I didn't for a minute think that you'd actually take my flash advice but
decided I'd offer it anyway. I could tell from the mix of shutter
speeds, apertures and ISOs on those shots that you were doing a fair
amount of experimenting with what I knew was (to you) a new piece of
equipment. I also understand CH's comment about making the flash
dominant to avoid color balance problems but I rarely find that
incandescent and flash produce much of a problem together. Custom white
balance or shooting in raw works fine for me. Adding fluorescent or
other light sources into the mix can be a different story.
Where you were shooting was tough. Most of my experience with flash
photography is in a venue where I have had a high degree of control over
the lighting and multiple flash units to work with... sometimes as many
as five. I'm not really sure if I'd have done much better than you in
the same situation.
Dr. Flash
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Well, like many things, not needing flash is a matter of opinion.
> And here, we differ,
>> 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
>>
>> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=JuliaGrad/1-Grad&image=_MG_4378crii.jpg>
>>
> The question may be whether this is portrait photography or something
> closer to journalism. I personally prefer the pure ambient shots for the
> ismple reason that they recall what the event and the people in it
> actually looked like at the time. Looking at them again months later,
> this feeling is even stronger. The ambient shots take me back to the
> experience, while the flash shots don't.
>> 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
>>
>> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=JuliaGrad/1-Grad&image=_MG_4380crii.jpg>
>>
> Hard to disagree. I could certainly remove the shadows on the wall. In
> fact, I did so on some other shots. And I'm sure your advice given with
> such care below would result in more balanced exposure than either of
> the ones I did.
>
> Remember, I do very little flash shooting and essentially none of this
> sort. So I had no experience to draw on. There was also no chance to
> experiment. Many shots were the single chance. Nos. 68, 70, 71 and 74,
> for example, were all of great emotional importance to Julia. Nailing
> both the eye to eye connection and handshake through the crowd for no.
> 75 was a big success - the only time I left my seat to fight for an angle.
>
> I was perhaps overly concerned with DOF and stopping motion. I was also
> worried about the lighting mix. The stage lighting was quite warm and
> the flash is quite cold, so I was worried about cool, bluish shadows all
> over faces and clothing from fill flash. It was nice to hear from C.H.
> that such light mixes are a concern to him too.
>
> In any case, I was quite happy to "get the goods" as well as I did. And
> my 'client' was VERY pleased. As with the graduation, her request that I
> photograph an event came at the last minute in Seattle a couple of weeks
> ago. Had she spoken before we left home, I'd have had better tools
> along. Maybe one day I'll tell the tale of my spectacular prat fall
> while doing that 'assignment'.
>
> Ah, well, as Jerry says ... it's a ride. Enjoy it! I do.
>> <snip some excellent advice which, with any luck, I'll never have occasion
>> to use. (yup, pun.)>
>>
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.16/1840 - Release Date: 12/9/2008
> 4:53 PM
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
