Question about diffusing flash and under exposing sunlight

[kingpat]

Hi there!

This might have been discussed before, but I couldn't find anything using the search.

I think I might know the answer, but here it goes...

I have a Canon 40D with a 430EX that I trigger off-camera using skyports. I want to be able to underexpose the background/sunlight at f11-f16 while properly expose my subject. I can almost pull it off with the flash at full power, bare bulb and the camera at f8. Here's an example at f8:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2451/3630341671_da1e90e290.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrickarseneau/3630341671/)

Why can't I get enough light on the subject when diffusing through an umbrella? Is my flash too week? Do I need a stronger light like an alien bee?

[RandyMN]

If you are at full power then why not just move it closer to the subject?

[kingpat]

That would be an option, but that doesn't leave much room for composition. In the picture above, the light is just off frame on camera left.If you are at full power then why not just move it closer to the subject?

[wilrobking]

Why can't I get enough light on the subject when diffusing through an umbrella? Is my flash too week? Do I need a stronger light like an alien bee?

Most diffusers will eat some light, so naturally you're not going to get the same power shooting with an umbrella that you'll get shooting bare bulb. There are a few choices. As the previous member stated, you could just bring in the light closer, effectively strengthening the light or add more light. There are various adapters that you can use to mount 2, 3, and even 4 speedlights behind an umbrella.

I have 2 of these (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sq=desc&gclid=CMLKmer2jpsCFYJM5QodFBQmqg&Q=&sb=ps&pn=1&ci=0&A=search&shs=LASTOLITE%20TRI%20FLASH) and love them. You can even buy 3-in-1 cable adapters that will allow you to use one remote trigger for all three speedlights.

[gonzogolf]

Generally you darken the background by increasing your shutter speed. Is there any creative reason you want the depth of field those apertures would give you? If not I'd suggest finding a way to use the high speed sync option of your flash. I use radio poppers, but flash zebra sells 14ft ettl cords that allow you to up your shutter speed beyond 1/250 with HSS so you can darken the background and get the exposure you want on the subject.

[Mark1]

Not only does the umbrella eat some light. It also sends most of the light AWAY from your subject. I might try a small umbrella to limit the spread of the light. Or find some other way ( difusion panel) that will allow you to fire the flash directly at the subject while at the same time softening the light.



With your set up in the shot.... how far away is the umbrella? Are yo useing it as a bounce or shoot thru? --- see this for a comparison... http://www.lighting-essentials.com/shoot-thru-umbrella-and-bounce-umbrella-a-comparison -- You may want to try having it just out of sight in the shot. Move it as close as you can, and not be seen in the image.

[mellofelow]

Generally you darken the background by increasing your shutter speed. Is there any creative reason you want the depth of field those apertures would give you? If not I'd suggest finding a way to use the high speed sync option of your flash. I use radio poppers, but flash zebra sells 14ft ettl cords that allow you to up your shutter speed beyond 1/250 with HSS so you can darken the background and get the exposure you want on the subject.
+1

Under expose the background by 1 to 1.5 stops by stepping up speed and let HSS take care of exposing the subject. Other option is to use studio strobe.

[gonzogolf]

Opps the ettl cords are 24 feet.

[kingpat]

I shoulda specified that the picture above was taken with bare bulb at f8. Thanks for your input guys!

gonzogolf, I'd like to keep my aperture low to keep as much background details as possible. I guess I could try a faster shutter (say 1/250) and bigger aperture but I suspect the result would be the same.

To give you guys a better idea, this is an example of what I mean by underexposing the background. This example is a little extreme but it shows the dramatic effect I'm going for:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2196/2229586639_11532ef610.jpg

I guess I could lose the umbrella and just keep shooting bare bulb. It's not so bad after all. Or like someone suggested, maybe I need a stronger studio light.

[gonzogolf]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=653964

Have you read this thread? Its all about what you are trying to do. Some amazing work in there, including tips and setups.

[kingpat]

Wow, yes! That's exactly the effect I was going for! Thanks Gonzo!!http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=653964

Have you read this thread? Its all about what you are trying to do. Some amazing work in there, including tips and setups.

[kingpat]

After reading a few posts on that thread, I see that some of them bumped the shutter beyond the max synch rate and opened the aperture much bigger than what I was doing. I guess that's what I need to try.

Thanks again Gonzo, you were right!

[gonzogolf]

Glad I could help. Be sure to post some stuff in there when you can.

[Wilt]

Let's analyze...at ISO 100, sunlight normal exposure is 1/100 f/16. To underexpose ambient by -1EV, you would use 1/200 f/16. You would need to shoot with a GN160 unit (580EX at an normal lens FL setting is already NOT powerful enough -- even without a light modifier like a small softbox!!!) at no more than 10' to properly expose the subject. If you upped the shutter any faster, you would be forced to HSS mode on the flash, which would in turn drop the output even more...no go!

If you bumped the shutter to 1/400 and used the lens at f/11, then a GN160 unit (without using HSS) would be good for 14.5' at best (and those of us who tested flash with a flash meter know already the optimistic nature of the advertised GN!). And the frame would NOT be uniformly lit across the entire frame, you would get a dark band across one edge of the frame due to exceeding the max X-sync speed without HSS.

Overpowering the sun is tricky to achieve with a mere speedlight! Professional studio flash, like 2000 w-s units, have enough oomph to achieve it at reasonable shooting distances.

[mellofelow]

Good info here. I'm new to this as well and have experimented a few shots. Once you have the speedlight in HSS, after bumping the speed above 200, you'll see the icon in viewfinder. I found out quickly that the flash has to be fairly close to the subject.

