I don't think there's any conflict of advice here. Note that the advice
on page 108 says absolutely nothing about use of guide numbers. His
advice is strictly on using testing to determine actual exposures. His
advice to do the reverse of what you do with TTL or autoflash when using
manual exposure is in how you interpret and adjust the results of the
exposure tests.
If you go back to pages 80-85 (flash theory) you will see a description
of manufacturers guide numbers as being based on an assumption of use in
a moderate size room with an assumed reflectivity of walls and ceiling.
The accuracy of the guide numbers depends on assistance from those
reflective surfaces. When used outdoors you don't have those reflective
surfaces and the guide numbers are therefore... invalid. In that same
section he proposes that you conduct a series of exposure tests to
determine the real guide numbers for the conditions where you're using
the flash.
Jumping ahead to page 108 again notice that the section is labeled
"Adding flash to zooms with diopters". In this section he's advocating
another whole series of exposure tests because the different optical
configuration has presumably invalidated your first "real" guide number
calculations.
I suggested a comparison of the flash output (a constant) with an
incident reading not because they are the same but because both are
independent of the reflectivity of the subject.
Do your exposure testing with a digital camera. You could also use a
flash (incident) meter but that's complicated for use with macro and
filters.
Dr. Flash
On 9/13/2010 11:23 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Well,
> Perhaps the exposure suggested by use of GN and distance is not really
> the same as an incident reading
> and gives a "correct" exposure for a mid-toned subject. To quote JS in
> his first book,
> "When you use manual flash, you have to compensate for nonneutral
> subjects by doing the reverse of what you do
> with TTL or autoflash." (pg 108) He recommends of course to determine
> the output of the flash by a series of exposures.
> It goes with out saying that other concerns regarding how to depict the
> scene of the photog should trump what should be "correct."
> Dr. Flash suggested this exact book on manual macro flash a number of
> years ago and I followed his suggestion.
> Nonetheless, if the midtones are placed properly and the light output
> is fixed, why should the tonality of the subject matter? Perhaps as he
> largely used
> Kodachrome 25 in the book, there was too much risk of blowing out
> highlights or muddying up dark subjects if not adjusted. I was hoping
> you notice this
> issue and clalrify it. I know that bothered me when I read it too.
> A Student of Dr. Flash, Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|