Fill flash gives slight Cut and Paste look ... solution?

I had a free day today (which was nice for a change) so decided to practice some

fill flash.

 

The day here was clear skies with a harsh bright sun overhead.

 

The people I was photographing were on a porch-like area, open on all sides, and

it had a roof ... so, the day was harsh light surrounding but subjects in the

shade: perfect for a bit of fill flash practice.

 

What I notice is that the people look a bit like they are cut and pasted on the

background.

 

(note: my settings, in general: ISO 100, Manual setting with SS set to 1/250 and

I adjusted the f stop if needed then adjusted the flash comp as needed.

Sometimes I used AV mode).

 

The "cut and paste" look seemed almost universal but not to the point it was

"bad" but I don't want it to look that edgy.

 

What causes this and what might cure it?

 

Thank you.

William, I don't have any answers and am looking forward to responses. Meanwhile, if able, can you post a sample?

An example might be helpful.

I can't say for sure without seeing an example of what you mean, but I suspect that you may be over-flashing the subjects. You mention a shutter speed of 1/250. Is this because of the sync speed for the flash? If so then you are not in high speed sync (canon) or BL (nikon) mode. Try it in that mode and you will have more control over exposure since you're not limited to the sync speed. This also gives you the choice to add bokeh since your aperture doesn't have to f/11 or more now that your shutter speed isn't limited to 1/250. This might help with the 'cut and paste' look.

 

I think the look you're talking about is a result of the background and subject being both exposed almost 'too well', if that makes sense. Try dialing up the ambient a little to lighten the background and dial down the flash more than you're already doing to see if that fixes it.

The cause could be back lighting of the subject with strong fill flash causing separation from

the background.

Without seeing any examples my guess would be too much or un-diffused fill flash.

 

You might like to consider something like Gary Fong's Lightshpere II - works a treat for me.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

Appreciate the feedback everyone.

 

I do have the needed diffusers for the flash but didn't use them; this was merely a practice session for the day so wanted to remove my fear of direct flash use on a bright sunny day. It worked well.

 

I was avoiding a sample just out of laziness ... I'll post one.

 

I didn't think the fill was to strong but that could be it.

 

I was avoiding HSS and wanted to just play with the top speed available in manual ... (this was a practice session and it was well worth it.) I'll post a sample.

Here's a sample ... it just looks cut and pasted to me ... I think all the photos turned out nicely but it just "feels" different.

 

Maybe it's the fact that I tried to not use a diffuser to soften the light but that was the whole point of my exercise ... use direct flash in a tough environment.

 

I lose light with the diffuser but if that's what I have to do then that's what I have to do.

 

Is HSS the answer ... my style of shooting, at weddings, is rather fast and furious so I was trying to avoid HSS and trying to nail down direct flash but not sure I want the "cut and paste" look.

 

Maybe back to setting camera in AV mode and using diffuser and add HSS setting on the flash unit. ?<div></div>

"You might like to consider something like Gary Fong's Lightshpere II - works a treat for me."

 

Or just put an old plastic gallon milk jug over your flash and save some $$$.

 

Can't say for sure what the problem is without a sample. But I suspect that Joe is right. Try dialing down your fill a stop (or more to suit your taste).

 

You may find this link helpful:

 

http://www.popphoto.com/howto/706/fill-flash-cheat-sheet.html

After reading the link from Robert ... I think I was underexposing the background and adding to much flash.

 

I can diffuse the flash and stay with this system for the moment but practice with ambient light more balanced than I had it. I was definitely underexposing the ambient and doing it on purpose. My flash compensation ranged in the area of -2/3 to the plus area so it seems it was to bright.

 

Appreciate any thoughts here ... this is one of those easy/hard subjects (fill flash on a bright day) and I want to find the way that works best for my style of shooting instead of simply "finding a way" to get the task done.

 

Any wedding photographers using AV mode in HSS on the flash and able to fire rather fast to keep up with action segments of a wedding? If so, what is the range/distance you normally are from the subject?

Sometimes the cut-and-paste look is not that bad, especially against a dark or very light background. I think there was a pretty sharp light fall off in your example. If this shot was taken in a dim lighted area, then you really would see the "light fall off" as everything behind the subject would be completely dark. Try opening up the aperture a little bit so that the light from the pop-up flash has more reach. I'm not an expert but that's just my opinion.

If anything your background in overexposed in this photo and that would be consistent with in camera metering. I would say that the girl needs more light to flatten the image rather than less.

