This is at 35mm and f/4.5 on a full frame body. On a cropper you would only need 22mm and f/2.8 for an equivalent composition and DOF.
Love the little guy on the left lol.
Striving for a clean clear sharp result. Any tips?
- Thread starter kitschenalia
- Start date
Love the little guy on the left lol.
u8myufo
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 19,354
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Some good advice given from people Leanne that know far more than me about lighting and exposure
. I must admit though the first thing that stood out for me was why you used spot metering for indoor flash :shrug: As for your flicker images, just a case of those shots that you applied filters too were not my cuppa, but dont take it to heart too much A far from perfect adjustment to your pic but still acceptable imo.
. I must admit though the first thing that stood out for me was why you used spot metering for indoor flash :shrug: As for your flicker images, just a case of those shots that you applied filters too were not my cuppa, but dont take it to heart too much A far from perfect adjustment to your pic but still acceptable imo.
OP
kitschenalia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 434
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thanks for all the great tips, I don't have proper time right now to respond properly and carefully to each response, but will do so properly in the morning. However, from memory, I don't even know why I have spot metering set up - should it be evaluative? I need to read up on metering :0 Would that have affected only exposure, or had anything to do with focus too? I now see that noise is being introduced in lightening these images in PP. In terms of my exposure, I STILL need to master the basics of flash because WITHOUT flash I use the interal slider to give me an idea of whether my exposure is correct (I seem to always shoot in manual). I always slightly over expose for portraits. However, in this dark room, I had my flash with TTL working, and camera in Manual mode. I couldn't get a correct exposure (according to the "guide" shown within the viewfinder) with a shutter speed that I was happy with. So, I upped the shutter speed, assuming that the flash would compensate for what less light would be coming in. But perhaps I can't expect a flash or even my camera to be that intelligent?
Rich, no worries
Re. the 500D - seriously, straight up - is it a camera I could start off using for paid for work? (if I cracked my demons of course).
I can and have taken some cracking shots on it and tomorrow morning will post one or two here so you can see that I can do good, too
Here, hopefully is the link to the RAW file.
http://www.box.net/shared/j2imsrmday
Have never done that before, hope it works
thanks for all the fantastic input!
Rich, no worries
Re. the 500D - seriously, straight up - is it a camera I could start off using for paid for work? (if I cracked my demons of course).
I can and have taken some cracking shots on it and tomorrow morning will post one or two here so you can see that I can do good, too
Here, hopefully is the link to the RAW file.
http://www.box.net/shared/j2imsrmday
Have never done that before, hope it works
thanks for all the fantastic input!
OP
kitschenalia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 434
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OMG, how many times can you say "properly" in one sentence. I'm well educated - honest!
u8myufo
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 19,354
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
In general, talent and skill is more important than the equipment, and the glass is more important than the body. There is no reason why a 500D should not deliver professional results when used properly and within its limitations. It might struggle when it comes to fast action or really high ISO stuff, but for less demanding situations it should be perfectly capable.
However, if you feed it a poor image, from a poor lens, then there is not much the camera, any camera, can do to fix that. Garbage in, garbage out. I'm not saying your lens is poor, but often it will be the lens holding back the camera rather than the other way round. Of course, none of that will matter much if the settings used are all wrong, the lighting is poor, the subject uninteresting and the composition and timing are off.
p.s. I've just downloaded your raw file and opened it in Lightroom. It is a bit underexposed, but I think it actually looks very decently sharp and not especially noisy. Apart from the underexposure I don't think you have a problem with IQ. I'll have a tinker and post back when I've massaged it a bit.
Last edited:
steve.82
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 438
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the main thing to remember (as has been touched on above) is DOF is determined by aperture AND focal length AND distance to the focal point. Yes at the 55mm end f8 may have been more suitable (still not sure I'd stop down that far, as I'd be further away then to get everyone in frame, which increases DOF), at 18mm way overkill!
Having said that the image looks useable enough, but definitely overkill on the DOF.
Having said that the image looks useable enough, but definitely overkill on the DOF.
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
I've tried a few tweaks. Here is the full original image without edits, then my edited version and a 100% crop.
Now at 100% it isn't squeaky clean and razor sharp, but viewed at a more realistic size, or printed, I doubt there would be any problem with that image as far as the performance of the camera and lens. However, it does look rather like the popup flash was used, and that has led to uneven lighting of people at differing distances from the camera. That's why you need off camera flash or bounce flash for such shooting. It might also be nice if the eyes were on the camera.
Now at 100% it isn't squeaky clean and razor sharp, but viewed at a more realistic size, or printed, I doubt there would be any problem with that image as far as the performance of the camera and lens. However, it does look rather like the popup flash was used, and that has led to uneven lighting of people at differing distances from the camera. That's why you need off camera flash or bounce flash for such shooting. It might also be nice if the eyes were on the camera.
