots to get a couple of frames i'm happy with and i'd not be doing that kind of hit-rate on Astia (not without hitting the lottery win anyway!)

But after 6 months or so of this speeded up learning curve what did I do - yep - I bought a film SLR that could share lenses etc with my Digital :) Now I find myself wishing that the Digital handled as well as the Film one (that'll be a 5Dii when funds allow then:lol:), but I'm happy to use both as the project i'm working on requires.
 
TheBigYin said:
Main thing that digital does is close up the feedback loop - instant display of what happened and all the camera data on hand in the exif for analysis at later date. Have to admit that only studio stuff i've done was assisting "back in the day" for a mate who was shooting advertising stuff on tranny stock (5"x4" or 120 mainly) - a good flashmeter was absoloutely essential for that - as was a healthy amount of bracketing - not good for the £££.

This is probably not the place to admit this .......
Click to expand...

Why not, Yin? I do see what you are saying about digicams being a tool of learning; and its quite true.

I think this was a reason why learning photography was so expensive an hobby in the film days.
 
:lol: more ashamed about not learning my chops with the film kit over 30 years of usage than being proud of learning a load of stuff in 6 months with digital... :shrug:
 
And one thing I have learned - if you can manage to arrange it, shooting digital tethered in the studio (or use AV out and a TV screen) , so you can see with live-view on a large screen lets you see things even quicker - point the screen towards the lights and you can see the in-picture effect while you move the light around.
 
can anyone please help me with ' how to upload image' here. I have never done this..., and quite 'computer-handicapped', so as detailed as possible, please. A PM if needed.
 
You mean to say you are defecting to 'the other side' :nono:, I can't quite bring myself to mention the 'D' word...................

Nigel.
 
nah..was just going to upload a few test shots I took yesterday on the studio flash and digicam..... My first attemp at studio flash.
Any tool to learn the craft is a good thing.
The real photos will always have to be on a film; with no post-production. If I can ever get there with studio flashes. At this moment I have severe self doubts about that.
 
Ok, so I finally figured out how to upload.

My first attempt with studio lighting.

Single 600 w lights, in a softbox.
Nikon d50 with the 18-55 kit lens. ASA200; shutter 1/500th; f stop : as suitable.
The white balance was on auto; which I think made the colours a bit muddy. Got to set it to flash the next time round.
Focus was on auto - not the best of focussing in low light conditions

All photos are as from the camera - no post-processing

The fact that I was pleasently drunk made it a really enjoyable experience :lol:

No 1 - 4
Photos deleted. Highly underexposed portrait shots from the first attemp. Utterly horrible example of an absolute novice.
 
Is this flash or continuous light? I guess continuous light as the sync speed of your camera is only 1/200th sec. If you shot faster, the screen would be black!

These all look dark and under exposed. Particularly 1 & 4.

Your post seems to suggest flash though which makes me confused. Shutter speed geneally should have no impact on your exposure. Generally you would set it fast enough to block out all ambient light.

The exposure is then controlled by the aperture you use.
 
JD

Thanks. It is flash

Yes you are right; shutter speed has no impact; I just set it to the highest sync speed ( I believe its 500 for D50; if the onboard flash is popped up, the speed goes upto 500 and no more. ).

Quite possibly they are under-exposed. I wasn't using the light meter; just seeing the photo on the LCD screen to decide the aperture. And the LCD of D50 is pretty crap.

That said; I put the light at a very sharp angle in 1&4; just to see what it does. I need to do the same shots with a reflector on the other side to have some fill.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
JD

Thanks. It is flash

Yes you are right; shutter speed has no impact; I just set it to the highest sync speed ( I believe its 500 for D50; if the onboard flash is popped up, the speed goes upto 500 and no more. ).

Quite possibly they are under-exposed. I wasn't using the light meter; just seeing the photo on the LCD screen to decide the aperture. And the LCD of D50 is pretty crap.

That said; I put the light at a very sharp angle in 1&4; just to see what it does. I need to do the same shots with a reflector on the other side to have some fill.
Click to expand...

Sorry my mistake :) Yes 1/500th - that is a fast sync speed!!

Put the camera in M. Set your aperture to f8, set your ISO to its lowest and your shutter speed to 500.

Now take a shot - look at it and/or check the the histogram. The light wall should have showed some pixels near the right side of the histogram but you'll see all the pixels are to the left towards the dark end. Increase the power of your flash and try again.