I like the picture William. It looks crisp and sharp; the camera exposed the ambient

background properly and the flash did the same for the subject. In this environment, the

flash is not acting as "fill", but rather exposing your subject which would otherwise be dark.

Other folks have used the term "balance-flash" instead of "fill-flash." I think fill-flash for

most people means a flash set to -1.5 or more stops below ambient to fill-in eye sockets and

soften shadows. If you are going for a less-flashy, more natural look, you are correct: over-

expose the background another 1/2 stop and adjust flash compensation to slightly under-

expose the subject - maybe -1/3 or -2/3. Regards, Paul Boyd

Too much flash, not enough ambient imo.

This was not fill flash, because the primary light source for the girl was from your flash. It doesn't look very good because the "quailty" of the primary light wasn't very good. You don't get very good pictures with bad light. There are all sorts of harsh shadows and a too bright foreground because of the direct flash with the camera held vertical. You would have been way better off holding the camera horizontal and cropping to a vertical later. A diffuser gizmo would have also made it look better.

 

To get a shot like this to look like something other than a fancy snapshot, you need to: a) get the flash off the camera so that the light is coming from a similar direction to the light in the background. b) use an umbrella or soft box so there is a large light source to give soft, diffuse light.

 

Fill flash is only for controlling the dynamic range in a scene and putting a little life into the eyes of a subject.

I don't think it's that bad at all. It appears to be a candid shot, so it's well within what the average shooter could pull off in a hurry without off camera metering and gray cards.

 

Your eyes are perceiving both a difference in exposure levels (as those above pointed out) and a difference in color temperature (also known as white balance).

 

Even if you had balanced flash exposure perfectly for ambient, there would still be a "cut and paste" look due to the difference in color temperature. Flashes are supposed to be "daylight balanced", but oftentimes the ambient light doesn't match the flash.

 

The only way to solve this problem for this picture is to create a layer in Photoshop, and correct the white balance and exposure separately for flash and ambient so they match. If this was a carefully structured shot, you could shoot some gray cards under both ambient and flash, which would allow you to efficiently correct for exposure after the fact in Photoshop, but again, this shot appears to be a candid.

 

Also, I highly recommend a LightSphere to cut down on harsh shadows.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

William,

 

You might want to speed up your shutter speed so that the background (ambient light) is darker, as this will be less of a contrast to your subject. You have to play with it, but it looks to me like you could speed up to 500 or so. Of course, you have to see how fast your flash will sync, but most pro-sumer grade cameras and up will fast sync to 500 or more.

The background is overexposed in relation to the foreground. However, the ambient light around the subject is underexposed, with the flash taking over and bringing the exposure up on the subject. As far as the fill flash is concerned, the cut and pasted look is due to both frontal, flat lighting and too much flash.

 

The problem would have been that if you exposed for or underexposed the background, and brought the subject up with fill flash, you would increase the cut and pasted look. A scene tends to look more "natural" to the eye (in a photograph) if the background is slightly overexposed.

 

Another problem is if you exposed for the ambient around/on the subject and used very little or no fill flash, the background would be overexposed, perhaps to the point of being an objectional expanse of white or very light values. There is a nice medium ground where the background isn't blown out but the foreground isn't so flashy.

 

When photographing action at weddings outdoors in bright light, I tend to use shutter priority or manual. I adjust the ISO so that when in shutter priority, the range of f stops used will be what I want, although outside, one usually doesn't have much choice but to use ISO 100 (or ISO 50 with the 5D). If outdoors and the subjects are in bright sunlight no matter which way I turn, I use manual mode and fill flash, usually at my "normal" compensation, which for the 5D is +1/3. I let the automatic fill flash reduction do its thing. I compensate for backlighting or lots of white though.

 

If in some scenes the subject(s) would be in the shade, or in the shade with sunlit backgrounds, I may use shutter priority and set the ambient compensation down -2/3 (shade-ish or sun/shade) or as far as -2 (very bright sun and not very often), and let the flash fill. I've found that the camera's brains do a pretty good job of figuring out the ratios necessary. I use my ambient meter in averaging, not evaluative. However, the flash, again, is evaluative for that automatic fill flash reduction. I'd do some testing with a subject in shade and a sunlit background. First in manual, to see how much overexposed you can go before losing color. Then in AV or TV, to see what compensation combinations you can use to get that nice balanced look.