how to reduce shadows?

[danielle_thompson]

<p>And I haven't been on in while but I hope you can help me out! I did these a few days ago using a Nikon D90 and a 55-200mm lens and just the on camera flash. I know that the shadows are related to the flash but how do I fix them with out any additional equipment? Also how about the glare on her face??? Thanks in advance! <img src="http://i759.photobucket.com/albums/xx232/daniellelct/128-1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Shadow is only slight in this first one but it still bugs me!<br>

<img src="http://i759.photobucket.com/albums/xx232/daniellelct/141.jpg" alt="" /><br>

This one the face just looks blown out:(<br>

<img src="http://i759.photobucket.com/albums/xx232/daniellelct/019-1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Other than the fact that the glare is there on her face again there is something about this picture that although SHE was PERFECT I feel like I could have done something different...<br>

<img src="http://i759.photobucket.com/albums/xx232/daniellelct/123.jpg" alt="" /><br>

The shadow is HORRIBLE in this one!!</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>how do I fix them with out any additional equipment? Also how about the glare on her face???</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Quit using the pop flash. Cost = 0. Learn lighting. Cost varies. In the image you felt you could have done something different, A) know your focus point. The focusing is behind the subject. B) learn exposure, the image (and subsequently the face) are overexposed. </p>

[danielle_thompson]

<p>Your right! I see the focus point now! Thanks! That was bothering me!!! And as far as the exposure goes what can I do to stop from over exposing? Is it because the flash was on?</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>There are some inexpensive diffusers for the pop up flashes, google will find you some, and a little DIY will have you one for almost no cost.</p>

[danielle_thompson]

<p>Thanks! I'll look into it!</p>

[scottelly]

<p>I suggest setting the camera to under-expose by a 1/3 or a 1/2 stop. Better under than over. I almost NEVER use the on-camera flash. It looks (like you say) horrible to me. I'm sure you've tried shooting this way though, and apparently don't like that. Or maybe not? You CAN turn off the on-camera flash. You may need to shoot in a mode like P instead of whatever you are using now. I suggest shooting in AV (aperture priority) mode, and that way you can determine the depth-of-field. A larger number means there will be greater depth of field. A lower number means the foreground (if there is anything in the foreground) and the background (again . . . if there is anything in the background) will be more blurred. That means the depth of field is shorter/smaller. Experiment.<br>

-<br>

I started shooting all manual after a while. Put the camera on M and set the ISO to 100. Then adjust the shutter speed and aperture manually. At first it is a little daunting, but after a few minutes of experimentation, you will start to get the hang of it. You will be chimping like crazy, bot that's o.k. That's what review screens are for, right? (Chimping means you are acting like a monkey with a camera . . . shooting, stopping and looking at the picture, shooting some more, repeat. lol) I've heard some professionals ragging on people for chimping, but in my opinion, that is one of the best ways to learn. Eventually, you will get tired of it, and you will not chimp enough, finding only after going back to review a dozen photos you just shot, that you had the ISO set wrong or something. Don't let the camera make your decisions for you. They camera is often right, but when it is wrong, you will be mad at yourself for letting it do the thinking. Cameras are dumb . . . even today, with all the high tech stuff in them.</p>

[danielle_thompson]

<p>I shoot in manual, I usually keep my ISO on 200. And shutter speed is as fast as I can (with toddlers a MUST) with out making the picture completely dark. LOL! I totally CHIMP! So if something is over exposed should I put the ISO at a higher number?</p>

[johnw63]

<p>No. Over exposed means too much light. A higher ISO number means it's going to be MORE sensitive to light.</p>

<p>I have found that an on camera pop-up flash can really look over done. On my camera, I've adjusted the power way down, so it doesn't look like a snap shot flash. I'm not sure what camera you have, but see if you can adjust the flash power. I eventually got a hot shoe flash for my camera, which allows me to bounce it off of things and get a much softer look, than that in your face pop up flash. I diffuser also helps. The smaller the light source, the more distinct the shadows will be. That's why you see the pros using reflective umbrellas and other "soft boxes" to soften the light and make it look more natural.</p>

<p>If you like shooting people, you might look into a book called " The hot shoe diaries " by Joe McNally. He uses Nikon stuff, but the concepts and lighting info work for anything.</p>

<p>You WILL want a better than pop-up flash after reading it !</p>

<p> </p>

[danielle_thompson]

<p>Thanks so much! And I TOTALLY want a better than popup flash! I just can't really afford it right now:(</p>

[mike dixon]

"There are some inexpensive diffusers for the pop up flashes, google will find you some, and a little DIY will have you one for almost no cost."

 

In the photos above, a tiny diffuser wouldn't make a noticeable difference. They can help a bit if you're indoors and the diffused light can bounce off other surfaces and onto the subject, but outdoors, they don't accomplish anything except reducing flash output.

