"Zone VI," Weekly Photography Assignment for 8 - 14 March 2010

[Michele]

Tomorrow morning I will set up my own gallery on the site.  I welcome all your input.  I followed your link, What the heck is that thing and how does it work with a flash?  It looks like a flash glove or something.  But I don't think it is the shape of my flash.  Really, no clue.  More explanation is necessary here. 

I spy with my little eye...  Tee hee.

Michèle

[keithsnell]

I followed your link, What the heck is that thing and how does it work with a flash?

Michèle

Hi Michele,

You can click on the following link to see how "that thing"  works with a flash like yours: http://www.video.bhphotovideo.com/?skin=oneclip&autoplay=true&fr_story=bd2ac48359c3cdd9f302282bce63f5236379e352

I wasn't sure your flash had the ability to swivel/rotate the head in order to use the Lumiquest, but after looking in the manual again, I see that it does.

Did the video help explain?

Keith

[Michele]

I love it, I love it, I love it.  I want one!  Amazing.  I am going to try and order it right now.

[Michele]

Ok, I can't order it right now, the site is down until Saturday night.  But I am going to get it.  I hope they ship to Switzerland.

[Michele]

I was also looking at that big bounce diffuser.  I would assume the moment you bounce the light, it is softer, but you lose some of the light so the source needs to be stronger.  Can one not use the diffuser by not attaching it and use just the bounce?  Or is it the surface material itself that bounces.  See, wouldn't you have two options in one with this?  And the one you recommend I like as well.  Can a suppliment diffuser be added on this too? 

Tee hee, cool site that it.  I would spend lots and lots if I could.

Michèle

[keithsnell]

I was also looking at that big bounce diffuser.  I would assume the moment you bounce the light, it is softer, but you lose some of the light so the source needs to be stronger.  Can one not use the diffuser by not attaching it and use just the bounce?  Or is it the surface material itself that bounces.  See, wouldn't you have two options in one with this?  And the one you recommend I like as well.  Can a suppliment diffuser be added on this too?  

Tee hee, cool site that it.  I would spend lots and lots if I could.

Michèle

Hi Michele,

It looks like the Big Bounce would provide nice soft light when you don't have the ability to bounce the light off a ceiling.  However, the Big Bounce also reduces the effective power of your flash considerably.  I see from reading the specifications that the Quick Bounce results in a loss of about 1 1/3 stops, while using the Big Bounce results in a loss of about 3 stops of light compared to direct flash.  You can assess how much this will affect your flash power by recognizing that a 2 stop reduction in light will cut your flash range in half, and a 1 stop reduction in light will reduce your range by about 30% (divide the guide number by 1.4).  

You can calculate the effective range of your flash with the Big Bounce by dividing the guide number by 3.4 and using this as your "adjusted" guide number.  Instead of having a guide number of 43 (meters) your flash would have an effective guide number of 43/3.4 = 12.65.  If you use an ISO of 100 and aperture of f8, the range on your flash would be 12.65/8 = 1.6 meters.  You could double this range by increasing your ISO to 400.  (But wouldn't be able to bump up the ISO and still control your ambient exposures if you were also contending with bright sunlight as your "ambient" light source.)

Another consideration is that you will always have to contend with "light fall off" when your light source is positioned directly over your camera.  The intensity of light on your subject is reduced by one stop for every 1.4 times increase in distance.  For simplicity let's use an example where the distance from your flash to your primary subject is 1 meter.  If you have another subject 1.4 meters away (0.4 meters behind your primary subject) then the light on that subject will be 1 stop less, and if you have a third subject that is 2 meters from your flash, then the light from your flash on that third subject will be 2 stops less.  This effect is easy to see in some of your test photos.

So somehow we need to solve this problem with "light fall off," and bouncing your flash off the ceiling is one of the best ways to do this.  Not only does bouncing the light off the ceiling soften the light (because the ceiling is acting as a big, diffused light source) but it also increases the effective distance from your flash to your subjects, and therefore helps minimize the effect of "light fall off."  For example, if you are bouncing your flash off a 10 foot (3.048 meters (sounds funny)) high ceiling to a subject about 2 meters in front of you, then the distance to that subject (for the light from your flash) is really about 3.65 meters away (the math is an approximation), since the light travels from your flash, up to the ceiling, and back down to your subject.  If you have a secondary subject that is 4 meters away, then the distance from the flash to the ceiling and back down to this subject is approximately 5 meters.  Since 5 meters is slightly less than 1.4 times 3.65 meters, we can calculate that the exposure difference between the subject that is 2 meters away and the subject that is 4 meters away will be slightly less than 1 stop.  This is much more acceptable than the 2 stop difference caused by light fall off if we use direct flash (when the subjects are 2 meters and 4 meters away).  (I need someone to draw a nice diagram to illustrate this.   ).

