This week I'm working on... (now with a page 1 directory)

[NateNLogansDad]

Hey Goof, we're not related at all are we? I just started playing with raw a few days ago too! I've been putting it off because I was so intimidated by the processing programs but so far I am loving Adobe Elements. The flexibility is AWESOME and I love how it's non destructive! Plus I found out how to batch edit so I'm thinking of switching over for most of my stuff, let the software auto adjust everything while converting it to JPG and tweek the RAW file later if I feel it needs it. Got a kids party tomorrow that's going to be inside with crappy lighting, so I should get plenty of practice!

 

[TheGoofster]

During the weekend I was fooling around a bit with the post processing feature of tilt shifting. I'm usnig Corel Paint Shop Pro and it's really easy to do. Simply click on the Adjust tab, and when that opens up click on "depth of field" that gives you some different options on how you want to make your shot look.

Here are a few examples of some pictures I've taken that I tilt shifted:

Anybody else have any shots they've tilt shifted?

 

[Coach81]

Hey Goof.. Happy Easter!!!

Think I'm getting better!

 

[NateNLogansDad]

Very much so!

 

[TheGoofster]

Thanks Coach and N&L'sDad. I hope you guys have a great Easter as well!

And yes, your shots are definitely getting better Coach! Keep on shooting away, and keep on posting your shots!

 

[Coach81]

Very much so!

Thank you, Nate

And now.. my very first.. HDR photo:

What do you think???

 

[NateNLogansDad]

Not too shabby!


Hey guys....I think another one caught the bug.....

 

[lov2b@disney]

Nice Coach! I am learning lots from all of you...so I thought I would share what I think is a decent shot

 

[Coach81]

Not too shabby!


Hey guys....I think another one caught the bug.....

Guilty! Lol

 

[TheGoofster]

Thank you, Nate

And now.. my very first.. HDR photo:

What do you think???

Not too bad! I like the fact that you didn't go way overboard with it, but kept it looking pretty normal, just with brighter colors.

 

[TheGoofster]

Nice Coach! I am learning lots from all of you...so I thought I would share what I think is a decent shot

Very nice Lov2b!

I tried looking at your EXIF info, but it didn't come up. What were you shooting when you took this?

 

[TheGoofster]

A missed opportunity.

Yesterday some good friends that we only get to see a couple times a year came by, and I took some more shots of their son. Unfortunately I missed a great chance to try using fill flash. I was shooting outside in some very bright sun, and many of the shots were just way overshadowed because of the strong sun. I'm thinking that fill flash would have gone a long way in helping to eliminate much of this problem.
Hopefully the next time I'm in this same situation I'll be more aware and at least give the fill flash a go.
Here are some of the shots so you can see what I mean. For some of you who know a lot more about shooting than I obviously do, what do you think? Would fill flash have been the right choice in this situation?

Thankfully not all the shots were as bad as these, I did get some half-decent ones as well:

Also, I was able to Post-process many of the shots to make them look quite a bit better.

I would love to hear any feedback about using fill flash, perhaps with an example or two if anybody has some.

 

[lov2b@disney]

hey goofster...the picture was iso200, f5.6, 1/1250 52mm... do you know how to get the exif to show up? It is posted off flickr?

i had the same problem with some easter egg hunt pictures I took of my son the other day in the noon sun, lots of shadows so I am interested in a better was to shoot in those conditions.
Here is one:

 

[TheGoofster]

today wasn't quite as sunny as yesterday, but it was still bright enough to do a few most tests. Today I took a few shots of my daughter, some with out the fill flash, and some with it. You can see that the flash really does make quite a difference:

without flash:

with flash:

without flash:

with flash:

I still have so much to learn about using flash properly, but from now on, if I'm in a situation where I'm shooting a relatively close subject in bright sun, I'll probably try using the fill flash most of the time.