Last edited:
OP
kitschenalia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 434
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thanks so much folks I literally just ran through as I'd remembered I hadn't thanked/commented on Rich's edit of the image, so Rich, thanks, it looks good I think.
steve, I'm learning lots now about the various factors in DOF, thanks for the tips
Tim, great edits. Maybe I'm actually just a bit hard on myself, but I look at images by some wedding togs and find them flawless. Oh flash was a flashgun, can't remember it's name, a Japanese one with Canon fit. Much better than the other Jessops one I had.
running to catch my telly prog
I literally just ran through as I'd remembered I hadn't thanked/commented on Rich's edit of the image, so Rich, thanks, it looks good I think. steve, I'm learning lots now about the various factors in DOF, thanks for the tips
Tim, great edits. Maybe I'm actually just a bit hard on myself, but I look at images by some wedding togs and find them flawless. Oh flash was a flashgun, can't remember it's name, a Japanese one with Canon fit. Much better than the other Jessops one I had.
running to catch my telly prog
OP
kitschenalia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 434
- Edit My Images
- Yes
oh yeah and the kids were fed up, the wee lad on their left looked like he was being tortured on the last few group shots
BertUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 94
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Quite sure it's been said already, but at 18mm, a good 10-15ft from your subject, f/3.5 would have been fine for even 3 rows of people IMO.
Out of interest, why are you using manual?
With the photo above, you could have opened up the aperture to f/3.5 and the ISO to 100 and this would have given you a shutter speed of 1/100th which is more than enough with flash. f/4 would have given you 1/80th and f/5 1/50th, which would have been fine with flash and would have let in a little more ambient too.
Out of interest, why are you using manual?
With the photo above, you could have opened up the aperture to f/3.5 and the ISO to 100 and this would have given you a shutter speed of 1/100th which is more than enough with flash. f/4 would have given you 1/80th and f/5 1/50th, which would have been fine with flash and would have let in a little more ambient too.
- Messages
- 4,648
- Name
- Tony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You mention you had to "raise the exposure a bit" in PP. That is the very best way to increase noise - trust me, I use Olympus!It's important for this type of shot to get the exposusre right in camera. I see from the Exif that you set -2 stops flash compensation. That's OK outdoors when you want just a little fill in but why indoors when it is your main light source? Also, I'm not too sure how using spot metering affects Evaluative TTL flash, perhaps an experienced Canon user can explain, but to me it doesn't sound a good idea. What part of the scene was you spot metering?
I bet the histogram on the original is bunched to the left. You really need to expose to the right as far as you can without actually clipping the highlights, then you will find far less noise in the shadows.
I agree with this..
Have a look at the image at 100% and see if there is any part of the image that IS in good focus.. hopefully that COULD let you know if its a focussing problem or if as suggested the lens isnt too sharp or the possibility of slight camera shake, the shutter speed was kinda slow..
You were in SPOT metering.. why? not that is a problem if you know what to meter off.. that and the fact you have dialled -2 into your flash.. Have managed to meter for the BG and found it too hot (The flash exposure) for the skin tones?? that would explain why you have had to increase the exposure post, and that WILL introduce noise!! even on high end cameras will...
Where are you? you should come out on meets to pick brains...
- Messages
- 18,695
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
The way I see this:
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is fine provided it is a good copy
500D - should do they job at the end of a day
There is no proper ambient light in that room so why not use the full 1/200s sync speed, and ISO200. A decent flash gun will handle it. f/5.6 is plenty to get the max lens sharpness (f/3.5 would make things soft with that lens). Flash gun needs +2/3 to 1 1/3 EV compensation to get proper exposure, or just go for full manual.
I would paying some good attention to the composition. I am not convinced this is the very best crop possible.
Finally, Lightroom 3 can finish the work really nicely. I have yet to see another nearly as good RAW converter.
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is fine provided it is a good copy
500D - should do they job at the end of a day
There is no proper ambient light in that room so why not use the full 1/200s sync speed, and ISO200. A decent flash gun will handle it. f/5.6 is plenty to get the max lens sharpness (f/3.5 would make things soft with that lens). Flash gun needs +2/3 to 1 1/3 EV compensation to get proper exposure, or just go for full manual.
I would paying some good attention to the composition. I am not convinced this is the very best crop possible.
Finally, Lightroom 3 can finish the work really nicely. I have yet to see another nearly as good RAW converter.
Last edited:
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think there's too much wrong that a bit of technique won't sort. Also the enlargement I'm looking at is close to the size of a print four feet wide! There's bound to be deterioration.
The pic you posted looks under exposed. It could certainly take another stop with no problem and that would pretty much kill the noise. Check out 'expose to the right' technique. There's no substitute for plenty of flash power when you want both low ISO and a highish f/number for DoF.
The other thing is the framing which is frankly terrible (where are their feet?). The group could be much better arranged aesthetically, tighter, then you could fill the frame better and probably use almost doube the sensor area for the people and faces. That would halve the noise again, and doube the sharpness.
Don't think about spending money on kit until you have squeezed every last drop out of what you have. There's a lot more in there than you have been able to exploit fully so far.
The pic you posted looks under exposed. It could certainly take another stop with no problem and that would pretty much kill the noise. Check out 'expose to the right' technique. There's no substitute for plenty of flash power when you want both low ISO and a highish f/number for DoF.
The other thing is the framing which is frankly terrible (where are their feet?). The group could be much better arranged aesthetically, tighter, then you could fill the frame better and probably use almost doube the sensor area for the people and faces. That would halve the noise again, and doube the sharpness.