Does any of this make sense?  My point is that if you are able to bounce the flash off the ceiling (assuming it is close enough, and a neutral white) then you not only get a soft diffused light source, but you also minimize the problem of light fall off from the flash.  It is because of this that I would tend to prefer the Quick Bounce over the Big Bounce, since 80% of the light is bounced off the ceiling with the Quick Bounce (when the doors are open).  

Another way to minimize the effect of the light fall off is to try to balance ambient and flash exposures as much as possible.  If your ambient exposure is only 1 stop less than your flash exposure (for example) then even the areas furthest away from your flash in the scene will only be one stop darker, which is certainly acceptable.

OK, please ask questions if I didn't explain any of this adequately.

Keith

[Michele]

Sold.  I have to wait until tomorrow morning to purchase it, but I am convinced.  Thank you, Keith. Once again.  I took some more shots today with the flash.  So powerful.   The priest came to my house as I was practicing with the flash to confirm that I would be doing the communion.  My dog goes insane when he comes over in his robes.  I put the camera down to put the dog in the washroom and he made a joke (for him that is something, very serious dude) that he never sees me without a camera.  I think he was trying to butter me up because last year I caught him doing something that I felt was not right.  I give the families a CD of all the photos so they can pick which ones they wanted to print for themselves.  (private use) I included some of the church, inside, outside and in the dark (they light up the church at night, very pretty.)  He took a couple to a printer and made postcards. They were selling them  two bucks a pop and five for the large card format for the church.  They never once asked me nor told me about it.   When I saw the cards in the back of the church, I was fuming.  When I spoke to him, he thought I would be happy and flattered but I told him that it was for family and private use only.  He said that he was family to everyone at the chuch.  I then replied that anyone can print as many as they would like out but they should not sell them because that would be for commercial use and that included him too.  Well, in the end I donated those shots to him (I said that because it was pretty much too late to do anything about it) but that in the future I have the right to be asked.  You know, not that it matters because it is a church but I only get 200 for all of it and I consider that a donation as well.  It is a mighty cheap price for all the hours I put into it.  I see it as practice for the big stuff though on my side, but to sell the stuff...   Anyways.  I am off track again, the flash is mighty powerful...  I forgot my question.   I will write again, I am sure.

Have a great day. 

Michèle

[keithsnell]

Hi Michele,

Yes, I have had problems in the past with "non-profit" organizations thinking they could use my photos for whatever they wanted.  I've learned to handle this by including "unlimited" but non-transferable rights to the images for non-profit organizations in my contract/invoice, as long as they include the information with the photos that I request (typically my name and a link to my website, so at least I get free advertising out of the deal).  If they don't follow those guidelines then our contract says they will owe me triple the original price, and I will retroactively revoke their right to use the photos (which means they can no longer legally sell the cards, calendars and books they have used the images in).  At least in the US, the law would be firmly on the side of the photographer in this case, and would help to reinforce the "penalties" against the organization.  (Not that I would ever actually bring a non-profit to court.  )

I mainly included the "unlimited rights" for my own sanity, since I have found that "non-profits" think they don't need to play by the same rules as a for-profit organization.  It keeps me from having to be the bad guy and constantly police the use of my photos.  Even so, we have to "remind" non-profit groups to include our contact information when they publish the photos.  We've managed to make our relationship with non-profits into a win-win situation, but it takes a little more tolerance on our part, and an understanding of the "mindset" of non-profit organizations.  I've found that educating people on the copyright laws is a constant task, and my relationship with non-profit organizations always includes "education."

