picturesque Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Eric--it's not the gel/warming that looks unatural to me, it's the underexposing/darkening the background. Like C Jo said, it makes it look more "flashed", and the original does not look unatural to me because C Jo got the balance between the background and foreground where I think the whole effect matches what the average person would see. But again, my opinion only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 ERIC --Noticed the uploaded files I share >> are much warmer & slightly denser > in my profiles viewed with my PS..but cold when appearing here. My profiles are for my lab of 20 years...So no changing on my side. Sorry if they appear a little cool & light....<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 C Jo, I'm very interested, and Todd might be as well, in your settings using the 20D with 580EX in your shot of the bride sitting on the rocks. I assume manual mode on the camera, since that is your usual method to place the highlights where you want them, but how was the flash set? Evaluative flash metering or averaging? Any compensation on the flash, and if so why (such as white dress)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmichaelc Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 WOW!!! NICE SHOT C-JO OF YOU LAST POST! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted June 29, 2005 Author Share Posted June 29, 2005 C Jo...OT: Where do you live? Some of those photos look like they were taken around the Monterey CA area. I would like some data on your flash settings. I want to play with a few options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anner Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 In Eric's examples, did he really need to use flash? Certainly for the other examples, it made an apparent difference.. but what if it has little to no effect at all? Is that what makes it good, or was it just a waste of flash? Hence, returning to the original question.. do we use flash too much? For this last wedding, I tried a few fill shots and non-fill shots and they look almost the same to me (minus the slight shadow created by the flash). I feel as though, with the flash, the subjects are squinting more (and I didn't pick the worst example), but without flash, their eyes are more relaxed and their expressions are more natural. What do you think??...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Hate to give away all the "trade secrets" HA --but I am semi-retired and have to pass it on to someone. "C Jo, I'm very interested, and Todd might be as well, in your settings using the 20D with 580EX in your shot of the bride sitting on the rocks. I assume manual mode on the camera, since that is your usual method to place the highlights where you want them, but how was the flash set? Evaluative flash metering or averaging? Any compensation on the flash, and if so why (such as white dress)?" Probably was around 1/ 500 or 800 @ f 6.8 or 5.6 Hi~Sync -- I was fairly close to the subject:: for fear of low flash output >>> set the flash on +`1/3 ..I believe. So use to film. Did not want the highlights to burn--but the flash did keep the low areas in ratio. *** This digital stuff is new school to me ^^ although I have been scanning for many years .<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Thanks, C Jo. Anne, in your situation, obviously flash made very little difference although I don't think the subjects were squinting more, necessarily in the flash photo. The only difference I notice is that the background went a little darker, which is typical when fill flash is used in open shade. The thing is recognizing when you can get away without flash, which, at a wedding, is not too often, especially here in California where people like to schedule ceremonies for high noon in blasting sunlight, or point to the scenery (blasting sunlight glinting off the ocean or glaring sunset) and say, "I want to be photographed in front of that--that's why I wanted my wedding here." For portraits where you can control where the subject is placed, it's different. Whether or not Eric needed to use fill is something only he can answer since we don't know the lighting situation, although overcast/rainy normally does produce "racoon eyes" if there is nothing to break the overhead light from hitting the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Anne, the non-flash shot is much more beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Yuck, I don't even like my own quickie photoshop of C JO's image...what was i on this morning? Or not on? :P <br><br> "Whether or not Eric needed to use fill is something only he can answer since we don't know the lighting situation, although overcast/rainy normally does produce "racoon eyes" if there is nothing to break the overhead light from hitting the subject."<br><br> Nadine, I almost always run flash at events unless I'm not allowed. I change the output on lighting conditions of course. Sometimes I run B&W film without flash. I never use it on high iso b&w film though. If i'm pushing B&W for some reason, it's becasue of either the look of grainy available light that I'm after, or I'm not allowed flash and am pushing for a reason.<br><br>I think this photo benefits from fill. It was fairly contrasty and with digital I don't think it would have suited the contrast range without it? What do you think? (D70) <center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3498395-lg.jpg"></center><br><br> I'll run no flash for event photography, and always no flash for for actor headshots and fashion, if I have a soft diffused light source and something in the eye for catch lights, as it is my favorite style... (D70) <center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3498421-lg.jpg"></center><br><br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 oopps. wrong version, sorry about that large one there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Eric--looks really nice to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anner Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 "The only difference I notice is that the background went a little darker, which is typical when fill flash is used in open shade." Just for technical clarification.. we weren't in the shade, but we did have an overcast sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Sorry Anne, just noticed you snuck in there... "In Eric's examples, did he really need to use flash? Certainly for the other examples, it made an apparent difference.. but what if it has little to no effect at all? Is that what makes it good, or was it just a waste of flash? Hence, returning to the original question.. do we use flash too much?" In almost all case you will notice fill. Generally we are in situations were there are more tones that are capable of being recorded by our media. "For this last wedding, I tried a few fill shots and non-fill shots and they look almost the same to me (minus the slight shadow created by the flash). I feel as though, with the flash, the subjects are squinting more (and I didn't pick the worst example), but without flash, their eyes are more relaxed and their expressions are more natural. What do you think??..." I can't really tell from your posted examples. One seems to have an unfair advantage in post processing and posting? I need to see the eyes, as i would in a print. As for squinting and being relaxed, it's not from the flash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 To me the fill flash shots look like the subjects were pasted on the scene - it's very difficult to hide it. That said, if your light is not good there is no choice. I guess it can't hurt to run one of each, with and without ff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anner Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Eric, not a problem. I hope you didn't think my comments were personal on any level. I think your work is beautiful and you handle flash beautifully. I really don't remember doing any processing on these images.. pretty much everything taken outdoors was left alone. "Generally we are in situations were there are more tones that are capable of being recorded by our media." Agreed, however this is not always desireable. In an undesirable example, flash may pick up on sweat and/or an extra oily face which makes the image less desireable by highlighting this condition. (If you're a sports photographer, this may be a desired effect.. Gatorade commercial anyone?) It can also be said that flash can be used to blow out certain tones that are capable of being captured, creating a more desirable image. For example, overexposing with flash to create a false sense of evenness in skin tones (as with some fashion and model work- which later gets airbrushed to create tone again!) And sometimes flash just creates a "flatter" image by doing exactly what it's supposed to in shortening the level of contrast. I think Ellis said it well in the beginning.. "One is either sensitive to light's qualities or one is not. it is as simple as that." :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 A spot I wished we could had supplied a digital camera---Always rough to look natural with 1/4 @ 3.5 with 580 strobe<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anner Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Beautifully balanced C Jo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Anne, thank you very much. And no offence taken. Yes, Ellis is correct, very much so. C JO, thanks for posting. You clearly know what you're doing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennea Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 All of the photos in my PN portfolio were taken with only natural light. I do use a hand meter, and though others will balk at the idea of hand metering in this day of modern technology, I find it gives me the quality I want. (I use 35mm film and like the saturation that Portra VC gives me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now