Don't think about spending money on kit until you have squeezed every last drop out of what you have. There's a lot more in there than you have been able to exploit fully so far.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
what makes lightroom better than ACR in photoshop?
Richard King
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
learn from history
- tripod
- lower ISO
- smaller lens aperture
- longer exposure
Net result - sharper image... AND you can stand up, look at the group with both eyes, and direct them, make sure you have their attention
Ideally you want to grasp Off camera flash, but that's a pile more equipment to cart about - the main issue here is the location of the shot - it was sort of a non-goer before you started
- tripod
- lower ISO
- smaller lens aperture
- longer exposure
Net result - sharper image... AND you can stand up, look at the group with both eyes, and direct them, make sure you have their attention
Ideally you want to grasp Off camera flash, but that's a pile more equipment to cart about - the main issue here is the location of the shot - it was sort of a non-goer before you started
u8myufo
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 19,354
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thanks so much folks
No probs Leanne
I am pretty sure that with a little bit more time and patience you will get some good results, you have some lovely pics of the kids on facebook I just feel that you need to slow down a bit and think a little bit more about the lighting and composition which has already been mentioned in this thread. I know that is not always possible with kids on the move but in those situations try and leave more room in the frame so you can at least crop the final edit to suite. Ok I will be a bit blunt here After reading a part of your welcome thread and again on here about money, then I guess you are in the same situation as a lot of folk, not flat broke but would maybe like to earn something from your hobby :shrug: but I might be wrong 
But just a bit of food for thought. You say this is your second free wedding, first of all dont do anything for free. Friends or not you have to be firm and at least charge something that will go towards helping you build your kit up. If people can afford to get married and splash out on all the trimmings then they can see you alright for a few quid imo. You say you are in rural Scotland, not sure how rural, maybe a small town or village. Have a think about what you could do to support your hobby, with Christmas around the corner have a look around and see what there is about and see if you could do something even better or even original, some nicely framed prints might sell.
Well that is enough from me Leanne
and here is one more edit from your Raw file.
OP
kitschenalia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 434
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thanks everyone
BertUK I started using manual not long after getting my camera because people had suggested it was the best way to learn how exposure works. Which honestly honestly, I think I have done ok on in OUTSIDE conditions. I just don't understand how to get a correct exposure using a flash. As far as the guide inside the viewfinder goes, it just looks as though the exposure is underexposed, but if I fix that using shutter speed (and e.g. not wanting to go below a certain f number), then my shutter speed may be too low for hand held...
This is the main problem. I'm not sure how to set up a correct exposure when using flash. I REALLY need to nail how to do indoor photography - particularly as I imagine a lot of e.g. newborn/maternity etc. shoots would be indoors.
Someone described the Sigma lens as a kit lens - I hope not, I paid enough for it, it was rec'd by someone here. I dislike my kit lens.... I also do have the prime Canon 1.8 and yes I love it, but I wouldn't have been able to take these shots with it - I was at the back of the room (well as far back as I could get) so needed that wide angle. I do love that lens, though....
fraggle, thanks - I'm in Aberdeen though! Well, rural Aberdeenshire. Miles away I need to get my head around metering, I'm not sure why it was set up that way but it's been a bit overlooked in my learning/reading up :0
Daugirdas, what do you mean by "good copy"? OK, so your settings, you would need to be in Manual mode on the camera to do that, right? Which I was - so, I can put whatever ss I want, and whatever f no - and the flash should understand what difference it has to make up? Re. the crop - I haven't cropped this yet - I posted a thread asking what aspect ratio I should crop wedding pics to (given many will be printed) but responses are varied. I don't have LR 3 - WISH wish I did!
Someone posted me a crash course post on flash before I went to the wedding but I didn't have time to read it before I went and haven't had chance since I got back so I will dig it up and read it - also that thread that one of you posted.
I'm sure I replied again last night and my post is missing.....
Hoppy, thanks for your reply. I do tend to expose to the right always, but as I've said, I don't yet know how to do this with flash on board. Sorry you think the composition is bad, I didn't have much choice. I was back as far as I could go, my lens as wide as it goes. Nothing much more I could do. The group was arranged by a good friend who's been doing photography for years, he wanted to help me. He also advised no tripod when I started to put it up. I should have been more assertive. I know the composition and group formation isn't great but as a) my friend told me not to worry, it didn't have to be perfect (I was SO nervous, didn't let on to her) and b) it was done for free, I'm not going to give myself yet more of a hard time over that. I do appreciate your comments are to help me learn though so I'm not being snotty, just describing the situation. I know I would get more experience if I didn't have someone helping me with group formations (the same problem I had in my first freebie wedding, the one on FB, where the subjects were all looking at the girl they knew who was "helping" me to get them organised then snapping too).
Richard, I'm glad you said that about the location. You can see why my heart dropped when I learned they wanted the formal shots inside, right? If I hadn't got Flash in the Pan to send me that flashgun next day delivery just in the nick of time, I would have been stuck with an awful Jessops £30 that doesn't do TTL properly. Luckily I have some shots which yes are underexposed, but rescuable I think.
