When not to drag the shutter

[fuccisphotos]

<p>So after I have advised so many people to start using the drag the shutter technique, I realized there can be times when it can REALLY not be the best technique to choose. Namely, when all the guests are also snapping away with their camera's flash going off as well, so moments like when you have the bride and groom coming into the reception. Here is an example of what can happen, check out the ghosting on the groom. Here I think it was a combination of guest snaps and the videographer's light all the sudden coming into view. So instead I'm thinking here shooting at a higher ISO would have made more sense so that I wouldn't be subject to these problems in changing light. Or perhaps an even lower ISO so it would ONLY pick up my flash and not worry about them being in a big black hole of darkness around them? Any other suggestions on how to handle that in the future?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[todd peach seattle, washi]

<p>Maybe this looks bad 'pixel peeping' on your monitor? It looks fine to me. The minimal ghosting adds dynamism to my way of thinking.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>In the film days most of us were shooting 160asa, you could drag some and keep the backgrounds from going into the "black hole" About 1/30 at f4 would give you a little DOF and if you bounced your flash, and threw some foward too it was pretty nice but still "flashy" looking. Later with Dennis Reggie's use of 400 asa Kodak Professional and his custom Lumiquest bouncers, of which I still have and use, the possibilities were greater, but you got more ghosting, so you had to fine tune things a bit. I found that if I stayed at 1/60 and around f4 I could bring a pretty nice result while limiting the ghosting. If there was a lot of movement I would occasionally go to 1/125 (indoors I'm talking) and that would black out some but not as much as the 160 asa. With the digital, now the sky is the limit with some machines, I still like 1/60 and semi bounced flash and around f/4 or even f5.6 and asa800 to 1200. But, it's really personal taste and the effect you want to create. If you want that rear-curtain tail you need slower shutter, but for the one like you posted probably the 1/30 was the factor most contibuting to the blur while considering the 1000asa. Regardles, you caught the moment and that's what counts, what good is a super sharp shot that misses the moment. My personal go-to exposure for most inside stuff at social events is 1/60 at f5.6 with quasai forward/bounce flash at about even exposure and if I want more atmosphere, I'll go 1/30 at f4 and -1/3 to -2/3 flash and then adjust the ISO a bit. If I drag, I'll go slower and use rear curtain. Just sharing...</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>BTW, I went to the Shoot NYC Hasselblad show a few weeks ago and attended Lois Greenfield's talk, which was amazingly insightful, and she was explaining about how she even has her flash durations using the Broncolor system fine tuned even shorter than before to absolutely freeze the dancers in air without any ghosting. There's nothing like going to these things and listening to the masters speak. Another hot topic was the Adobe class, wow, killer stuff.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>I'm with Todd on this one.....the ghosting lends to the overall ambiance of that situation rather well. And, it's not the kind of shot that is ever going to be a large print on the clients wall......it has life and spontaneity just as it is...Regards, Robert</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>Streaks of motion blur adds a sense of movement; a bit of ghosting makes for a mushy, out of focus looking image. Now, the background lights show that you were panning the camera, and flowers look like they are sharper than the groom's face. I think there may have been a DOF issue here.</p>

<p>High ISO's and large apertures lead to ghosting, because the flash is more for fill than primary illumination. The ways to avoid it are higher shutter speeds and/or panning with the movement.</p>

<p>Guest flashes will not cause blurring, because the flash duration is too short. The videographer's light is a continuous light source and adds to the ambient light level and will contribute to ghosting.</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Vail, I'm with the others on the matter of dragging the shutter to prevent, as Dave puts it, "to keep the background from disappearing into a Black Hole". I also agree that capturing the moment trumps all other considerations. On this you have succeeded. Self criticism is good but this time you're too hard on yourself in my opinion. Be Happy. Don't worry. You are doing fine. Best, LM.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>The two 'usual' things that I've found give you more blurring than one would like is the 1) the videographer's light suddenly shining on the subject, which causes the ambient to be at a higher level, messing up your shutter drag margin, and 2) the flash underexposing.</p>

<p>I also agree that in this case, not a big issue. The blur is very minor, in the importance of things. I doubt the couple will care.</p>