 

[disneyboy2003]

today wasn't quite as sunny as yesterday, but it was still bright enough to do a few most tests. Today I took a few shots of my daughter, some with out the fill-in-flash, and some with it. You can see that the flash really does make quite a difference:

with flash:

I still have so much to learn about using flash properly, but from now on, if I'm in a situation where I'm shooting a relatively close subject in bright sun, I'll probably try using the fill-in-flash most of the time.

I really like this one with the fill flash. You can see the "catch lights" in her eyes, which makes her eyes really stand out. Look at professional models' photos and you'll see that they all pretty much have "catch lights" in their eyes. Without catch lights, the eyes can look a little dull.

A lot of folks who aren't into photography mistakenly believe that the best time to take photos is in bright sunlight. However, you've just shown how hard it *actually* is to take photos in bright sunlight or at high noon. That's why I always bring my external flash along with me, even during the day.

To add fill flash, you simply turn on the flash and set the "flash exposure compensation (FEC)" to about -1. In simple terms, FEC basically controls the flash power output relative to the scene, so an FEC of -1 decreases the flash output by 1 stop. That's just a starting point. Adjust the FEC as necessary for your particular photo.

The other thing you see in your photos above is that the sunny background is still pretty bright. You can try decreasing the exposure of the background so that its brightness doesn't compete with your foreground subject. You can do this by either increasing the shutter speed (if you're shooting in Manual mode), or decreasing the exposure compensation (if you're shooting in P, Tv, or Av modes).

If you're not bound by someone else's event schedule, the other thing you can try to do is take photos when it's not super-bright & sunny outside, say in the early morning or in the early evening. That way, the light outside is more even and you don't get the harsh shadows, like you do during noontime.

I've actually been using my external flash for all my Animal Kingdom parade photos. My wife and I are usually around the Tusker House (near Kilimanjaro Safaris), and during parade time, it's usually very shaded in that entire area. So I've been using my flash to "decrease the dynamic range" and "lift the shadows" in my shaded parade photos.

Here's an example of a such a photo I took during Mickey's Jingle Jungle Parade. I set the exposure for the background, so that the sky and sunny rooftops would be properly exposed. For my flash, I probably did 0 (zero) flash exposure compensation. You can see how the shadow area is now brightened by the flash, and I have essentially "decreased the dynamic range" and "lifted the shadows."

So, yes, you can use flash during the day.

 

[TheGoofster]

Disneyboy,
thanks for the great info. I was wondering about the compensation settings. Looks like I'll need to do some more experimenting with different FEC's to get a better understanding of it.
BTW, that is an awesome shot of the parade. About what kind of range can you expect when using fill flash? I know I used it when I was only a few feet from my daughter. Would the fill flash have about the same range as the normal flash? Do you need to learn to adjust your FEC as the range increases, or is there perhaps a good rule of thumb that helps you know how to adjust the FEC as the range increases / decreases? Or is it more situation (brightness, composition, etc...) that determines FEC rather than just distance (or maybe a combo of different things).
Again, thanks for the info, and I look forward to trying to put it to good use.

 

[Scottwdw]

To get an answer about a flash's distance, check its Guide Number (GN) ratings in the manual. It changes based on distance AND aperture. Fill flash is excellent for taking sunset portraits. It's the same technique Disneyboy uses.

 

[TheGoofster]

Wow, awesome shot, and great use of the fill flash Scott!

I suppose I was just wondering if the fill flash would have the same range as a normal flash. I guess it just seems to me that a fill flash isn't quite as strong (to avoid exposing the whole shot), and that it might require less power (or range) than the normal flash does. Would you use the same distance rating for determine the strength of the fill flash as you would with the regular flash, or is there some other way of determining how much strength to assign the fill flash?

For example, if I'm using my regular flash from a distance of 15 feet, I would want it to expose the whole scene. But if I only want to expose the shadowed areas of my subject, would that require the same amount of strength that the regular flash would get? Or would there be another way of determining which setting (FEC) to set my camera to?