Rich, thanks so much for the nice comments regarding some of those images on FB. I am really proud of some of them I really, REALLY want to progress SO badly. I've never wanted anything so much and I've just dragged myself through a PhD that my heart wasn't it, so I HAVE determination in bucket loads, but as you say, ZERO money, and ZERO training opportunities if you ask me. I know someone posted a link to a google search for Aberdeen but seriously I've been through all that. It's either basic "how to switch your digital camera on" courses or it's a HND, or degree. I'm 35 with two kids and a husband and almost two degrees now, and I don't have the luxury of going back to study. I have a 10 hour a week casual admin job for a lady who pays me quite well I guess but it's all she can give me and not enough, it's the PERFECT opportunity to start trying to add to it with some paid-for photography work, but I feel I can't start charging money yet, I don't feel BOMBPROOF yet, and like I could really do with some intermediate training - how to use flashguns properly indoors so I can nail all the indoor stuff, how to REALLY exploit sunlight - etc. etc. I don't need to pay/sit through stuff about how to turn on my camera/download images/what is DOF? etc. I feel totally STUCK 
Sorry, bit of a braindump there, but it's REALLY getting me down
I'm thinking of asking for pennies at Christmas and my birthday towards a really decent weekend course on portraits or even weddings down south/London way. I think I saw a company called the Trained Eye who seem to have a manor house that they use for this stuff. Looked like a good course, easily £300-400 though. It's hard to know where to invest the money, especially when you have none!
I like that edit - much better colour balance.
BertUK I started using manual not long after getting my camera because people had suggested it was the best way to learn how exposure works. Which honestly honestly, I think I have done ok on in OUTSIDE conditions. I just don't understand how to get a correct exposure using a flash. As far as the guide inside the viewfinder goes, it just looks as though the exposure is underexposed, but if I fix that using shutter speed (and e.g. not wanting to go below a certain f number), then my shutter speed may be too low for hand held...
This is the main problem. I'm not sure how to set up a correct exposure when using flash. I REALLY need to nail how to do indoor photography - particularly as I imagine a lot of e.g. newborn/maternity etc. shoots would be indoors.
Someone described the Sigma lens as a kit lens - I hope not, I paid enough for it, it was rec'd by someone here. I dislike my kit lens.... I also do have the prime Canon 1.8 and yes I love it, but I wouldn't have been able to take these shots with it - I was at the back of the room (well as far back as I could get) so needed that wide angle. I do love that lens, though....
fraggle, thanks - I'm in Aberdeen though! Well, rural Aberdeenshire. Miles away
I need to get my head around metering, I'm not sure why it was set up that way but it's been a bit overlooked in my learning/reading up :0Daugirdas, what do you mean by "good copy"? OK, so your settings, you would need to be in Manual mode on the camera to do that, right? Which I was - so, I can put whatever ss I want, and whatever f no - and the flash should understand what difference it has to make up? Re. the crop - I haven't cropped this yet - I posted a thread asking what aspect ratio I should crop wedding pics to (given many will be printed) but responses are varied. I don't have LR 3 - WISH wish I did!
Someone posted me a crash course post on flash before I went to the wedding but I didn't have time to read it before I went and haven't had chance since I got back so I will dig it up and read it - also that thread that one of you posted.
I'm sure I replied again last night and my post is missing.....
Hoppy, thanks for your reply. I do tend to expose to the right always, but as I've said, I don't yet know how to do this with flash on board. Sorry you think the composition is bad, I didn't have much choice. I was back as far as I could go, my lens as wide as it goes. Nothing much more I could do. The group was arranged by a good friend who's been doing photography for years, he wanted to help me. He also advised no tripod when I started to put it up. I should have been more assertive. I know the composition and group formation isn't great but as a) my friend told me not to worry, it didn't have to be perfect (I was SO nervous, didn't let on to her) and b) it was done for free, I'm not going to give myself yet more of a hard time over that. I do appreciate your comments are to help me learn though so I'm not being snotty, just describing the situation. I know I would get more experience if I didn't have someone helping me with group formations (the same problem I had in my first freebie wedding, the one on FB, where the subjects were all looking at the girl they knew who was "helping" me to get them organised then snapping too).
Richard, I'm glad you said that about the location. You can see why my heart dropped when I learned they wanted the formal shots inside, right? If I hadn't got Flash in the Pan to send me that flashgun next day delivery just in the nick of time, I would have been stuck with an awful Jessops £30 that doesn't do TTL properly. Luckily I have some shots which yes are underexposed, but rescuable I think.
