Bounce Flash Produces Low Contrast?!?!?!?

[peter_kartalov]

Hi,

I just got back my roll of Fuji NPH back from the lab. I used that

roll mainly to test (for the first time in my life) a bounce flash

versus a straight towrad the subject one. I can say I am dissapointed

by the results of the bounce effect. The photographs look kind of

pale and out of contrast and sharpness. The equipment I use is:

MINOLTA Maxxum 5

MINOLTA 50/1.7 AF

VIVITAR 730 AF

I used the Aperture Priority Mode set at 60/f8.

Rated the NPH at 320 as recommended by many.

No exposure or flash compensation.

Ceiling and walls are close to white color.

I tried to aim the flash up at such an angle so it reflected off the

ceiling infront of the objects. I tried not to let the light pass

mostly behind the people.

I attach two photos. The one on the left is (obviously)the one with

the straight ahead flash. For the one on the right I pointed the

flash straight up the ceiling since I was very close to my subject. U

see the result.

Is there a way to achieve the sharpness of the left shot with a

bounce flash? Do I always have to sacrifice sharpness(I am crazy

about it!!!) when I use bounce flash?

Any help is appreciated.

Thanx

Peter

[maury_cohen]

It's a law of light and optics that diffused lighting, such as bounce off a ceiling, is flatter in contrast and softer in detail than the same subject photographed with direct (point-source) light.

 

This is just one of the many tools available to the skilled photographer, and can be used to it's advantage when appropriate.

 

You can also utilize many intermediate possibilities, including diffusing a point-source, or adding a more direct source to the bounce off the ceiling.

[frank uhlig]

Sharpness and contrast are really differrent things. They are not related at all in my book. [How does a lens become more sharp with the sun shining, than under clouds? What rules of optics affect the lens sharpness according to the light? Weird misconception there???]

 

So, be careful what you are complaining about. And think about what you want, really.

[maury_cohen]

It's a given (rule) that a subject photographed under diffused light will appear softer than the same subject photographed using a harder, more direct light source.

Maybe I'm technically incorrect to say "It's a law of light and optics...", but the bottom line visual result is nonetheless true.

[afs760bf]

First, I believe you were too close to your subject for a nice bounce-flash effect. You can see that the top of her head is lighted by the flash nicely. Second, if you use bounce flash, it is advisable in these types of close situations to use a wink light (fill flash) or a white card on the top of the flash to direct some of the light toward the face. Thirdly, if you were using an auto flash, the sensor decides when to cut off the light, so it depends what the sensor was pointed at. In this close situation, the sensor may have picked up enough light from the hair to cut out. Try stepping back a little, putting the flash on auto at f8, setting the lens at f8, using a wink light, and bouncing the flash so some light hits the forehead. Good luck.

[blueform]

Think about the ceiling, It`s acting as a giant reflector,solution giant flash, a couple of metz`s should do the trick.

or try a couple of brollys, or aim one at the ceiling, and add some fill with the other. Basiacly drop the low powered ceiling bounce altogether. And look at the better alternatives.

Regards,

James.

[continuity]

Uhh, the whole point of bounce flash <i>is</i> low contrast. As it was stated before you are using the ceiling to create a large diffuse light source.<p>Many people consider straight-on blasty flash harsh and unnatural. Many people also consider razor-sharp portraits to be undesirable. If you don't want to bounce it, get your flash up and off to one side with a PC cord/flash bracket.<p>As always, YMMV.

[steve_levine]

I hate to mention this:your picture is too high in contrast,no too low.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>"The photographs look kind of pale and out of contrast and sharpness."</I>

<P>What it really sounds like is that your negative was under exposed and

the lab tried to compensate.

[paul utkin]

I also agree that most typical reason for such situation will be underexposured negative becouse ceiling was simply too far from the flash. It`s better to use Lumiquest bouncer on the flash, with this bouncer you may get at least half of original guide number you had, with bounce from ceiling you`ll get much less than that, IMHO.