Well, like many things, not needing flash is a matter of opinion. This
non-flash shot, for example, shows much considerable harsh shadow under
chins, glasses, some eye sockets and on necks, and cheekbones. All the
light is coming from a point source high high above and to the right and
is not kind to these folks.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=JuliaGrad/1-Grad&image=_MG_4378crii.jpg>
The flash version has eliminated those shadows (perhaps too much) and
introduced some others behind the folks who are standing close to the
wall. Those shadows are also undesirable but it should be possible to
at least minimize them.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=JuliaGrad/1-Grad&image=_MG_4380crii.jpg>
I see that the ambient shot was made at 1/60 and f/5.6 at ISO 800. The
flash shot was made at 1/200 and f/10 at ISO 400. For the flash shot
the shutter speed is down 1-2/3 stops, the aperture is down 1-2/3 stops,
and the ISO is down 1 stop for a net decrease of 4-1/3 stops.
Remember that flash shots are always composed of two exposures... the
ambient exposure and the flash exposure. Since this shot is 4-1/3 stops
down from the correct ambient exposure, if there was no flash there
wouldn't be any exposure. You only need 100% flash in a dark room.
Elsewhere you can take advantage of the ambient light and only use the
flash to make up the deficit. You can also use the flash for fill as in
this case where the overhead light is just as harsh as your undiffused
flash.
I think you'd have gotten better results if you had maintained your
original shutter speed and aperture of 1/60 and f/5.6 and simply dropped
the ISO to 400 from 800. That would have given you an ambient exposure
one stop down from the needed exposure and the one stop differential
could have been made up with flash. That would have gotten the camera
into its quality comfort zone, shadows under chins, etc would have been
considerably softened but not eliminated and the shadows cast on the
wall behind the folks close to the wall would be considerably softer.
For an example of balancing flash and ambient with a one stop
differential I point you to this article.
<http://www.shootsmarter.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=175&acat=16>
In this case it's trying to show how to make a proper TTL exposure but
that's really immaterial to the basic notion of ambient one stop under
flash... if you can, of course.
Dr. Flash
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> In the venue where Moose first showed his 540EZ flash shots, IIRC, it would
>> have been difficult or impossible to have used a flash meter. Also, IIRC, I
>> think direct flash would have been required based on distance and lack of
>> suitable bounce surfaces. But it was a while back and I'm really not sure.
>>
> You remember quite correctly.
>
> The lighting was just on the edge for a 5D and I took a mix of flash and
> ambient shots. I preferred the look of the ambient shots, but got a fair
> amount of blur from subject motion. With 5DII or D3 and/or a faster long
> lens, I wouldn't have needed flash at all.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=JuliaGrad/1-Grad>
>
> In retrospect, considering Julia's expectations and the size images she
> ended up pleased with, I could have shot the whole thing without flash
> at ISO 1600 & 3200. But I didn't have a chance to do a dry run, the
> 540EZ was a new toy and I had it ready to go.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1837 - Release Date: 12/8/2008
> 9:38 AM
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