[eduardofrances]

the problem you face is angle of coverage and output power, hot shoe strobes aren't that powerful unless you zoom the head and/or move them close, by doing this you reduce the angle of coverage of your strobe and by positioning it closer to your subject you loose liberty with composition, since they are pretty limited in power using a modifier is not much of a possibility, even with high speed sync you need the unit to be fairly close to your subject.

The easiest solution is more cowbell! ;), even a 500ws (or more) flash unit would give you better results in terms of output power at the same distance you have gained a little bit more than 3 stops compared to a hot shoe strobe (taking into account that a hot shoe strobe output power is around 60 ws - as reference 120ws 1 stop, 240ws 2stops, 480ws 3 stops, 960ws 4 stops-), also it would give you more liberty to use some modifiers too, there's the price and weight to consider true, however monolights and their battery/inverter combo aren't that heavy, and the price of a Bowens Esprit Gemini 500, or an Interfit Stellar 600ws or a WL X1600 is almost the same as of one 580EXII or a SB900 (or any top of the line hot shoe strobe from a camera manufacturer), the same for an inverter battery like the Vagabond II or the Innovatronix Explorer XT they are usually cheaper than a 580EXII or a SB900.

[kingpat]

Wilt and Eduardo, you are pretty much confirming my fear. I did some more testing today and came to the conclusion that my puny little 430EX strobe is not strong enough for what I want to accomplish. Although the results are still acceptable, I lack that extra edge for more creative results.

I tried underexposing by maxing the shutter at 1/250, aperture open at 6.3, the flash (with bounce diffuser, not umbrella) at full power about 3-4 feet from subject and STILL it was barely enough to properly expose the dog:

http://www.patrickphoto.ca/winston/20090616-%20winston.jpg

[kingpat]

P.S. I can always wait for sunset or a cloudy day to try again :)

[iamdogdog]

Hi Kingpat,
Before you invest your money into AB/Strobe, maybe borrowing a 580 from a friend and see if it can handle what you want. Since you have a 430 already, adding another 580 will allow you to shoot ETTL/HSS off camera.

Btw, the kicking soccer shot was very nicely done and I don't think bare bulb is an issue on that that one.

[gonzogolf]

The 580exII gets you one more stop than the 430 ex, it helps but its not going to be the powerhouse some people expect. Depending on what lens you are using you still have a stop or two you can open the aperture to properly expose the dog. Given this setup its not going to affect the depth of field that much as the trees in the background are already beyond your depth of field.

[kingpat]

I have a couple more shots at f4 but the background wasn't underexposed even at 1/250. That's why I took it down to f6.3.

[gonzogolf]

I have a couple more shots at f4 but the background wasn't underexposed even at 1/250. That's why I took it down to f6.3.


Thats where having a triggering method that allows HSS is so helpful, jacking your shutter speed up to 1/500 or more would have kept the background where you wanted.

[Wilt]

Thats where having a triggering method that allows HSS is so helpful, jacking your shutter speed up to 1/500 or more would have kept the background where you wanted.


But the Guide Number for HSS decreases by 1/2 for each doubling of flash speed above x-sync speed, which means that while the ambient is being decreased, SO IS THE FLASH!

[kingpat]

AARRGH!! It's a vicious circle!! LOL Practise, practise, practise is what I need. I won't be spending too much money on new equipment until I get it right with what I have. I know it's possible (with or without diffusers).

[kevinmcdade]

Have you tried doing it with just a bare flash...no bounce, no umbrella reflect, no shoot through???

[kingpat]

Good question Kevin. Yes I have and the lighting contrast between background and subject is greater but I don't like the harsh light. I might have to go in that direction though and move the light away from subject and play with the flash "zoom" to tweek it.Have you tried doing it with just a bare flash...no bounce, no umbrella reflect, no shoot through???

[kevinmcdade]

Hopefully you can tweak it. I had to use direct flash last weekend because it was windy and I forgot my sandbags so all modifiers were getting blown every where. I was pleasantly surprised with my finished product using direct flash. I used my Sunpak 383 dialed down to 1/16 power. My Sunpak is my goto flash when I think my equipment is at risk of taking a tumble.

[kingpat]

Good to know man. I'll be sure to try it.Hopefully you can tweak it. I had to use direct flash last weekend because it was windy and I forgot my sandbags so all modifiers were getting blown every where. I was pleasantly surprised with my finished product using direct flash. I used my Sunpak 383 dialed down to 1/16 power. My Sunpak is my goto flash when I think my equipment is at risk of taking a tumble.

[Big Mike]

I tried underexposing by maxing the shutter at 1/250, aperture open at 6.3, the flash (with bounce diffuser, not umbrella) at full power about 3-4 feet from subject and STILL it was barely enough to properly expose the dog:
Why the diffuser? What were you bouncing off of?

When you disrupt the light beam from the flash head, you significantly lower the final light output...and since the main issue here is that your flash is underpowered, I would suggest you avoid diffusers or modifiers and just use bare flash (I think you are headed that way without my suggestion anyway :) )

I also have the 430EX (and no 580EX) so I do know first hand that it's quite hard to overpower the sun with it.

I recently borrowed THIS (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=689719) and shot with a studio strobe...It wasn't in full sunlight but I can tell that the potential is fantastic so I'm making my own.

[kingpat]

Hey Big Mike. When I say "bounce diffuser", this is what I'm talking about:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31JZXPD6GJL.jpg

I know the word "bounce" is confusing cause the light doesn't bounce, it's just shot through. Anyways...

I shot this using bare bulb a few weeks ago and I didn't like how harsh the light was:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3348/3525663606_9af718a2d1_b.jpg

That's why keep using the diffuser. Maybe I should try to practice and experiment more with bare bulb and see what I can come up with. Thanks for the link Big Mike, there's good info in there.