Rich, thanks so much for the nice comments regarding some of those images on FB. I am really proud of some of them
I really, REALLY want to progress SO badly. I've never wanted anything so much and I've just dragged myself through a PhD that my heart wasn't it, so I HAVE determination in bucket loads, but as you say, ZERO money, and ZERO training opportunities if you ask me. I know someone posted a link to a google search for Aberdeen but seriously I've been through all that. It's either basic "how to switch your digital camera on" courses or it's a HND, or degree. I'm 35 with two kids and a husband and almost two degrees now, and I don't have the luxury of going back to study. I have a 10 hour a week casual admin job for a lady who pays me quite well I guess but it's all she can give me and not enough, it's the PERFECT opportunity to start trying to add to it with some paid-for photography work, but I feel I can't start charging money yet, I don't feel BOMBPROOF yet, and like I could really do with some intermediate training - how to use flashguns properly indoors so I can nail all the indoor stuff, how to REALLY exploit sunlight - etc. etc. I don't need to pay/sit through stuff about how to turn on my camera/download images/what is DOF? etc. I feel totally STUCK Sorry, bit of a braindump there, but it's REALLY getting me down
I'm thinking of asking for pennies at Christmas and my birthday towards a really decent weekend course on portraits or even weddings down south/London way. I think I saw a company called the Trained Eye who seem to have a manor house that they use for this stuff. Looked like a good course, easily £300-400 though. It's hard to know where to invest the money, especially when you have none!
I like that edit - much better colour balance.
Last edited:
OP
kitschenalia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 434
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Also, bride has asked for 4-5 shots of her and groom only to use as thank you postcards. I've got some lovely on the beach shots I'll post one of the edits once they're done so you can see the whole thing wasn't a complete disaster
I'll post one of the edits once they're done so you can see the whole thing wasn't a complete disaster
u8myufo
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 19,354
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Also, bride has asked for 4-5 shots of her and groom only to use as thank you postcards. I've got some lovely on the beach shots
Thats great news anyway Leanne
, dont get down hearted about things though First of all try and get yourself a dedicated flashgun to start with if possible. Also if money is tight then just practice as much as possible, there are always free indoor venues you could attend and try out a few settings, indoor boot sales,markets, antique fairs anything that will give you an environment where you would need flash. Not sure if you have come across these before :shrug: hopefully you might get some useful info out of them.http://super.nova.org/DPR/Canon/Links.html/
http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/
The term "good copy" is refering to you lens. 3rd party manufacturers, especially Sigma, have a reputation for having a problem with quality control when it comes to their products i.e. there can be vast differences in perfomance in copys of the same lens when it comes to image quality.
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
When you use flash you are combining two exposures. One is an exposure for the ambient light and on top of that there is the exposure contribution from the flash. By choosing the camera settings to suit your needs you can balance the two exposures to achieve the effect you want.
The brighter you make your ambient exposure the less work your flash will have to do. By increasing the ambient exposure you will maintain brightness in the farthest reaches of the room. However, if your ambient exposure is quite dim, leaving lots of work for the flash, then you need to think very carefully about where your flash is positioned, where it is pointing and how far its light can actually reach, because the flash contribution will be significant, and adjusted poorly will look bad.
If you want to progress with this type of indoor shooting then I think it will pay you to study the effects of combining ambient and flash exposures together. My approach is to manually set an exposure for the ambient light that is close to "correct" or just a little below - no more than one stop underexposed. Then I use flash to top off that exposure, providing fill where needed or just allowing me to relax a little on the pressures I'm facing with shutter speed or ISO. Of course, the contribution of the flash can also be adjusted by using Flash Exposure Compensation. You have the ability to completely control the balance between ambient and flash. Remember as well that flash metering can also be fooled by an abundance of dark or light subject matter. A white bridal dress will fool the flash into underexposing. A groom's dark tux will do the opposite. By having a reasonably bright ambient exposure, with the flash making less contribution, there is less room for the flash exposure to get messed up. If it does then you can tweak FEC to fix things.
Remember as well that changing shutter speed has no effect on the contribution from the flash. The flash duration is so short (~1/1000 or less) that the shutter speed is irrelevant, so long as you don't exceed the max sync speed. Also, when your ambient light is so insignificant as to not matter to the image, adjusting shutter speed between 1/60 to 1/80 or 1/100 won't make diddly squat of a difference.
My suggestion to you is to set your camera up, firstly with the flash turned off, and adjust the exposure until you are getting something from the room. Maybe not "properly" exposed, but at least with the scene being clearly visible, if a bit dark. Once you have your ambient exposure established then add in the flash to complete the image. For best results you will probably need to find a neutral surface from which to bounce the flash. Direct on camera flash used indoors really is a bit of a no-no.
If you're struggling to get anything showing with your ambient exposure then adjust the camera. 400 ISO is nothing for indoor shooting. 1600 ISO is much more like it, and that's with a wide aperture. If you have an f/2.8 lens then use f/2.8. The likelihood of needing to stop down much, if at all, when using a crop camera, is probably slim. Shooting at f/8 and 400 ISO is not the best approach to indoor photography, with or without flash, unless the room is especially bright. At night, with tungsten room light you will need to raise the exposure quite a bit.
The brighter you make your ambient exposure the less work your flash will have to do. By increasing the ambient exposure you will maintain brightness in the farthest reaches of the room. However, if your ambient exposure is quite dim, leaving lots of work for the flash, then you need to think very carefully about where your flash is positioned, where it is pointing and how far its light can actually reach, because the flash contribution will be significant, and adjusted poorly will look bad.