[lachaine]

<p>The simplest way to solve this in future, or at least to control it better, is to get the flash away from the camera itself. Can the snapshot flash, and get yourself a separate flash for your camera brand, plus whatever cable will connect it to the hotshoe and allow you to hold it off the camera. Or, you can even use the flash on the hotshoe, in which case you will want to take the pictures in scenes where you can bounce the flash off a wall, ceiling or other such surface.</p>

<p>They have always sold little diffusers, and they have never worked any better than they did 40 years ago. The reason is that little and diffuser don't go together.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>The diffusers for pop ups would help but what you really need is a separate flash. With an appropriate cable as suggested by Pierre you can simply hold it at arm's length up high and off to the side. Or get a bracket like those made by Stroboframe and others. They hold the center of the flash head as much as a foot over the camera and drop the shadow down below the subject so it's hidden in the picture. As for exposure, your camera should give you the option to adjust the flash -- not the overall exposure -- below the level of the ambient light. Start with maybe -1.0 EV and see what you think.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The diffusers for pop ups would help </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not outdoors, as Mike Dixon pointed out. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I would add that there are other ways to remove the shadows than going to a flash that the poster doesn't have. Moving the subject farther from the background will reduce the shadows. Taking down the ambient exposure setting, so that the background is sufficiently dark, will also reduce the shadows. These may or may not be practical solutions for some situations, but it is worth considering given the equipment.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>If you want to continue experimenting with the pop up flash, then I also suggest doing what John Williamson suggested: i.e. use <strong>Flash Exposure Compensation</strong>.</p>

<p>I have carried out quite a few experiments using the Pop Up Flash as Fill for outdoor and indoor portraiture and although I use Canon gear the theory is the same for Nikon.<br>

I understand the D90 has spot metering and the max Flash Sync is 1/200s.<br>

A technique you might choose (for outdoors) to follow is:</p>

<p>Use manual mode. Set the shutter speed at 1/200s (max Flash Sync). Use the spot meter on the child’s face – the meter will think she is photographic grey, which a Caucasian skin is not – so open up one stop over what the meter suggests. Set the Flash Exposure compensation to -2EV (two stops underexpose). Do not chimp – just shoot. If the lighting is generally consistent e.g. light overcast clouds, you will not need to make any other meter reading on the child’s face.<br>

Then analyse the results – you should be getting somewhere towards a very subtle flash fill. Try -1½EV Flash Compensation and compare.<br>

With the lens you have I would be selecting ISO200 for outdoors in light overcast sun as that ISO will allow a little greater range of Apertures available to you – maybe ISO 100 for bright sun and ISO400 for more overcast days.</p>

<p>It is my belief that you will gain more intrinsic knowledge and a better gut feel for what to and and when to do it, if you do not chimp as much as you indicate is your current technique. As with the method you are using now, it is likely that you are NOT learning fundamentals related to any given lighting scenario which you may then be able to later apply to similar situations: but rather you are just guessing up and down until the image looks OK at that particular time.<br>

This comment regarding Chimping for this learning exercise, is my opinion with my Professional Tecaher's Hat on and not a "Professional Photographer's" comment.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>My reaction is "What Shadows?" but with regard to over exposure of the face I suggest you reduce the power of the flash ... you camera should have an adjustment similar to exposure EV which reduces the flash strength .. try a one stop reduction for starters and maybe increase to two stops. You reduce shadows by increasing the size of the light source, hence the large 'beauty lights' you see advertised. There is a device called a 'Litescoop' which directs the on-board flash up at the ceiling ... but in these situations you need a further modification to direct the light back at the subject from a largish reflector. You could have a flash unit mounted on the camera but its distance from the lens compared to the snug on-board flash will increase the shadows so you point it upwards, as for bounce flash, but have a reflector directing the light back at the subject ... it can be complex or simple as with this flash with the bottom of an icecream container reflector attached.</p><div></div>

[John Seaman]

<p>I see joyful spontaneous images of the little girl here, the shadows are hardly noticeable and the exposure seems absolutely fine, at least on my monitor. The camera has made a good job of balancing ambient against the flash, and there are nice catchlights in the eyes. Try different techniques, sure, but I like the pictures as they are.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>As suggested, pull your subject away from the background. <br>

The danger with too much faffing about with supplementary flash, diffusers, tweaking camera settings, etc. is your model is likely to get utterly fed up when she just wants to play. You have a willingly subject at the moment, but the more you make the situation a chore the quicker she will be bored by the whole thing and run a mile everytime you go for the camera..... and are they really that bad? I'm sure her Gran would love them.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Since she has stated that she only has pop-up flash and cannot afford anything more, the white card is useless. Also, she is shooting outside, so the white card is useless.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Sorry Jeff but you need to research 'LiteScoop' which I gather turns the on-board into a bounce flash and if outside you need two reflectors. The snag is a serious reduction in output. I did it with some silver builder's house insulation paper as an experiment to prove my point awhile back here before I heard about Litescoop [ or Lightscoop]. My camera is about half the output of the OP's gear.<br>

Another point is that if you want to get the flash off the camera it doesn't mean an expensive $500 flash unit but can be done with units $20 to $65 currently on the market. With the shielded camera flash triggering the remote slave. [with the $65 YongNuo ]<br>

The white card works well both indoors and outside for its purpose of softening the light somewhat from the hard light directly from a flash tube.</p>

[danielle_thompson]

