Alternative to HSS in bright sunlight?

sandpiper wrote in post #15284799
Okay, you've lost me now.

You were replying to an answer about "shooting AT NIGHT" ?? - I cannot see ANY reference to that in the post you quoted from, and were replying to, nor does your reply make any reference to shooting at night. Where did shooting at night come into it?

Can I also point out the thread title? "Alternative to HSS in bright sunlight"

The OP didn't specifically say that he needed to get his shutter speeds down, no. But what else is he likely to have meant (taking into account the thread title) when he states that his "max synch is 1/250th and he cannot use HSS, what is his alternative, use an ND?", other than he needs another way to allow the flash to synch in bright ambient, and would using a ND to slow the shutter speed work?


One of us has the wrong end of the stick I agree, but you are the only one banging on about using less flash power instead of HSS (which he doesn't have), shooting at night, maybe he wants to get his aperture WIDER etc. None of which have ANY relevance to the question being asked, nor do your replies make ANY suggestion about bringing the shutter speed within synch speed when shooting in bright sunlight.

Unless the OP has posed the question in a very misleading way, their options are to use a SMALLER aperture to slow the shutter speed for the ambient (which I would presume they have already done as far as possible whilst keeping within the range they wish to use), to use the lowest ISO possible (again, I would presume they already are) or to use a ND filter.

If they were shooting at night, I doubt that there would be any worries about having to use too fast a shutter speed to synch with the flash due to the bright sunlight.

There is nothing wrong with the OP's question.

You questioned ME about MY question to Wilt about HIM stating that using an ND filter for surpressing shutterspeed in high brightness reduces range of a flash. IT DOESN'T.


It is Wilt causing this problem, Hence my reply and question to him:

1. "Beyond x-sync the flash has no range, because it simply doesn't work."

2. "If you desire to keep your aperture and use a longer shutter speed, your range will reduce then - but whats the point in that - you could have just turned down your flash power?"

YOU are confusing 1. with 2.

Wilt merely confirmed 2. - as turning down flash power was the answer.

Corser1 wrote in post #15282140
* Alternative to HSS in bright sunlight? *
Since my camera's max sync speed is 250, and my triggers (Yongnuo) don't support HSS, would the alternative be to use an ND filter?

Assuming you're wanting to use wider apertures, then yes to your question.

HSS usage:
If you were able to use HSS, you loose 2.5 to 3 stops of power once your cross over to HSS, maybe still usable, but you'd have to be that much closer to the subject for illumination. You loose more output as you increase the shutter speed (more power loss going from 1/320 to 1/400).

PhotographersWorldWide wrote in post #15286082
There is nothing wrong with the OP's question.

You questioned ME about MY question to Wilt about HIM stating that using an ND filter for surpressing shutterspeed in high brightness reduces range of a flash. IT DOESN'T.


It is Wilt causing this problem, Hence my reply and question to him:

1. "Beyond x-sync the flash has no range, because it simply doesn't work."

2. "If you desire to keep your aperture and use a longer shutter speed, your range will reduce then - but whats the point in that - you could have just turned down your flash power?"

YOU are confusing 1. with 2.

Wilt merely confirmed 2. - as turning down flash power was the answer.

My point still stands, I am not confusing 1 with 2 at all. I know what you were referring to but it makes no sense in the scenario the OP posted.

1. Agreed, of course, if the flash doesn't work above synch then of course it won't have a range. If it does work above synch, it WILL have a range, but this is still moot as the black shadow over part of the frame means it is still effectively "not working". I have never argued against this.

2. The flash range will not reduce simply because you use a longer shutter speed, so I presume that you are referring to the range being reduced due to the light loss from the ND filter. You then ask what is the point in that when you can simply turn down the flash.

My point is (and always has been) that the requirement for the ND filter is so that the OP can reduce the ambient light sufficiently to correctly expose the background, at their chosen aperture, without requiring too fast a shutter speed for the flash to synch. It is not being used to reduce the light from the flash, that is simply a byproduct.

Turning down the flash will put less light on the subject in the foreground, but will not affect the background at all, which will still be too bright to bring the shutter speed down below synch without using an ND filter.

So, to answer the OPs question, are you correct in stating that you can simply reduce the flash power to bring the shutter speed down?

No. Altering shutter speed makes no difference whatsoever to flash exposure (assuming you don't stray above synch speed of course). Therefore you cannot adjust the required shutter speed by turning down the flash.