<p>However, if YOU care, what I normally do is (in the case of the videographer's light) quickly use a higher f stop (you could also use a faster shutter speed) or slower ISO. Or increase flash comp. The former will make backgrounds darker, and the latter <strong>can</strong> make the backgrounds darker too. Doing either will mess up your off camera light balance, with the latter negating any off camera flash effect. However, the on-camera, if on TTL, will compensate. So you got to decide what has priority--a little blur or darker backgrounds. If the blur is a lot, then the answer is obvious. In this case, the blur is minor.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

Everyone. Thank you so much for the very helpful feedback. I am with Bruce that often ghosting just makes for a

blurry/mushy image unless used for a specific effect, so it wasn't something I want to have happen again in the future if I

can help it. It was at 1000 ISO from before when they were walking from seemingly a football field's distance away, so

far that neither my off camera or on camera flash could provide much light so I had pumped it up high before. I thought I

had brought it back down enough, but apparently not quite. Que sera! ;) I switched from the 135 to the 16-35.

 

On a total side note relating to quickly changing settings...One element I have noticed with the 5dmk ii is if you don't have

the back panel on lock, you can easily inadvertently switch your aperture too. I try to decide what is worse those random

inadvertent flips or not having rapid control of my settings. I tend to go for quick access to aperture changes.

[pete_s.]

<p>Remember that we are combining the flash exposure (which is freezed by the flash duration) and the ambient exposure so we need to take both in account when dragging the shutter.</p>

<p>You will always get ghosting when the subjects movement is faster than the shutter speed. You may not see it when the ambient light on the subject is lower than the background but in this case you had more ambient light on the subject. But if you follow the usual "rules" of shutter speed and movement you can keep it down.</p>

<p>Keep also in mind that there is always motion blur in every picture it is just a question of how much we can tolerate.</p>

<p>If you for example where shooting at 1/60s the movement of the grooms hand would be half of what it is now, at 1/125s a quarter. The only way to bring it down a lot is to raise the shutter speed to max sync speed and flash the background. But that's another approach and it will bring it's own range of problems and considerations as well.</p>

<p> </p>

[green_photog]

<p>Just wanted to ask are there any differences in general between dragging the shutter in M mode and dial in +EV in Av or Tv mode? Thanks.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Green--the most obvious answer is--you control things with M, and have less control with the automated modes. First--on my camera, I only have 2 stops comp, so while I can dial in -2 stops comp for the ambient, that is dependent upon what the camera thinks the exposure should be, so sometimes it isn't really -2 stops under for the ambient. It is best to control things for yourself with manual camera mode.</p>

[green_photog]

<p>That makes sense, thanks Nadine.</p>

[booray]

<p>Vail - I'm curious as to how you decided on ISO 1000 for these shots?</p>

[david_rosenthal1]

<p>Vail,</p>

<p>This is a perfectly acceptable image given the circumstance (video light). You're being too hard on yourself (sorry), so please just get over it! I routinely shoot this at 1/30 sec. in a dark hall so I get more than just floating white eyes & teeth. Nobody ever complained! I shoot at 800 ISO at F6.3 with my SB900 with bounce card fully extended. From the looks of this image, I don't see any light in the background, just ambient incandescent, so your background light looks like it failed to sync or fire. </p>

<p>Now IF you want to set-up studio strobes on stands in the hall rigged on slaves to give you a constant F5.6 around the entire dance floor, with 1-sec. recycling, then you can pump-up your on-camera flash to F8.0 @ 400 ISO and crank the shutter at 125th/sec. no problem. Monte & Clay used to do this back in the days of being on the dance floor with the Hassy 30mm Fisheye! Clay's image was used in a Hassy promotion and made the famous Loan Collection of PPA and WPPI. Using shoe-mounted flash on stands with high voltage packs will burn-out the circutry after a few jobs. Don't ask me how I know this..... </p>

<p>Today's economy doesn't allow those type of budgets for "Roadys'" salary to start lighting the hall while I do the formals outside or at the park. Perfection is obtainable, at a price. Most brides don't have that kind of budget. Just because I know HOW to light the whole room doesn't mean I want to try to do it for free by rushing the formals that make the most money. The first thing that gets cut picture-wise is the reception. Some couples hardly put any reception pages in their albums, even though we get ALL of those great crying/reaction shots, etc. And believe me, we give them plenty of choices.</p>

<p>So you did a nice job with this image. The ghosting isn't on the face, so don't worry about it!</p>