 

[Scottwdw]

Wow, awesome shot, and great use of the fill flash Scott!

I suppose I was just wondering if the fill flash would have the same range as a normal flash. I guess it just seems to me that a fill flash isn't quite as strong (to avoid exposing the whole shot), and that it might require less power (or range) than the normal flash does. Would you use the same distance rating for determine the strength of the fill flash as you would with the regular flash, or is there some other way of determining how much strength to assign the fill flash?

For example, if I'm using my regular flash from a distance of 15 feet, I would want it to expose the whole scene. But if I only want to expose the shadowed areas of my subject, would that require the same amount of strength that the regular flash would get? Or would there be another way of determining which setting (FEC) to set my camera to?

Since we are in the digital age, you can take the photo and see how it looks. In the "old" days of film, you would have had to bracket to make sure you got at least one keeper. If this helps, I usually start with a flash compensation of -1 and work from there. The photo I used as an example was taken with a -1 and fill flash mode after setting the exposure to the side of the Sun (never meter the Sun itself!). I was about 8 feet from the subject.

 

[disneyboy2003]

Disneyboy,
thanks for the great info. I was wondering about the compensation settings. Looks like I'll need to do some more experimenting with different FEC's to get a better understanding of it.
BTW, that is an awesome shot of the parade. About what kind of range can you expect when using fill-in-flash? I know I used it when I was only a few feet from my daughter. Would the fill flash have about the same range as the normal flash? Do you need to learn to adjust your FEC as the range increases, or is there perhaps a good rule of thumb that helps you know how to adjust the FEC as the range increases / decreases? Or is it more situation (brightness, composition, etc...) that determines FEC rather than just distance (or maybe a combo of different things).
Again, thanks for the info, and I look forward to trying to put it to good use.

There are others who know tons more about flash than me, so hopefully others can chime in.

Whether you're using your flash for fill or not, if you decrease your flash exposure compensation (FEC), then you flash will give out less power than if your FEC were at zero.

There are several things that affect the exposure from your flash: (1) the distance to your subject, (2) the aperture you've set, (3) the ISO you've chosen, and (4) flash power. FEC is a way of controlling the flash power. You can also control the flash power manually.

One other thing about flash distance you're probably already aware. Your subject probably shouldn't be too far away from your flash. There's a concept called inverse-square law that you might remember from physics but is very applicable to flash photography. If your subject moves further and further away from the flash, s/he'll receive substantially (exponentially) less and less light from the flash.

In nerdy terms, if the flash-to-subject distance doubles, then the subject receives only 1/4 of the light from flash (or, you'll need 4x power from your flash to get the same illumination on your subject). If the flash-to-subject distance triples, then the subject receives only 1/9 of the light from flash (or, you'll need 9x power from your flash to get the same illumination on your distant subject).

In fact, before our flashes had "TTL", photographers had to manually calculate the flash power & flash exposure based on (1) distance, (2) aperture, (3) ISO/film speed. Nowadays, we've got TTL with our flashes, so we let the flash & camera do all these calculations to automatically determine the correct flash exposure.

TTL stands for "through the lens", which means that your flash first fires a pre-flash to determine how much power the flash really needs for your photo. Based on how much the subject is lit by the pre-flash (as seen by the camera "through the lens"), the camera will then control how much power to fire the flash so that you get a proper flash exposure. Think of TTL as an "auto" mode for your flash.

In the end, you can basically set your flash to TTL, and just let the camera worry about the flash exposure. Just set it and forget it! So no need to worry about the distance to your subject or any other camera settings. Occasionally, you can adjust the power of the flash by adjusting the FEC, but that's basically all you have to do.

I stumbled on the power of TTL at Epcot one night when I was trying to learn more about using my external flash. No matter what crazy camera settings I had in Manual mode, I always ended up with a proper flash exposure.