These shots are not taken by me, they are from the scans I did for local
Hospital Authority. My wife is the editor, she check all my scans and she is
even more demanding :-) But I told her this is not our problem, with the low
scanning price we can only afford very limited editing.
May be you are right about the flash coverage but it could also be due to
yellow spot lights. Anyway, I just want to show some problems that happen
with mixed light. To me in these cases I will try to suppress the ambient as
much as possible. Of course in some cases it is necessary to lower the
shutter to avoid a dark background but mix light on the face is something
that must be avoided.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> You're just fussier than me. The white's and grays in the first image
> are actually quite well balanced in the range of your flash. The
> problem was that your coverage angle wasn't wide enough to cover all the
> participants. And, while not perfectly balanced, I see the second image
> as perfectly acceptable after toning down the reds a bit and boosting
> the blue. It leads to white shirts that are a bit too blue to be
> neutral but the rest of the image is improved, IMHO.
>
> Dr. Flash
>
>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>> I doubt there is different between fluorescent or incandescent. With
>> mixed
>> light in similar intensity illuminated from different angles you will
>> create
>> color cast on some area no matter how you balance in post processing. I
>> did
>> at least 5 company party events every year (for 10 years) and scanning
>> thousands similar negatives from local hospital authority I see the
>> problem
>> there especially for stage shots where the spot light is too strong to
>> override, the 1/60s flash sync speed of OM camera make things more
>> difficult.
>>
>> Here are two examples (not by OM I believe):
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/D1-47-N-0005.jpg
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/D1-3-2-N-0025.jpg
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.16/1841 - Release Date:
>> 12/10/2008 9:30 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/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