When balancing ambient light and flash, you expose for the ambient and set the flash according to the aperture chosen. Shutter speed only affects ambient, so it is the ambient you need to reduce in order to use a longer shutter speed - hence the ND filter. You asked "what is the point in that, when you can just lower the flash power"?

As for the assertion you make that using an ND filter doesn't reduce the range of the flash, it DOES. Assuming aperture is constant (because the ND is used to alter the shutter speed) the flash is going to have to put out more light to compensate for the light lost to the ND filter.

Try it. Take a correctly exposed shot using only manual flash (ambient too low to affect the exposure) with no ND filter on the lens. Then put a 10 stopper ND on the lens and retake the shot, using exactly the same settings and flash strength. How will the exposure look now?

This is a common and not a very diffifult concept and I'm surprised it leads to such heated discussions.

When you shoot with flash in bright daylight and want to upen up your aperture (let's say wider than f/5.6 - f/4), you run into the sync speed quite quickly.
Let's say a wide aperture is a given, because it's a look you are after.

There's a 2 main solutions to get the overall exposure more balanced in the direction you want it.
- Use TTL triggers that support high speed sync. This eats a few stops (around 2) of flash exposure, but it generally eats up to two stops MORE of overall exposure, so you effectively gain 2 stops in the direction of flash exposure.
- Use an ND filter to get both flash and ambient down by n stops. A 3 stops ND filter is a good starting point, but even a CPL might give you that slight nudge if you're already close, especially if you can also drop the ISO to 50.
By using an ND filter you might find that your flash no longer cuts it with the power, so you might have to add more flashes or use (rent) studio heads.

I think many of the fanatics among us have all made the "christmas tree setup" where you add 5+ flashes to one lightstand to squeeze out that last bit of exposure balance in the right direction.

Finally, get your flashes as close as possible. I've seen people struggle with their flash exposure and see a setup where their flashes are still twice as far as they can be. The fall-off might change slightly when you move closer but you gain two stops of flash exposure if you halve the distance of your flash to your subject.

There is a very easy solution. Use a reflector instead of flashes.

PhotographersWorldWide wrote in post #15286082
There is nothing wrong with the OP's question.

You questioned ME about MY question to Wilt about HIM stating that using an ND filter for surpressing shutterspeed in high brightness reduces range of a flash. IT DOESN'T.


It is Wilt causing this problem, Hence my reply and question to him:

1. "Beyond x-sync the flash has no range, because it simply doesn't work."

2. "If you desire to keep your aperture and use a longer shutter speed, your range will reduce then - but whats the point in that - you could have just turned down your flash power?"

YOU are confusing 1. with 2.

Wilt merely confirmed 2. - as turning down flash power was the answer.

sandpiper wrote in post #15286261
My point still stands, I am not confusing 1 with 2 at all. I know what you were referring to but it makes no sense in the scenario the OP posted.

My point is (and always has been) that the requirement for the ND filter is so that the OP can reduce the ambient light sufficiently to correctly expose the background, at their chosen aperture, without requiring too fast a shutter speed for the flash to synch. It is not being used to reduce the light from the flash, that is simply a byproduct.

THAT doesn't differ from what I said!

In the OP an ND filter affects BOTH ambient and flash equally. In controlling high shutter speeds there is NO range reduction. (This 'range' thing was a point by Wilt)

1/2000 - f4 - No flash range
With a 3x ND gives:
1/250-X - f4 - flash range 10ft.

No loss of range.

The other way around.......:

1/250-X - f11 - flash range 10ft.
with a 3x ND gives:
1/250-X - f4 - flash range 10ft.

with no loss of range.

Uh oh.

Bottom line is Ambient and how bright it is

it doesnt matter if you use and ND or HSS with a flash. If your ambient exceeds F/8.0... you are pretty much screwed with a speed light. Your light source has to be able to light to what ambient light intensity is in bright sunlight or it just doesnt work.. end of discussion

If its F/16 @ 1/125 you will need a strobe to match ambient. Even if you use an ND filter. A single speed light and HSS will never get you there. Some guys are using multiple speed lights on a monopad and getting the lights closer with HSS and are getting great results ( tri cost from texas) but you still are getting that HSS look to the images. Others like Cliff Mautner use ambient as a main and fill with a speedlight and get great results ( im training with him in May 2013). But again,, a single speed light and HSS is wishful thinking in Bright light......not gonna happen

Either there is an English to American language problem or there is just a propensity to disagree by blurring reality to one's point of view.