A meter will tell you the aperture you require but it's not that hard to do by trial and error with just one light.
 
Thanks again JD.

I did exactly what you have described ( set at M, lowest ASA etc)...except:

1. f8 is way too open. at f 22 it was getting washed out - or so it seemed on the LCD. I think these are at f32, except no 3, which is at f29.
2. didn't check the histograms. Got to do that. The idea of the histogram is that at the right exposure the peak of the curve should be at the centre, isn't it?
 
f29!!! Your lights are turned up too high - turn the power way down until you get something nearer f8 Ypur images are maybe a couple of stoips under exposed so I actually guess you could have been nearer f16 to get a correct exposure. Turn the power down and shoot a couple of images. f8 is pretty much a standard aperture for shooting in the studio. It's just about where most leneses are sharpest too.

Smaller apertures are generally used in Macro photography or landscapes.

Regards the hisogram - No centre isn't always where it should be. I you shoot a black or dark background, you can expect most pixels to be to the left and of shooting on a white background then you will have more broight pixels.

Learn how to read the histogram and you can get pretty good exposures without a meter. i always use a meter though.
 
JD...Thanks.

I agree; I will play around with it today a bit more.

The lights are turned down to 1/4th power - lowest it will go. Trouble is, I think, its a 600W lamp. Hence the brightness.

Will keep you posted on the progress...
 
what film did you use in the d50?
 
JD, you were absolutely right. I got my meter out today; and for a similar set up to yesterday, it showed f13. As usual, straight out of the camera

So two examples of Day 2.

No 1. f13 / single SB / 600 flash at 1/4 power







No 2: Similar setup; but with a hammerhead flash at the back of the sofa for a washed-out background. Partially successful
 
What a difference :) I was almost bang on with the 2 stop differnce :) You mentioned above a single 600w light? I may have misread though. Is this a Nikon SB600 flash?

Regards the background, it's easily cleaned up in Photoshop.
 
EOS_JD said:
What a difference :) I was almost bang on with the 2 stop differnce :) You mentioned above a single 600w light? I may have misread though. Is this a Nikon SB600 flash?

Regards the background, it's easily cleaned up in Photoshop.
Click to expand...

JD, thanks. No its a studio light; belcar heads.

edit : oh I see where the confusion is. When I say SB; I mean Softbox...

No photoshopping for me; the digicam is merely an instrument to learn the lighting quickly.

Once I get a hang of it; its back to film for me for the proper photographing
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
JD, thanks. No its a studio light; belcar heads.

edit : oh I see where the confusion is. When I say SB; I mean Softbox...

No photoshopping for me; the digicam is merely an instrument to learn the lighting quickly.

Once I get a hang of it; its back to film for me for the proper photographing
Click to expand...

Why? most dSLRs now provide the photographer with so much it's difficult for film users to justify the use - there are very few pro's now using film
 
Well JD; its a rather philosophical question; for me anyways. As I have said, I think in one of my previous posts, I like to get it right in the camera. It is important for me to be that way; call me a purist if you will. I am not suggesting that fixing things in Photoshop is wrong- this is not about right or wrong. Is using film and getting things right more difficult- offcourse it is. But it matters not to me, because I dont make money out of my pictures; so its for my pleasure entirely. And as long as my next picture is better than my last, thats a reward enough. I dont wish to be a pro. ( I would wish to be a HCB offcourse; but thats an ideal one works towards)

Let me try an analogy. People go hiking/ trekking up summits. Is it possible to reach the same summit by car/ choppers. Offcourse it can. Is that easy - offcourse yes. Still people go hiking, not to reach quickly, or easily; but for the jouney itself.

Would I buy a photograph that has been significantly post-processed . No I wont. For the same reason that I do not buy or hang prints, but original paintings only.

Am I suggesting that my way is the only correct way. Absolutely not. To each his own - but certainly that remains my choice. By no means do I wish to start a debate on this, especially given the sensitivity of many folks on this forum. You asked the question; hence my post.

Once again, thanks for all the help you provided in the last few days
 
No problem with the help and a great answer. Just remember that your lab will be your friend. Many people don't realise that the lab has an important job in giving you what you hope from the image - they become the postprocessors of your image just like Ps or Lr is for most of us.

Good luck and keep posting. I'm no expert but am happy to share anything I can.

Cheers
Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top