<p>Thanks for all your responses! I have never metered... I am COMPLETELY overwhelmed by the thought but have been intrigued by the idea of playing around with it for a while now. I'm not sure why but my brain reacts to trying to figure it out in the same way it reacts to Algebra.... I go blank. Can you help me out and break it down step by step how I would find each setting etc. I don't mean to sound like a big baby but for some reason my brain just overloads on this one... I REALLY want to understand how, when and why to use metering though!</p>

[William Michael]

<p>No problem.<br>

I believe there is a need to establish how you are shooting at the moment such that commentary is suitable to move along from some known base, so:<br>

How are you using the camera to take these shots? In Full Auto mode?<br>

And do you manually make the Flash to pop up - or is it doing so automatically?</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[danielle_thompson]

<p>NO I shoot in manual but usually in auto focus I manually pop the flash.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>OK, then if you use "M" Manual Mode, you must (most likely are?) be using the TTL (through the lens) camera meter to make the correct exposure?</p>

<p>If this is the case, then all I am suggesting is provided the lighting is constant: for example if the child is in open shade such as under a tree or canopy or veranda; or if there is light cloud cover; or if the you keep the same camera viewpoint relative to the bright sun . . .<br>

That you just make your exposure reading (using the camera’s meter) to be “correct” for the child’s skin. (face).<br>

One method is just to zoom in on the face and take a meter reading and open up one stop more than what the meter reads – this is because Caucasian skin is lighter than “Photographic Grey” and the camera’s meter is set to assume everything is 18% Photographic Grey.</p>

<p>So after you do that – you have the exposure setting for the Ambient Light – but you want to add a touch of Flash Fill – and you are unhappy with the AMOUNT of flash fill you are getting at the moment, as indicated by your comments about the shine and the shadows.<br>

So, somewhere in the D90’s manual there is sure to be a chapter on “Flash Exposure Compensation”, it might not be those exact words but the meaning will be the same – what you want to do is drop the level of the Flash to be about TWO stops under what the camera thinks it should be top match the correct exposure.<br>

So set the Flash Compensation to “-2”.<br>

Remember that this is a TEST to establish a RULE for your camera and for outcomes which suit YOU.<br>

If on analysis you think the Flash is not enough fill – then try “-1”.<br>

You might find that you have two rules – you might use “-2” for overcast days or when the child is in shadows and perhaps “–½” when the child is in bright side lit sun.<br>

Also note that the Pop Up Flash does not have a lot of power and really is designed for use in darker environments than as fill light outdoors, so you really will have about 6ft to 8ft range for effective use as a fill light outdoors in sunlight (my guess based on experience with various cameras but I have not used a D90).</p>

<p>This method is only one method – there are others also and none is best: but the point is with any method it is best to try doing it and understand the aim and the why you do each step.<br>

This method is also applicable to Dedicated Hot Shoe Flash Unit and also off camera Flash.<br>

<strong>You will have much more creative scope with a dedicated Hot Shoe Flash and I suggest you look at buying one. </strong></p>

<p>These suggestions as how use the Pop Up Flash as Fill <strong>should NOT be taken as an indication that I think using the Pop Up Flash is the best technique for getting good photographs.</strong><br>

I just know some methods of using the Pop Up Flash and I have trained a few W&P Photographers in the use of the Pop Up Flash, primarily as a skill to use, in an emergency situation to make the shot possible and better than with no flash fill at all. </p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

 

[jcuknz]

<p>The basic situation you have is that you have two light sources, the sun or the sky giving a general light to the scene, and the second is the light coming from the camera. What you don't like is an imbalance between them. <br>

In 'studio' terms the sky is your 'key' light and the camera flash is your fill. The fill light is too strong and casting the shadows you dislike. I dislike the idea of having an external light source because it is moving the fill light further from the line of the camera lens. <br>

The on-board fill is as close to ideal in use as a fill as you can get. On-board camera flash have come a considerable way from the weak ineffective things they once were and are quite useful tools if you learn how to adjust them. </p>

<p>"Flash Exposure Compensation" is the term I find in my Canon manual and that is how it appears in the index at the back. In your case you need to knock back the power and the camera wlll do the thinking for you once you have told it what bias to use with the FEC setting :-) If you need further reduction then a diffuser in front of the on-board will be needed ... this could be purchased or simply a thickness of facial tissue rubber banded to the flash house .. depends on the attitude of your clients as to if that is a good idea or not.</p>

<p>The only possible drawback to using the onboard as a fill is if the subjects are looking at the camera which may cause the 'red-eye' problem. Since with portraits people often ARE looking at the lens that could account for the use of fill lights with huge diffusers off away from the camera. </p>

<p>Having two lights putting in light from different directions was one of the first 'NO_NO's I learnt when I started in photo-school studio. At least the bad effect was not permitted to show in the finished result. Though it was neccessry to meet the limited tonal range ability of the emulsion/sensor.</p>

<p>So in this situation having caused a problem by moving the fill light away from the lens line the diffusers, and flash strength, are needed to correct the problem ... it seems somewhat ironical to me :-) Though it is one of the 'facts of life' for a photographer.</p>