[apersson850]

But light through a diffuser, without anything to bounce from then, doesn't behave much more different than light from the flash itself. Soft light needs to come from a large area, and a flash head isn't large, regardless of if there's a diffuser on it. It's mainly spreading out the light, but you can do that by selecting the "wrong" zoom, or dropping the wide angle disc. The "spread out" light that doesn't hit the subject isn't doing you any good anyway, when there's nothing else it can bounce on.

Can you take two pictures of the same thing, with flash straight on, one with diffuser and the other without, so that we can see if there is a noticeable difference? At least I am interested.

[Wilt]

Hey Big Mike. When I say "bounce diffuser", this is what I'm talking about:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31JZXPD6GJL.jpg

I know the word "bounce" is confusing cause the light doesn't bounce, it's just shot through. Anyways...

I shot this using bare bulb a few weeks ago and I didn't like how harsh the light was:



That's why keep using the diffuser. Maybe I should try to practice and experiment more with bare bulb and see what I can come up with. Thanks for the link Big Mike, there's good info in there.


The Stoffen shown, when there is no ceiling to bounce from, does NOTHING to increase the apparent size of the light source. The only time it increases the apparent size is if it first bounces the light from a ceiling...and you could do that with NO Stoffen at all. The advantage of using a Stoffen to ceiling bounce, rather than the flash lens aimed upward, is that the Stoffen pointed upward will still be seen from subject position as a few square inches of light emitting surface, sending light directly forward to eliminate shadows under the chin and racoon eyes caused by ceiling bounce alone (i.e. no forward lighting component) It is useless outdoors, it only steals light intensity and drains your batteries faster by making the flash work harder than without the Stoffen. In principle the Fong LightSphere is the same as the Stoffen, just a few square inches more of forward light emitting surface than the Stoffen.

[Big Mike]

The Stoffen shown, when there is no ceiling to bounce from, does NOTHING to increase the apparent size of the light source. The only time it increases the apparent size is if it first bounces the light from a ceiling...and you could do that with NO Stoffen at all. The advantage of using a Stoffen to ceiling bounce, rather than the flash lens aimed upward, is that the Stoffen pointed upward will still be seen from subject position as a few square inches of light emitting surface, sending light directly forward to eliminate shadows under the chin and racoon eyes caused by ceiling bounce alone (i.e. no forward lighting component) It is useless outdoors, it only steals light intensity and drains your batteries faster by making the flash work harder than without the Stoffen. In principle the Fong LightSphere is the same as the Stoffen, just a few square inches more of forward light emitting surface than the Stoffen.
AMEN!

It's a very common mistake. I see many 'pro' pro photographers using the Onmibounce and the Lightsphere while shooting outdoors...and yes, it essentially does nothing for you....except make the flash work harder, eat the batteries faster and reduce your range.

[kingpat]

But light through a diffuser, without anything to bounce from then, doesn't behave much more different than light from the flash itself. Soft light needs to come from a large area, and a flash head isn't large, regardless of if there's a diffuser on it. It's mainly spreading out the light, but you can do that by selecting the "wrong" zoom, or dropping the wide angle disc. The "spread out" light that doesn't hit the subject isn't doing you any good anyway, when there's nothing else it can bounce on.

Can you take two pictures of the same thing, with flash straight on, one with diffuser and the other without, so that we can see if there is a noticeable difference? At least I am interested.I never though of it that way. I was trying to make the light softer but really I was just making it weaker. I'm taking the dog for a walk and I'll bring my equipment. I'll do a with/without bouncer to see the difference.

[kingpat]

The Stoffen shown, when there is no ceiling to bounce from, does NOTHING to increase the apparent size of the light source. The only time it increases the apparent size is if it first bounces the light from a ceiling...and you could do that with NO Stoffen at all. The advantage of using a Stoffen to ceiling bounce, rather than the flash lens aimed upward, is that the Stoffen pointed upward will still be seen from subject position as a few square inches of light emitting surface, sending light directly forward to eliminate shadows under the chin and racoon eyes caused by ceiling bounce alone (i.e. no forward lighting component) It is useless outdoors, it only steals light intensity and drains your batteries faster by making the flash work harder than without the Stoffen. In principle the Fong LightSphere is the same as the Stoffen, just a few square inches more of forward light emitting surface than the Stoffen.So THAT's why it's called a 'bounce diffuser'! Now I get it and it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that, it'll save me some embarrassement when I go out with other pros :)

[apersson850]

If you look at the direct light diffusers some photographers use, you'll find that they are shooting light through them straight against the target. But the size of these diffusers is, well, not like a kitchen table, but at least like a car door window or something. So there you do get a large light emitting surface, hence soft light.

[Wilt]

So THAT's why it's called a 'bounce diffuser'! Now I get it and it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that, it'll save me some embarrassement when I go out with other pros :)

You may well be armed with MORE information than many so-called 'pros' have in their heads! Going to a printer to get cards made can be done by anyone with a breath, even with no photographic knowledge in the brain.

[nfry]

...I might have to go in that direction though and move the light away from subject ...

thanks everyone...the discussion about the bounce diffuser is very useful. the fact that it doesn't soften the light (unless you're truly bouncing it) makes perfect sense.

kingpat, I believe moving the flash away from the subject would decrease the apparent size of the light source, resulting in a harder light
(someone please correct me if i'm wrong).

[Wilt]

thanks everyone...the discussion about the bounce diffuser is very useful. the fact that it doesn't soften the light (unless you're truly bouncing it) makes perfect sense.

kingpat, I believe moving the flash away from the subject would decrease the apparent size of the light source, resulting in a harder light
(someone please correct me if i'm wrong).