The answer to the OP's question is straight forward and has been described above.

HSS power reduction for speedlites is easily confirmed and managed. (Canon even puts a scale on the display to suggest the useful range.)

ND filters diminish ALL the light entering the lens. Shutter speed affects only the ambient light. ISO changes the sensitivity of the sensor to ALL the light. Sit quietly and thing about those three statements for a few minutes and any competent photographer will recognize how to deal with the situation the OP has posed.

dmward wrote in post #15286487
Either there is an English to American language problem or there is just a propensity to disagree by blurring reality to one's point of view.

Well don't look to me for any of that blurring... especially in the thrones of using high shutter speeds.

dmward wrote in post #15286487
Either there is an English to American language problem or there is just a propensity to disagree by blurring reality to one's point of view.

The answer to the OP's question is straight forward and has been described above.

HSS power reduction for speedlites is easily confirmed and managed. (Canon even puts a scale on the display to suggest the useful range.)

ND filters diminish ALL the light entering the lens. Shutter speed affects only the ambient light. ISO changes the sensitivity of the sensor to ALL the light. Sit quietly and thing about those three statements for a few minutes and any competent photographer will recognize how to deal with the situation the OP has posed.

Dave, shouldn't "shutter speed only affects the ambient light" should add "as long as shutter speed is with the max sync speed"?

PhotographersWorldWide wrote in post #15286408
THAT doesn't differ from what I said!

In the OP an ND filter affects BOTH ambient and flash equally. In controlling high shutter speeds there is NO range reduction. (This 'range' thing was a point by Wilt)

1/2000 - f4 - No flash range
With a 3x ND gives:
1/250-X - f4 - flash range 10ft.

No loss of range.

The other way around.......:

1/250-X - f11 - flash range 10ft.
with a 3x ND gives:
1/250-X - f4 - flash range 10ft.

with no loss of range.

Yes, those are correct as far as they go. BUT NEITHER IS ANY USE IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION THE OP PUT. Whilst neither case above reduces flash range, neither solves the problem either. The first just defines the problem, the second involves opening the aperture. The OP needs to slow the shutter down to synchable speeds, due to bright ambient, without changing aperture or ISO. In order to do that, keeping the aperture the same, the flash range is reduced by using the ND. Of COURSE you can keep the same flash range by opening the aperture to compensate for the ND, but that isn't an option.

The OP asked a simple question, an answer was given (use a ND filter). Your reply to that question was to turn the flash down instead: YOU said "what is the point of that ... turn the flash down".

You have also confused things by changing the scenario (at one point you were answering about a reply involving night photography, but now say that Wilt was talking about reducing shutterspeed in high brightness. Which scenario are your replies pertaining to? You can't be referring to both

PhotographersWorldWide wrote in post #15284590
I was replying to an answer incorporating shooting AT NIGHT !

PhotographersWorldWide wrote in post #15286082
You questioned ME about MY question to Wilt about HIM stating that using an ND filter for surpressing shutterspeed in high brightness reduces range of a flash. IT DOESN'T.

You state that turning the flash down is the answer, instead of using an ND filter. Please explain:

a) How you can slow the shutter speed by simply turning down the flash? If you keep the aperture the same, turning down the flash will simply underexpose the flash lit part of the shot, regardless of how long the shutter is open.

b) How you can slow the shutter speed, keep the same aperture and ISO, not use a ND, and not then overexpose those parts of the scene NOT lit by flash?

c) What you mean by:

"In the OP an ND filter affects BOTH ambient and flash equally. In controlling high shutter speeds there is NO range reduction. (This 'range' thing was a point by Wilt)"

You first say that the ND affects both ambient and flash, then that there is no range reduction. If the ND affects flash exposure, by definition it reduces the range as light is lost passing through the ND.

d) What your answer is to the OPs actual question? Do you still maintain that using a ND is pointless and that turning down the flash is the solution?

Your points are valid points, now that you have given a little more context, but rely on changing parameters that the OP doesn't want to change. The confusion has come about because the answers of others are based on answering the actual question, not the question that you want to answer. You are answering a dfifferent question which results in answers that don't make sense in the OPs scenario.

The OP wants to slow shutter speed with a specific aperture and ISO. The answer given was to use a ND filter.