If you want to progress with this type of indoor shooting then I think it will pay you to study the effects of combining ambient and flash exposures together. My approach is to manually set an exposure for the ambient light that is close to "correct" or just a little below - no more than one stop underexposed. Then I use flash to top off that exposure, providing fill where needed or just allowing me to relax a little on the pressures I'm facing with shutter speed or ISO. Of course, the contribution of the flash can also be adjusted by using Flash Exposure Compensation. You have the ability to completely control the balance between ambient and flash. Remember as well that flash metering can also be fooled by an abundance of dark or light subject matter. A white bridal dress will fool the flash into underexposing. A groom's dark tux will do the opposite. By having a reasonably bright ambient exposure, with the flash making less contribution, there is less room for the flash exposure to get messed up. If it does then you can tweak FEC to fix things.
Remember as well that changing shutter speed has no effect on the contribution from the flash. The flash duration is so short (~1/1000 or less) that the shutter speed is irrelevant, so long as you don't exceed the max sync speed. Also, when your ambient light is so insignificant as to not matter to the image, adjusting shutter speed between 1/60 to 1/80 or 1/100 won't make diddly squat of a difference.
My suggestion to you is to set your camera up, firstly with the flash turned off, and adjust the exposure until you are getting something from the room. Maybe not "properly" exposed, but at least with the scene being clearly visible, if a bit dark. Once you have your ambient exposure established then add in the flash to complete the image. For best results you will probably need to find a neutral surface from which to bounce the flash. Direct on camera flash used indoors really is a bit of a no-no.
If you're struggling to get anything showing with your ambient exposure then adjust the camera. 400 ISO is nothing for indoor shooting. 1600 ISO is much more like it, and that's with a wide aperture. If you have an f/2.8 lens then use f/2.8. The likelihood of needing to stop down much, if at all, when using a crop camera, is probably slim. Shooting at f/8 and 400 ISO is not the best approach to indoor photography, with or without flash, unless the room is especially bright. At night, with tungsten room light you will need to raise the exposure quite a bit.
Last edited:
Chappers
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,386
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Took the image into Lightroom and had a quick look. The histogram is well to the left indicating possible underexposure. In fact I added about 1 stop of of exposure comp to get the image looking OK.
I went back to the exif data you posted, and for some reason you've got -2 stops of flash comp dialled in on the camera. This wont help
Underexposure will certainly put the noise up and it is a vary noisy image. I added about 80% of luminance noise reduction and the result is much better. I also opened the shadows a bit as they were blocking up.
I also went into DPP and had a look. This showed a similar result needing about 1.15 stops of exposure comp to get a reasonable result. Also pushing the shadows slider to about +50% helped the shadows. The result wasn't as good as Lightroom, but then there is a lot of difference in cost
Where Lightroom did score was on the noise reduction. Adding NR to the DPP shot simply made it softer, where as Lightoom's algorithms did a much better job keeping the sharpness and loosing the noise.
My suggestion would be to take the -2 exposure comp off the flash setting. I would also come off spot metering and go to one of the averaging modes. Finally I would suggest you look at the histogram on the back of the camera. This will give you an indication as to the level of exposure. Don't relay on the image on the screen. This is fine for composition but can give you false information regarding exposure
If you like I can send you the Lightroom processed image. It was only a quick job but can give you an indication of what can be achieved.
I went back to the exif data you posted, and for some reason you've got -2 stops of flash comp dialled in on the camera. This wont help
Underexposure will certainly put the noise up and it is a vary noisy image. I added about 80% of luminance noise reduction and the result is much better. I also opened the shadows a bit as they were blocking up.
I also went into DPP and had a look. This showed a similar result needing about 1.15 stops of exposure comp to get a reasonable result. Also pushing the shadows slider to about +50% helped the shadows. The result wasn't as good as Lightroom, but then there is a lot of difference in cost
Where Lightroom did score was on the noise reduction. Adding NR to the DPP shot simply made it softer, where as Lightoom's algorithms did a much better job keeping the sharpness and loosing the noise.
My suggestion would be to take the -2 exposure comp off the flash setting. I would also come off spot metering and go to one of the averaging modes. Finally I would suggest you look at the histogram on the back of the camera. This will give you an indication as to the level of exposure. Don't relay on the image on the screen. This is fine for composition but can give you false information regarding exposure
If you like I can send you the Lightroom processed image. It was only a quick job but can give you an indication of what can be achieved.
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Here's a very extreme example of how you can adjust the mix of ambient light vs flash. This was all accomplished by changing nothing except shutter speed. I can easily go from making the room look pitch black, all the way to being correctly exposed, while at the same time keeping my subject correctly exposed at all times. Note that as I raise the ambient exposure, by slowing the shutter speed, the harsh shadows begin to be lifted from the subject and the room comes alive.
@ 1/20 :
@ 1/10 :
@ 1/5 :
@ 0.4 :
Now this is obviously a very artificial setup, but with only a small room to play in I had a problem to put enough distance between the flash and the background compared to the flash with the subject. In a larger environment the results would be different. The important thing to understand is how to balance ambient vs flash vs IQ vs blur vs noise vs your aesthetic goals. Setting an exposure that pretty much kills the ambient light dead is probably not the best option.