Perfectly correct statement

[apersson850]

Yes, as it will make the flash surface look smaller in relation to the subject. It will also make the light rays coming in more parallel, which in turn reduces the chance for reflections within the subject itself.

But for most subjects, the size of the flash is small in relation to the subject at close distances as well, so don't expect any dramatic change.

[Gary2027]

So THAT's why it's called a 'bounce diffuser'! Now I get it and it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that, it'll save me some embarrassement when I go out with other pros :)

Don't worry, you'll already know more than some of them. The other day I watched a couple of photographers doing wedding photos outside in a park. They had their flashes pointed up at 45 degrees with Stofen Omnibounces, standing about 8 or 10 feet away from the subjects, shooting away in a wide open space.

Sometimes I think many photographers see other people using them but they don't really understand WHEN to use them. So they just leave them on all the time figuring it must help in some way.

[Wilt]

Don't worry, you'll already know more than some of them. The other day I watched a couple of photographers doing wedding photos outside in a park. They had their flashes pointed up at 45 degrees with Stofen Omnibounces, standing about 8 or 10 feet away from the subjects, shooting away in a wide open space.

Sometimes I think many photographers see other people using them but they don't really understand WHEN to use them. So they just leave them on all the time figuring it must help in some way.

'pro' simply is someone earning money. Says nothing about their skills nor their knowledge or comprehension of the technical nature of the craft. They could be true artists with no understanding, and able to shoot works of envy! 'Real pros' don't always use Stoffens because they understand when it works and when it doesn't.

[gooble]

'pro' simply is someone earning money. Says nothing about their skills nor their knowledge or comprehension of the technical nature of the craft. They could be true artists with no understanding, and able to shoot works of envy! 'Real pros' don't always use Stoffens because they understand when it works and when it doesn't.

This has always perplexed me: what is the best way to shoot an event with an on-camera flash? Straight on bare, bounced, with some modifier? I've even seen some guy attach some kind of white meshed plastic fanned out in front of the flash.

The problem is everyone seems to do something different and it's hard to find the so-called truth. I used to have a Gary Fong tupperware but it just looked goofy and I wasn't enamored with the result. I've also ended up with some Stofens and wasn't thrilled with the results either.

[kingpat]

Can you take two pictures of the same thing, with flash straight on, one with diffuser and the other without, so that we can see if there is a noticeable difference? At least I am interested.

Alright so I took a few test shots tonight by keeping in mind everything you guys told me. It's a lot harder than I thought. It's not just about shooting light on the subject, it's also getting the right angle, distance, camera position vs the light source, etc. I didn't do any kind of digital processing with the pictures to show you an accurate result.

Anyways this first shot was taken with the omni bounce diffuser on:
f11, 1/100sec
http://www.dslrgeek.com/TestShots/content/bin/images/large/20090617_54.jpg

This shot was taken with the same settings WITHOUT the omni bounce diffuser. Straight flash, full power:
f11, 1/100sec
http://www.dslrgeek.com/TestShots/content/bin/images/large/20090617_55.jpg

The second picture is a better result and after learning what I learned today, I have no reason to use the bounce diffuser outside. So I kept experimenting with barebulb, always full power and tried a few different angles and camera positions:

This one is ok but it's missing hair light from the sun cause it was behind that cloud:
f14, 1/100sec
http://www.dslrgeek.com/TestShots/content/bin/images/large/20090617_68.jpg

I don't like this one because the flash angle makes one side of the dog almost completely dark:
f14, 1/100sec
http://www.dslrgeek.com/TestShots/content/bin/images/large/20090617_70.jpg

I like this one. The flash angle vs the camera position makes a good "fill light" on the subject and there is good definition around the subject:
f14, 1/100
http://www.dslrgeek.com/TestShots/content/bin/images/large/20090617_71.jpg

After reading all your comments and experimenting some of your suggestions I learned a lot. This site really rocks. There's a lot of knowledgeable users here :)

Oh by the way, the effect I was going for obviously works a lot better when the sun is going down. It's a lot easier to match the sunlight and get that dramatic sky I was looking for.

[Gary2027]

This has always perplexed me: what is the best way to shoot an event with an on-camera flash? Straight on bare, bounced, with some modifier?

There won't be any one best way, but your choice will be based on the type of event and the location and conditions. If you have no choice but to run & gun without any surface to bounce from, just use straight on flash balanced as much as possible with ambient. That's when your camera's high iso performance and wide aperture lenses can really earn their keep.

Bounce off something if you can, wall, ceiling, whatever is available, but still balance with ambient if possible. Bounce the flash behind you if you have to.

If you have the time and luxury to set up a couple stands/umbrellas and have people pose, then you've got it made.

There's a thousand good websites for examples, look at Neil van Niekerk's indoor and outdoor weddings and receptions, he balances with ambient very nicely and usually bounces whenever he can. But not always. Sometimes you can't.
http://oneperfectmoment.com/blog/

[gonzogolf]

Not to sound too much like a broken record, but if you upped your shutter speed to 1/250, your max sync speed your sky would darken and it would allow you to open up the aperture a stop which would increase the apparent power of your flash a little.

[iamdogdog]

Hi kingpat,

I might be wrong, but I am thinking if you want the most power out of your 430, you can try putting back your flash on camera instead of off-camera as this allow you to get closer to your subject.

2 assumptions tho:
1. you have a wide enough lens
2. you still like the on camera flash look after trying off camera :)

[alwaysonephotography]

A couple comments:

Not to sound too much like a broken record, but if you upped your shutter speed to 1/250, your max sync speed your sky would darken and it would allow you to open up the aperture a stop which would increase the apparent power of your flash a little.

