ROFL!!
OK, Dr. Chuck....how long did it take you to write this little ditty?
:-)))
First, thank you for this!
Second, I get it! At least I get *this* part about flash photography.
Third, I love photography...I love capturing certain subjects, I love
learning about how to operate my camera(s), when they work, that is. But
this flash part??? This part is NOT fun!! I repeat, I HATE this part. I
repeat, learning the flash stuff is way too much like work, it is not
fun!! I want to have fun again! OK, I'll stop whining...for now. :-)
Thank you for your explanation, it's nice to hear it in real working
language...the manual is fireplace fodder as far as I am concerned. :-)
What I really needed to know was how to operate the durn FL50
correctly, as I want to guess that that could be my trouble. I want to
eliminate that as being what's wrong with my images, then move on from
there. I can show you an example of what I am going to talk about here,
but am rather embarrassed to do so. What seems to be happening is that
the images are coming out rather digitized, soft, and just not "real"
looking. I wanted to clear up whether or not operator error of the FL50
is to blame.
Last, but most definitely not least, Richard Ociepka kindly provided me
with this link, http://tinyurl.com/9t629 , which had more answers and
info about operating the FL50 than I have seen anywhere else. For the
time being, I think this has answered my questions about the FL50. Thank
you, Dick!!!
Chuck, thank you for this reply, for the information, and the reminder
about shutter drag. I *thought* I was trying to take advantage of the
ambient light by using shutter drag, but still, the images were not
good. Now, I will experiment with the info from the above mentioned
link. I will, however, soon have more questions for you about portable
studio type lighting. This is an area I must soon dive into, and I don't
know where to begin. But...all in due time. :-)
Thank you again!!
Candace :-)
P.S. Have you got verse number 2 bouncing around in that brain of
yours? I had a really good tune going, and was just about to bust a
move..... :-D
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Here, here, m'dear,
> Never fear,
> Dr. Chuck is here
>
> To illuminate the way
> of the flash by day
> and by night,
> why 'tis nothing but light
>
> But always remember
> when pressing the shutter
> the ambient still counts
> with the flash on the mount
>
> If the shutter is long
> then the flash ain't so strong
> (well, uh, relatively speakin' of course)
>
> and two exposures be here
> so be of good cheer
> and count each its own right
> in the sum of all light.
>
> And finally,
> remember thee well the square root of two
> lest the inverse square law
> make a fool out of you
> -----------------------------
>
> That was an intro to my basic flash tutorial. I will give you one hint
> that you may not find so clearly stated elsewhere but you must always
> remember when shooting flash. When using flash there are *always* two
> exposures. I repeat. When using flash there are *always* two
> exposures. And again until it sinks in. When using flash there are
> *always* two exposures.
>
> One exposure is from the flash unit and the second exposure is from the
> ambient light. Either one can be the dominant light source or they may
> contribute fairly equally. If you're in a dark room the flash will be
> the dominant exposure and the ambient exposure will be small or
> non-existent. If the flash is much more powerful than the ambient
> exposure you will end up with a look like a bright object in a dark
> cave. Typical of lots of point and shoot picutures taken in dark rooms
> with little, built-in flashes. On the other hand, if you're doing
> daylight fill flash the ambient daylight is the dominant exposure and
> the flash is adding a lesser exposure that serves to lighten and soften
> the shadows cast by the brighter sunlight.
>
> With the exception of FP mode on the FL50 (which simulates *F*ocal
> *P*lane flash bulbs) flash exposure is always very much faster than your
> fastest shutter speed. What that means is that you can't control the
> flash exposure with the shutter. No matter how fast you set the shutter
> the full power of the flash will get through because the shutter is a
> mechanical slow poke compared to all those light speed electrons and
> photons. Thinking that through for a second you can see that aperture,
> ISO and flash power (stongly affected by distance) are the only ways to
> control flash exposure. On the other hand, that second, ambient
> exposure I mentioned at the start *is* affected by the shutter speed.
> So, when using flash photography, you can use an effect called "dragging
> the shutter" to enhance the photo by capturing not only the flash
> exposure but the ambient light in the room as well. You do that by
> using a longer shutter speed than for the flash alone to allow the
> weaker ambient light a chance to build up.
>
> This photo exhibits shutter drag since it was taken at 1/4 second to
> capture not only the brief flash exposure but to allow the incandescent
> lights lining the inside of the tent a chance to register.
> <http://chucknorcutt.com/party.php>
> If I had taken it at 1/180, for example (max flash sync speed for your
> camera), the flash would have lit the scene but the incandescent lights
> would have been almost invisible. If you look closely you can see some
> subject motion due to the "shutter drag".
>
> The final part of my little poem warns that the intensity of the light
> from a flash falls off very rapidly with distance... and, like f/stops,
> according to the square root of two. You can use f/stops in place of
> distance to illustrate the effect. For example, let's pick on f/8, f/11
> and f/16. Assume the subject is 11 feet away and the flash is set for
> proper exposure at 11 feet. If there's something ahead of the subject
> at 8 feet that subject will be one stop overexposed. If there's
> something behind the subject at 16 feet that thing will be underexposed
> by one stop. The lesson is that the light inensity is varying so fast
> with distance that the proper exposure is only obtained within a narrow
> range.
>
> Now lets keep on with the f/stop analogy. Let's back up to 2.8, 4 and
> 5.6 as model distances. Now we're really in trouble. If proper
> exposure is obtained at 4 feet we've only got to come foward 1.2 feet to
> 2.8 feet to be a whole stop overexposed. Likewise, we've only got to
> add 1.6 feet to get to 5.6 feet and find that were already underexposed
> by a full stop. Moral of the story? Don't get too close with flash.
> Now if I said use 16, 22 and 32 as the model distance you'd be able to
> fill in everything for yourself and see that distance aids exposure
> latitude. Ah, and what happend when you bounce your flash? Why you add
> distance of course. But all is not roses. Distance tends to make a
> flash look more like a point source of light which causes harsh shadows
> so you add a stronger need for diffusers to soften the light by making
> it larger. Size counts in diffusers.
>
> Ah. That was fun. Now what was your question? :-)
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Candace Lemarr wrote:
>
>> Second issue...I am not getting the lighting right with my FL50. It's
>> driving me nuts. I don't understand much of what I find when I am
>> surfing for answers, and the English manual is just awful....or I am
>> very very unintelligent. Does anyone have online links to resources
>> about the FL50? I am not finding anything useful yet. And all the things
>> I do read seem so complicated....is there a way to uncomplicate external
>> flash photography? I am just not-getting-it, and feeling very frustrated.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|