Anyway, I hope your flash works out for you.  There's definitely a lot to learn in order to effectively use flash, but once you master it your photography will be taken to a whole new level.  (Just wait until you try to "balance" three or four strobes with ambient light for architectural photography.  )

Have fun with the new toy,

Keith

[Michele]

Right. I forgot.  I also bought a second strobe.  Biggggg purchases this week.  I figured I need a balance and I can work with two.  Three would be ideal,  back lighting, side lighting, and main light, but ehhh, what are you going to do?  Two is good enough for me for now.

As for the priest, had I been asked, I would have said yes but (I forgot to tell you this part), I would want the credit.  The kicker was that in the back of the postcard it had the year the church was build, the architect, the window designer, the floor maker, the alter maker and some other stuff about the renovation.  Sadly no room for the photographer's name.  Ok, I did not design the church, but even though anyone could of taken a picture, they took mine.   

When people use my stuff, meaning my paintings, for their stores, I am asked and I loan them out if they are not sold.  They credit me on a small card next to the painting.  So, I feel it should be the same.

But I am not a pro like you so I don't have contracts.  Although I may make one in the case of the school.  I make contracts for the websites. 

Thank you for all your help again.  I may bug you still about how to meter with this flash.  I read everything you gave me and the manual, but then why would it meter so low and have such a bright outcome?

Have a great day and please say hello to Rebecca.  I looked at all the photos in the galleries.  Tell her that she looked amazing after Mac was born.  I looked like a truck ran over me and she looked beautiful. 

Michèle

[keithsnell]

I read everything you gave me and the manual, but then why would it meter so low and have such a bright outcome?

Michèle

Hi Michele,

What flash mode were you in when you got these results (negative exposure compensation but flash too bright)?

Were you setting negative exposure compensation on the camera, the flash, or both?  Although the Nikon cameras have the ability to "link" camera and flash exposure compensation, I don't see that option with the 50d.  It appears to me that camera and flash exposure compensation are always kept separate, so that even though you might be underexposing for the ambient, if you don't have negative exposure compensation set on the flash as well, then the flash will fire for a "normal" exposure. 

Can you try setting negative exposure compensation on both the camera (with the quick control dial) and on the flash itself?

Thanks,

Keith

[Michele]

The negative exposure was on the camera.  I did nothing to the flash, I even had it in the ETTL mode (which I assume is automatic)  Then I tried the flash in Manual and brought it down to half, then even lower.  I can't wait to try that bouncing tool you recommended.  But I still need to practice with this flash.  I appreciate all the comments with the photos, they make so much sense. 

[keithsnell]

The negative exposure was on the camera.  I did nothing to the flash, I even had it in the ETTL mode (which I assume is automatic) 

Yes, ETTL mode is automatic; however you can still apply negative exposure compensation to ETTL if you think the flash is consistently too bright.  My preferred way of using flash is to try my best to balance the ambient and flash exposures, and to use flash as a "supplement" to the ambient lighting.  In other words, the ambient lighting might not be bright enough (or of good enough "quality") to provide pleasing images by itself, so adding a "supplement" of light from the flash might be capable of putting enough light on the scene (with the right qualities) to create a pleasing image.  This means that I normally "dial back" the flash exposures a bit (using negative exposure compensation of about -0.7 on the flash, or setting the power manually) in order to prevent that "over flashed" look that is so prevalent with flash photography.

When you use flash, the camera "defaults" to an exposure calculation that assumes flash will be your primary light source.  You will need to consciously modify the flash and exposure settings in order to overcome this "default" assumption and instead use flash as a "supplement" or "fill" for the ambient light.

Does this make sense?

Keith

[Dave]

Sorry guys, apparently I don't have the exact 'before and after' shots that I thought I did, I guess  I shaded most of the shots I took, as I saw early on that I didn't like the direct sun much. Anyways, here are a couple of frames to illustrate my point. As you  can see, other camera settings were changed in the two shots, so not a direct comparison unfortunately. The third shot I added just because I think that the direct sun in that shot actually added a lot to it, and made the subject really 'pop'

[keithsnell]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for posting these examples.  It's a great series to show the differences between direct sun and shading your subject.  Sometimes using a diffuser gives you a "happy medium" that is the best of both worlds.

Keith

[Michele]

That is beautiful.  The third picture does pop, as you say, but no. 2 is really pretty as well.  All three make me want spring to come faster.  How do you "shade" exactly?  Are you blocking out the sun by using a reflector or just slightly taking it off the subject?