The original poster has already noted he is against a "wall" with his current light source. It is tapped out and giving maximum power. When using HSS it just isn't as simple you make it out to be. Whenever the Canon flash shifts into HSS it uses A LOT more more. So whatever you gain from opening your aperature you also lose by switching to HSS. And even more importantly is distance. The poster is trying to shoot full length portaits in the sun. Even in the shade this can be difficult in HSS because of the distance you need to have between flash and subject. At full sunlight, forget about it, as the original poster has found out.

Don't worry, you'll already know more than some of them. The other day I watched a couple of photographers doing wedding photos outside in a park. They had their flashes pointed up at 45 degrees with Stofen Omnibounces, standing about 8 or 10 feet away from the subjects, shooting away in a wide open space.


Don't be to judgemental of a pro at a wedding unless you're absolutely sure they don't know what they are doing. You'll see us do this at weddings all the time (maybe you saw us). Why? Because we use a technique where the assitant holds a lightstick (580 EX on a monopod with a softbox or shoot through umbrella). We trigger the 580 EX on the lightstick via a 580 EX + omni-bounce on the camera via wireless communication. The camera on the flash is usually set "NOT TO FIRE". Its just used as a communication device to set the ETTL level of the flash on the lightstick. We find that when using the omni bounce we get better wireless communications because it spreads out the signals. The canon system uses a series of flashes from the master flash to communicate to the slave flash.

About, now your saying to yourself "But I didn't see anyone with a lightstick!". What happens is we'll get to a situation where we don't want any flash for a series of shots and we tell the assistant to go away. Naturally, 5 out of 10 times I forget to turn off the flash on my camera because we're trying to work so fast. So you'll see me shooting away with my flash head angled somewhere out in space (the best angle to communicate for the last time we used the lightstick), with an omni-bounce flashing away. It's not really providing any flash for the exposure. You're just seeing the communication signals communicating out into space because our assitant with a lightstick is off tending to other duties. The communication signals are so quick, it appears to be one bust of light but it's not. It's a series of bursts.

This has always perplexed me: what is the best way to shoot an event with an on-camera flash? Straight on bare, bounced, with some modifier? I've even seen some guy attach some kind of white meshed plastic fanned out in front of the flash.

A previous poster already gave you a great answer but I'll just re-inforce it. There isn't ONE best way. It just depends on your situation. You want to bounce when you can and I myself try to make it bounce from a side angle whenever possible (this a personal choice thing). I prefer light coming from the side and top at an angle over pointing the flash straight up at the ceiling. However, I will bounce off the ceiling if it's my best option. I also try to use modifiers when I can, but realize that if you bounce the flash of a large white wall to your right this IS a modifier. It will enlarge the source of the light significantly giving you much softer light and at more pleasing angle than straight on or straight down (as a ceiling would).

And here is an example of where you sometimes just have to use what works best.

I took my camera to my son's graduation ceremony (indoors in a gym). I was happily getting some great shots with a 70-200mm IS at 1/200 f2.8 ISO1600 using just ambient light from my seat. Just candids and him walking down the aisle, etc. Nothing spectacular or wall hanging but head and shoulders above anyone else using a P&S. Then they announced that for the diploma presentation and hand shake they would be dropping the lights and using just a spot light. I was about 70' away. I quickly put on a 580 EX and pointed at the ceiling. Not even close. There just wasn't enough power to light up the gym at that low level of light while bouncing off the ceiling without going to an ISO range I didn't want to go to. Tried to pull up the little white card on the flash to push some more forward, still wouldn't do it. Aimed the head straight on and bare and it worked. Again, not studio work by any means, but nice shots of my son and his friends getting a hand shake and diploma full frame from 70' away at ISO 800.

Flash is great, but there are just so many ways to use it that it can seem overwhelming. Try it all and keep asking questions.

[kingpat]

Not to sound too much like a broken record, but if you upped your shutter speed to 1/250, your max sync speed your sky would darken and it would allow you to open up the aperture a stop which would increase the apparent power of your flash a little.I did try that but it doesn't change anything. Whatever I change to darken the background also affects the subject and vice versa. I have the background exposed the way I want it, then I try to set the lighting on my subject and that's where I lack power from my 430ex. I'm doing better with barebulb though.

[gonzogolf]

I did try that but it doesn't change anything. Whatever I change to darken the background also affects the subject and vice versa. I have the background exposed the way I want it, then I try to set the lighting on my subject and that's where I lack power from my 430ex. I'm doing better with barebulb though.

I'm not arguing that the 430ex is powerful enough to overpower midday sun but I think you may be missing a key factor in this. You shot it at 1/100 @ f14 to get the background the way you wanted. You would get the same background exposure at 1/250 at f11 as you've adjusted each variable by roughly one stop. At f11 as opposed to f14 your flash is more powerful because the same amount of flash power is being delivered via the larger aperture. Other than in situations where your overexposing the whole scene the shutter speed controls the ambient light and the aperture controls the flash exposure.

[kingpat]

I'm not arguing that the 430ex is powerful enough to overpower midday sun but I think you may be missing a key factor in this. You shot it at 1/100 @ f14 to get the background the way you wanted. You would get the same background exposure at 1/250 at f11 as you've adjusted each variable by roughly one stop. At f11 as opposed to f14 your flash is more powerful because the same amount of flash power is being delivered via the larger aperture. Other than in situations where your overexposing the whole scene the shutter speed controls the ambient light and the aperture controls the flash exposure.Ok I understand the concept you're explaining. Maybe I need a little more practice to make that work. It didn't seem to work last night.

[rjc1]

Kingpat, You have youself a great subject to practice on,looks like he/she has a lot of patience. I am in the same spot in the learning curve with ambient lite and flash,AV mode, manual mode,ETTL,dual flash on and off camera. It is a lot to get a handle on,but very interesting. I don't know if reading a book or a website will give you the info you need, practice is the key. enjoy.