@ 1/20 :
@ 1/10 :
@ 1/5 :
@ 0.4 :
Now this is obviously a very artificial setup, but with only a small room to play in I had a problem to put enough distance between the flash and the background compared to the flash with the subject. In a larger environment the results would be different. The important thing to understand is how to balance ambient vs flash vs IQ vs blur vs noise vs your aesthetic goals. Setting an exposure that pretty much kills the ambient light dead is probably not the best option.
Spot metering could have contributed to the underexposure, as judging by the picture it looks as if it would have been reading off the bride's white dress.
Try experimenting with bounced flash. If there is not a convenient surface to bounce from use a bounce card made from craft foam as described (interminably!) here. I bought mine as "Funky Foam" from the craft section of a garden centre for £1- try cutting to different sizes. Or you could even start with just some A4 paper.
When I use the bounce card I back it with a piece of black foam so that people behind me aren't disturbed. Attach it with a band home-made from a piece of broad black elastic and it doesn't look unprofessional. For something more pro the Demb Flip-it would be my choice. I'm not a pro though so am happy with my funky foam, which works really well for social events in my church.
Bouncing the flash may need higher ISOs, but so long give plenty of exposure you won't have noise problems.
Finally, if you don't want to mess with a tripod, how about a monopod? Less to carry with you, easier to move about and less intimidating for your subjects. Cheaper, too!
Good luck.
Try experimenting with bounced flash. If there is not a convenient surface to bounce from use a bounce card made from craft foam as described (interminably!) here. I bought mine as "Funky Foam" from the craft section of a garden centre for £1- try cutting to different sizes. Or you could even start with just some A4 paper.
When I use the bounce card I back it with a piece of black foam so that people behind me aren't disturbed. Attach it with a band home-made from a piece of broad black elastic and it doesn't look unprofessional. For something more pro the Demb Flip-it would be my choice. I'm not a pro though so am happy with my funky foam, which works really well for social events in my church.
Bouncing the flash may need higher ISOs, but so long give plenty of exposure you won't have noise problems.
Finally, if you don't want to mess with a tripod, how about a monopod? Less to carry with you, easier to move about and less intimidating for your subjects. Cheaper, too!
Good luck.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Tim, I noticed you were shooting at such low shutter speeds, would this be ok with a human subject? Obviously this would need to be on a tripod but Can you get away with shooting a human subject at 0.4? would the results still be sharp - i would imagine there would be tiny movements at that speed?
- Messages
- 4,648
- Name
- Tony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
At those speeds the flash WOULD give a pretty sharp result to a person.. as long as they stayed perfectly still.. you could end up with what i call furry edges..
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
what are the furry edges?
jabbermack
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 386
- Edit My Images
- No
You simply need to buy yourself some better glass.
I recently bought a canon 200mm f2.8 L series and the difference blew me away.
Invest in better glass, you won't be disappointed.
I recently bought a canon 200mm f2.8 L series and the difference blew me away.
Invest in better glass, you won't be disappointed.
Hi Kitschenalia I used to shoot weddings using a couple of Blad's (Hassleblads) to get sharp shots Kit' do what Chappers said: put a prime lens on. An absolute must also is a tripod, use a shutter release cable (or self timer) to isolate your self from the camera. for interior shots use a shutter speed of 1/4 sec with an aperture of F5.6 (I used this combination with Fuji NPS 160 and can't see there being much difference with digital). The slow shutter speed will give a nice fill to a soft background. Use 1:2 fill flash (set the flash to half the value of your aperture) to fill the subject and freeze any movement. Kit' go to an empty church and have a practice...
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Good spot. The reason for the slow shutter speeds here is because I had the flash very close to the subject and even dialed down to 1/128 power I needed to select an aperture and ISO to give me a correct exposure for the flash. This meant that to register anything at all from the ambient light I had to use slow shutter speeds.
If I had opened the aperture or increased the ISO in order to allow a faster shutter speed for the ambient light I would have needed a way to reduce the power of the flash. I could have geled it or moved it further away, but if I had moved it further away I would have had less control over its effect on the background, as the light would have spread beyond the subject with greater relative intensity. Like I say, it was a small room, and with a dining table in the middle and pale coloured walls and ceiling I wanted to create a situation where the effect of the flash was very isolated from the ambient lighting.
In the real world of shooting weddings, for example, the subject will usually be further away from the flash than 12-18" and the contrast between light and dark would not be so extreme. Also, by bouncing the flash rather than aiming it directly at the subject you help light up the room as well as the subject, and usually in a much more flattering way. Of course, you need a flashgun with some guts to do that, but using an appropriate ISO and aperture will help. To maintain a bit of pep to the subject and to add catchlights to the eyes a bounce card will throw a little direct flash forward while still you can bring up the levels in the room.
The thought process behind having an exposure that brings in a significant amount of ambient light is that you don't need so much power from the flash to complete the exposure. That means less risk of overheating the flash, more pops from a set of batteries, and hopefully more even lighting throughout the room. That's an option. You are of course free to shoot in what style meets your creative goals. I usually like the room to look lit. Other people seem to prefer making the room like like a cave, with the subject lit by a spotlight. There is plenty of middle ground to suit all tastes.