[dmccabe]

At f11 as opposed to f14 your flash is more powerful because the same amount of flash power is being delivered via the larger aperture.

He is right... try going faster shutter and wider aperture (go same exposure ratio) so try @ f5.6 -- and the flash fill will "brighten up" on the subject but leave the background just like you wanted.

If you get a more powerful 580 EXII.. try shooting ISO100 at f2.8 with 1/2500 during early sunset with the flash direct -- about 8-10ft away. Try different combinations, but don't be afraid to go higher shutter speeds to get that full saturated look but with proper exposure.

[District_History_Fan]

To the OP, you could try adding a second, wireless speedlight to your setup to double your light output.

[Wilt]

To the OP, you could try adding a second, wireless speedlight to your setup to double your light output.

^ true when adding a second 580EX. Each doubling of the number of identically powered lights is a 1EV improvement. Using my earlier analysis as a kick off point...

"If you bumped the shutter to 1/400 and used the lens at f/11, then a GN160 unit (without using HSS) would be good for 14.5' at best (and those of us who tested flash with a flash meter know already the optimistic nature of the advertised GN!). And the frame would NOT be uniformly lit across the entire frame, you would get a dark band across one edge of the frame due to exceeding the max X-sync speed without HSS." So then adding a second 580EX gets you out to 20', having a total of four 580EX gets you to 28'

Given the expense of 580EXs, you'd be better off with a studio flash, although that introduces the issue of power source outside.

[bobbyz]

He is right... try going faster shutter and wider aperture (go same exposure ratio) so try @ f5.6 -- and the flash fill will "brighten up" on the subject but leave the background just like you wanted.



Why would opening up to f5.6 only affect subject exposure but not the background, unless he goes past sync speed? But then in HSS flash output is cut back so you have to move flash closer to the subejct.

[btmlinedan]

A lot of it is going to be the time of the day.

You could also try double up flashes (pick up a spare 550ez, or 420ez a-- an older manual flash)

another option I really like using, is setting your camera into AEB mode (and High speed shutter,) where the first shot is the middle exposure and the second shot is the lower exposure. Set the middle shot to 1/250 or 1/200 (whatever you can sync to). the flash will fire for the 1st shot, but the 2nd shot will be much darker (b/c of NO flash as well as higher aperture like f8 or f11) then you can layer in the "background" of the much darker shot over the "flashed" shot.

[DerekW]

Why would opening up to f5.6 only affect subject exposure but not the background, unless he goes past sync speed? But then in HSS flash output is cut back so you have to move flash closer to the subejct.

If you expose the subject properly for the flash (try playing in more the f/8-f/11 range), you can increase your shutter speed to allow more or less ambient light in. And we are not talking HSS here, just regular camera sync speeds.

Now being outside at high noon.....there's only so far you can go without hss, but try it at 7 or 8 at night (this time of year) and you should be able to get some decent underexposure of the background.

The easiest experiment is to properly expose your subject with the flash at f/11 (by adjusting your flash power up or down), then try 1/50, 1/100,1/150,1/200, 1/250.

[Wilt]

Why would opening up to f5.6 only affect subject exposure but not the background, unless he goes past sync speed? But then in HSS flash output is cut back so you have to move flash closer to the subejct.

Great point, Bobby!

In essence what we are trying to do is to alter the relative strength (the ratio) of daylight contribution:flash contribution...


If we use faster f/stop, the flash is permitted to 'reach farther' for a given output of energy...it allows us to shoot a proper flash exposure farther away from the subject.
Of course, using a faster f/stop means that we need to compensate the shutter speed in the opposite direction so as to not overexpose due to ambient light -- but then we run into the X-sync max speed ceiling, which we can use with flash.
And if we rely upon HSS to go past the X-sync ceiling, because the flash has to output a longer duration emission of light, it has to reduce intensity -- because the storage capacitor cannot sustain full power output rate of electricity for any longer than it normally would

All of the above points were factored into the analysis which I made earlier in post 14.

[Mark1]

Shot this one yesterday with a 420EX. No manual controls, so I had no choice but to let it fire at 100%. So I chose aperture by moving the flash back and forth. Bare flash, no diffusers at all. I just took a meter reading in AP to find the base line of the shutter speed for the aperature I wanted. Moved the flash till I had the aperature, then sped up the shutter ( in M) to drop the background to where I wanted it.

I think you may be over thinking the process and getting frustrated.

http://ind-img.com/images/3135.jpg

[drisley]

Turn off High Speed Sync and keep shutter speed within sync rate for much more power.

[kingpat]

I think you may be over thinking the process and getting frustrated.
Yes you might be right. That's a nice shot you got there and it's pretty close to what I was going for.

[kingpat]

Turn off High Speed Sync and keep shutter speed within sync rate for much more power.Oh god I hope it wasn't that simple. I'm pretty sure the high speed sync was off but I'll double check next time. Thanks dude!

[drisley]

Oh god I hope it wasn't that simple. I'm pretty sure the high speed sync was off but I'll double check next time. Thanks dude!
High Speed Sync will cut your power by a huge margin... let's hope it was that simple.
I didn't have the time to read the rest of the thread, so if that was mentioned already, then ignore me :)

Make sure HHS is off on the flash and not just the camera (I don't know how the menu on cam affects the external flash).
Trying to shoot at very small apertures during bright daylight can give a small flash a hard time.

[mellofelow]

High Speed Sync will cut your power by a huge margin... let's hope it was that simple.
I didn't have the time to read the rest of the thread, so if that was mentioned already, then ignore me :)
Cutting off the flash power is not the point. The whole purpose of this exercise is to underexpose what is a very bright environment under the sun. And only option is to down the exposure and up the speed.... way up into thousands. And then let ETTL in HSS expose the subject. Therefore, staying below 1/200 sec under the sun in mid day is near impossible.

[NesianStyle]

I'm liking some of your photos Kingpat and you've basically asked all I want to know as well.

What lens were you using?

[Mark1]

Oh god I hope it wasn't that simple. I'm pretty sure the high speed sync was off but I'll double check next time. Thanks dude!


I could be this simple. Let us know how it works for you. I shot my pic with firing the flash with a PC cord, so no Hi-speed sync possible. But still had the shutter at 250th

[drisley]

Cutting off the flash power is not the point. The whole purpose of this exercise is to underexpose what is a very bright environment under the sun. And only option is to down the exposure and up the speed.... way up into thousands. And then let ETTL in HSS expose the subject. Therefore, staying below 1/200 sec under the sun in mid day is near impossible.
Actually, this is not really true. Unless you want a shallow DOF, to darken the environment, you can also stop down the aperture, then you use your flash to fill, keeping the flash under sync speeds (say 1/250s or slower).
If you do this, and have HSS enabled on your flash, your output power will be decreased by a fair margin. So for this type of shooting, keep it off for sure.

Each case is not an efficient use of flash, because the small aperture puts a strain on the flash, and HSS really decreases flash strength.

Great examples of this can be found here. Strobist is a great tool for this type of photography.
http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/


I used this technique for this shot, under a very bright midday sun (above/behind model), using the 430EX.

This was shot using a large aperture (F2.8 ) for shallow DOF and higher shutter speed so that the ambient and fill balanced.

http://www.mts.net/%7Elftbrain/pics/49a203bf4063f.jpg


This was taken with a small aperture (F9 I think), and slow shutter speed, because I was using fill off camera and was forced to keep sync under 1/250s. Using fill off camera gives more depth to the model's features.
Both of these pictures were taken within minutes of each other.

http://www.mts.net/%7Elftbrain/pics/49a20393c061e.jpg

[apersson850]

Would you mind revealing where that bridge is located? :oops:

[drisley]

Another example taken in nearly the same place under a very bright morning sun, small aperture (F8 ), off camera fill, shutter 1/200s

http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/pics/49a20425827dd.jpg

[drisley]

Would you mind revealing where that bridge is located? :oops:

LOL, that's actually on the 4th floor of a large hotel complex's pool patio in Canada. It's beautiful up there! I'm facing directly south in both of those.

The arrow points to the 4th floor deck that is covered on 3 sides by high-rise towers. The pool is about 2 blocks long and it's gorgeous up there!
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7815/33914357.jpg

[apersson850]

I'm on my way! :p

[drisley]

I'm on my way! :p
LOL!
You come from Sweden! You should have plenty o' women that look especially like #2... (very tall and blonde). :)
I just noticed that my skin tone is different in each picture.:oops:

[DerekW]

LOL, that's actually on the 4th floor of a large hotel complex's pool patio in Canada. It's beautiful up there! I'm facing directly south in both of those.

The arrow points to the 4th floor deck that is covered on 3 sides by high-rise towers. The pool is about 2 blocks long and it's gorgeous up there!
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7815/33914357.jpg

Hey narrow that down for me canda is a big country.

[gooble]

So the question is, what hurts flash power more, HSS or stopping down?

[Wilt]

So the question is, what hurts flash power more, HSS or stopping down?

It hurts the same!

If you stop down -1EV, you need double the power for the same exposure.

If you use HSS and double the shutter speed, you need to prolong the flash duration, thereby dropping the max intensity of light output by 1/2

[gooble]

It hurts the same!

If you stop down -1EV, you need double the power for the same exposure.

If you use HSS and double the shutter speed, you need to prolong the flash duration, thereby dropping the max intensity of light output by 1/2

I'll assume you're correct, not having a flash manual to confirm, so why is there such a debate over this?

If you're using small strobes theres's only so much you can do with the small power they have in overpowering the sun at certain times of the day. The rest comes down to what you want creatively. Large DOF vs. shallow DOF. Freezing motion vs. blurring motion.

The only way, it seems, to overpower the sun at certain times is to get studio strobes or use more than one small strobe.

[kingpat]

I'm liking some of your photos Kingpat and you've basically asked all I want to know as well.

What lens were you using?Thanks dude! I'm using the 17-85mm that came with my 40D. I like it a lot and can't justify getting another one at the moment... Until I gather enough $$ to get a 2.8 L lens :)

[kingpat]

guys thank you all so much. I'm lovin' this site and I learned a lot just in this single thread. It's been raining hard lately and I haven't been able to do more test shots. I will absolutely make sure the high speed synch wasn't turned on.

I'm wondering if there's another factor that might be conflicting with the results I'm going for: White Balance. I know, I know, white balance has nothing to do with exposure BUT hear me out. If I can get the exposure just close enough for my taste on the subject but the result is a little too warm (from ambient light), I probably won't like the result no matter how well lit it is. So today I got myself a gray card and I will definitely give that a try. Maybe I'll get a 'whiter' white and get that extra "pop" I'm looking for on the subject.

Does this make sense to anybody?

[kingpat]

Actually, this is not really true. Unless you want a shallow DOF, to darken the environment, you can also stop down the aperture, then you use your flash to fill, keeping the flash under sync speeds (say 1/250s or slower).
If you do this, and have HSS enabled on your flash, your output power will be decreased by a fair margin. So for this type of shooting, keep it off for sure.

Each case is not an efficient use of flash, because the small aperture puts a strain on the flash, and HSS really decreases flash strength.