Also, when mixing flash with ambient light other than daylight you need to think about the colour temperature of the light. If you've got a tungsten lit room and are mixing in blueish light from a flash then you need to think about what yo are doing. The easiest thing to do is to place a CTO gel over the flash to close the gap between colour temperatures. That way the flash just appears as though it is another big dose of tungsten light. Then you can set your white balance for tungsten and get relatively clean whites and a nice colour balance throughout the scene. If you don't gel the flash, or take steps to blend the light throughout the room then you can end up with an orange room, where the flash does not reach, and blueish subjects, where the flash has biggest impact.
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
When you drag the shutter (use a low shutter speed in order to suck in sufficient ambient light) the flash duration is so short that the flash part of the exposure should freeze the subject, but if you have a significant amount of ambient light added in over an extended period of time you can see blur from the ambient part of the exposure. This can lead to a sharpish looking subject but with the edges looking messed up where bits of background bleed through if the subject moves.
I'd say that for shooting candids of people standing around you should aim for a shutter speed of not less than 1/60 if you want the ambient light to feature significantly in the exposure and avoid excessive "fuzziness". It's not that you can't shoot at slower speeds, but your keeper rate might start to diminish. Of course, if people are posing and can keep still then you can go slower, so long as you keep the camera/lens steady. A tripod is a lovely idea, but often impractical, which is where IS lenses come into their own.
Here's an example at 1/40, f/2.8, 1600 ISO. It's plenty sharp enough.
100% crop, with sharpening and NR at Lightroom defaults....
Last edited:
u8myufo
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 19,354
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry Jason but I find your answer as much use as a handbrake on a canoe :shrug: If you had taken time to read through the posts you would see that splashing out a load of dosh at the moment is not an option. I know it does not really come into the equation on this thread but would you mind pointing me to some of your blow me away pictures? I cannot seem to find any, but would like to see what results you are getting with it coupled to the 50D.
Thanks
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have seen this recently and wondered the cause. thanks for the explanation -so the flash literally freezes the subject on the sensor - how does that even work?
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Because the duration of the flash is so short - around 1/1000 or much, much less - if there is not much ambient light included in the exposure then the duration of the flash becomes your shutter speed, as there is no useful light once the flash has finished. The shutter could stay open for two seconds, but with no extra light coming in it might as well be an hour.
The problem of fuzziness apeears if you do also have a significant amount of ambient light included. Then the flash will still do its bit at freezing the subject, but the ambient part of the exposure can ruin that.
Here's an example of a 2 second exposure. The flash froze the subject but the shutter remained open for a couple of seconds to record the "continuous" light coming from the sparkler. The ambient light was negligible and made practically no contribution to the scene.....
As hand held 2 second exposures go, this one is fairly sharp....
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
well well well, i always heard about flash freezing the motion but I didn't realise it was as dramatic as that.
is that woman using the sparkler to hide her boob?
is that woman using the sparkler to hide her boob?
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Look up examples of "2nd curtain sync". It is a technique for making the flash fire at the end of a (long) exposure and can be used to create a trailing blur effect for a moving subject which leads up to a sharp and solid subject at the end of the trail.
Random example here - http://www.sony.ca/html/uf/microsite/Flash_Minisite/2-2.html
More examples buried amongst this lot - http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=e...le&resnum=5&ved=0CDYQsAQwBA&biw=1660&bih=1084
A gentleman would never discuss such matters. The answer is "Yes."
Last edited:
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
wow, looks like so much to learn about flash!
also, glad to see you aren't a gentleman
also, glad to see you aren't a gentleman
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
thanks everyone
<snip>
Hoppy, thanks for your reply. I do tend to expose to the right always, but as I've said, I don't yet know how to do this with flash on board. Sorry you think the composition is bad, I didn't have much choice. I was back as far as I could go, my lens as wide as it goes. Nothing much more I could do. The group was arranged by a good friend who's been doing photography for years, he wanted to help me. He also advised no tripod when I started to put it up. I should have been more assertive. I know the composition and group formation isn't great but as a) my friend told me not to worry, it didn't have to be perfect (I was SO nervous, didn't let on to her) and b) it was done for free, I'm not going to give myself yet more of a hard time over that. I do appreciate your comments are to help me learn though so I'm not being snotty, just describing the situation. I know I would get more experience if I didn't have someone helping me with group formations (the same problem I had in my first freebie wedding, the one on FB, where the subjects were all looking at the girl they knew who was "helping" me to get them organised then snapping too).
<snip>
At the risk of adding even more information all at once, you misunderstand me. The arrangement of the group is a) aesthetically terrible (unless the groom is actually 7ft tall, and the guy next to him even taller) b) the framing forces you to stand back. You are throwing away image quality and increasing noise, which was at the start of this thread.
If you move closer, with a tighter group arranged to fill the frame more, you will get much better image quality, have more flash power available, and a better image in every respect. If you want to maximise image quality, always fill the frame - every sq mm of sensor area is precious.
Wedding photography is about people management and basic crowd control as much as it is about photography. The picture taking is usually the easy part. If you are to nail weddings you need to get a grip of that, and using flash must be second nature.
By the way, how did you light that group shot? The light is from quite a large (square?) source to the right