Great examples of this can be found here. Strobist is a great tool for this type of photography.
http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/


I used this technique for this shot, under a very bright midday sun (above/behind model), using the 430EX.

This was shot using a large aperture (F2.8 ) for shallow DOF and higher shutter speed so that the ambient and fill balanced.




This was taken with a small aperture (F9 I think), and slow shutter speed, because I was using fill off camera and was forced to keep sync under 1/250s. Using fill off camera gives more depth to the model's features.
Both of these pictures were taken within minutes of each other.

Did you really use one single 430EX for fill light on those models???

[drisley]

For the first two I used 430EX... first on camera, 2nd off (with STE2)

The last picture I actually used an ABR800 ring flash (off camera) with moon unit. The AB800 units do a great job in most situations. The only thing I don't like is being stuck at 1/250s or slower, so I have to use a large aperture, and can't get a nice shallow DOF.

[Wilt]

I'll assume you're correct, not having a flash manual to confirm, so why is there such a debate over this?

If you're using small strobes theres's only so much you can do with the small power they have in overpowering the sun at certain times of the day. The rest comes down to what you want creatively. Large DOF vs. shallow DOF. Freezing motion vs. blurring motion.

The only way, it seems, to overpower the sun at certain times is to get studio strobes or use more than one small strobe.

What I already said, early in this thread!

[Bearmann]

So the question is, what hurts flash power more, HSS or stopping down?

HSS is worse. Here are two forums which discuss it:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157605155432578/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157605184838167/

Your best bet is to shoot at the sync speed. If you want a larger aperture for less depth of field, add a polarizer or 2-3 stop neutral density filter on your lens. Even so, you still might not have enough power, but this is the best you can do with a single speedlight. Try early morning or late day for better quality and lower quantity light.

Below the sync speed, only shutter speed affects the ambient but not the flash. Changing the iso changes both in tandem. Changing the aperture changes both in tandem. I assume that you are using our flash at full power at a given distance (getting the flash closer will increase the flash to ambient ratio). Once you go into HHS, the flash pulses and you lose about one stop of light. As you go higher in shutter speed, I believe that you've already taken the hit from the pulsed flash (as I understand it there is no further reduction past this point), but now your pulsed flash is similar to continuous light, just like the ambient. So if you increase your SS from 1/1000 to 1/2000, the ambient light drops by one stop and your pulsed light also drops by an equal one stop. But remember that you also lost about one stop when you exceeded the sync speed and went from short duration flash to HSS. Therefore, for each stop you go above the the sync speed, you lose a stop plus one. So if you are two stops above the sync speed, you've lost about 3 stops of light. If you are three stops above the sync speed, you've lost 4 stops of light.

Why doesn't the ND filter reduce your flash output? It doesn't if you are maintaining the same ambient exposure. Add a 2 stop ND filter and open up your aperture 2 stops to maintain the same ambient exposure- it's the same amount of light (ambient or flash) hitting the sensor.

[abdul10000]

A lot of it is going to be the time of the day.

You could also try double up flashes (pick up a spare 550ez, or 420ez a-- an older manual flash)

another option I really like using, is setting your camera into AEB mode (and High speed shutter,) where the first shot is the middle exposure and the second shot is the lower exposure. Set the middle shot to 1/250 or 1/200 (whatever you can sync to). the flash will fire for the 1st shot, but the 2nd shot will be much darker (b/c of NO flash as well as higher aperture like f8 or f11) then you can layer in the "background" of the much darker shot over the "flashed" shot.

Sounds like a great method in concept, but is it effective in practice? This is pretty much how HDR photography is done, bracketing exposure for different elements of the pictures. HDR is usually used for static scenes like landscape and nature.

Traditionally, this method can't be used with moving subjects, but since flash freezes motion it might just work.

From experience, did you ever have problems dropping the subject into the landscape shot? Does the outline of subject silhouette lineup perfectly with the lit subject, or does it require any further post processing?

Thanks

[kingpat]

Alright it's been a while since I've been meaning to do more tests but it's been raining non stop for the past 3 weeks. Finally I got a chance to try again. Here's a couple pictures from a photoshoot I did a couple nights ago.

This time I opened my aperture to f5.6 (which is ok if the sun is off frame) but if the sun was in the shot, it's prefer going with a much smaller aperture. Anyways, these shots were at f5.6 and shutter was 1/160th.

Also, I figure out that I was getting much more out of my 430EX by 'zooming' in to 70mm instead or my usual 24mm and setting the light further from my subject.

Mind you the sun was pretty low here but I was getting similar results with underexposed background earlier in the day with the right settings.

f5.6 - 1/160th - ISO100
http://www.dslrgeek.com/2009-07-09-chalena/content/bin/images/large/20090708_Chalena_16.jpg

f5.0 - 1/80th - ISO100
http://www.dslrgeek.com/2009-07-09-chalena/content/bin/images/large/20090708_Chalena_26.jpg

[drisley]

The 1st pic is a tad underexposed, but the 2nd is perfect!

[Lojt]

For the first two I used 430EX... first on camera, 2nd off (with STE2)

The last picture I actually used an ABR800 ring flash (off camera) with moon unit. The AB800 units do a great job in most situations. The only thing I don't like is being stuck at 1/250s or slower, so I have to use a large aperture, and can't get a nice shallow DOF.

You should get an ND filter! You can open the aperture the same number of stops as the ND filter takes away and you will have the same exposure with less DOF.

[drisley]

Yup, that seems to be the only way to go.

I do currently have an ND filter, but the problem is that it makes the viewfinder very very dark, and often affects AF. It can also affect colour balance slightly too.

However, it's a cheaper, 8 stop ND. I think a high end 4 stop ND would be better, but then again more $$$.

[c2thew]

nicely done kingpat