Your answer was that that "was pointless" and to reduce flash power. Except that you didn't bring in the aperture until a later post - You just stated turn down the flash. In the context in which we are working (fixed aperture) your reply made no sense, and that is what I originally commented on. The same confusion has reigned over the "range" issue, as you were allowing for opening the aperture and everybody else is dealing with fixed aperture.

You have filled out your answer in later posts, now including changing aperture, but also confused the matter again, by bringing up "night photography" for instance, which nobody else mentioned and would involve a different approach again.

Wilt wrote in post #15284020
HSS simply allows the use of faster shutter speed while still syncing to flash. However it causes flash power to be reduced in a major way, reducing flash range significantly!

The way to slow down the shutter to X-sync speed while keeping the lens aperture the same is to use ND filter. However, it reduces the effective flash power at the same time, although the flash itself still outputs full power, flash range is still reduced due to the ND filter.

To increase flash range, in either of the above cases, one has to increase the number of flash units that are pointed at the subject... but it takes 4 times as many flash units to offset the decrease in range caused by -2EV ND filter or caused when HSS (and -2EV is the minimum loss--but often the loss due to HSS is even greater) is in use!

Let's revisit, since PhotographersWorldWide seems to have major problems with that statement in blue. The key is what I said earlier in the
paragraph (italics and green color added), which PhotographersWorldWide does not consider in the objection!

If I have subject at 16' and 1/400 f/8; with GN130 flash my max range with flash is 16' but I cannot use it due to shutter speed exceeding X-sync (the topic of the OP).
If I put -2EV ND filter on the lens AND keep my lens at f/8, I can use 1/100 and gain the use of my flash. But the flash now only reaches the distance imposed by effective aperture f/16...8'. 8' is less range than 16', right?

sandpiper wrote in post #15286629
Yes, those are correct as far as they go. BUT NEITHER IS ANY USE IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION THE OP PUT. Whilst neither case above reduces flash range, neither solves the problem either. The first just defines the problem, the second involves opening the aperture. The OP needs to slow the shutter down to synchable speeds, due to bright ambient, without changing aperture or ISO. In order to do that, keeping the aperture the same, the flash range is reduced by using the ND. Of COURSE you can keep the same flash range by opening the aperture to compensate for the ND, but that isn't an option.

The OP asked a simple question, an answer was given (use a ND filter). Your reply to that question was to turn the flash down instead: YOU said "what is the point of that ... turn the flash down".

You have also confused things by changing the scenario (at one point you were answering about a reply involving night photography, but now say that Wilt was talking about reducing shutterspeed in high brightness. Which scenario are your replies pertaining to? You can't be referring to both

You state that turning the flash down is the answer, instead of using an ND filter. Please explain:

a) How you can slow the shutter speed by simply turning down the flash? If you keep the aperture the same, turning down the flash will simply underexpose the flash lit part of the shot, regardless of how long the shutter is open.

b) How you can slow the shutter speed, keep the same aperture and ISO, not use a ND, and not then overexpose those parts of the scene NOT lit by flash?

c) What you mean by:

"In the OP an ND filter affects BOTH ambient and flash equally. In controlling high shutter speeds there is NO range reduction. (This 'range' thing was a point by Wilt)"

You first say that the ND affects both ambient and flash, then that there is no range reduction. If the ND affects flash exposure, by definition it reduces the range as light is lost passing through the ND.

d) What your answer is to the OPs actual question? Do you still maintain that using a ND is pointless and that turning down the flash is the solution?

Your points are valid points, now that you have given a little more context, but rely on changing parameters that the OP doesn't want to change. The confusion has come about because the answers of others are based on answering the actual question, not the question that you want to answer. You are answering a dfifferent question which results in answers that don't make sense in the OPs scenario.

The OP wants to slow shutter speed with a specific aperture and ISO. The answer given was to use a ND filter.

Your answer was that that "was pointless" and to reduce flash power. Except that you didn't bring in the aperture until a later post - You just stated turn down the flash. In the context in which we are working (fixed aperture) your reply made no sense, and that is what I originally commented on. The same confusion has reigned over the "range" issue, as you were allowing for opening the aperture and everybody else is dealing with fixed aperture.

You have filled out your answer in later posts, now including changing aperture, but also confused the matter again, by bringing up "night photography" for instance, which nobody else mentioned and would involve a different approach again.

The opposite to shooting at high shutter speeds and aiming to use wider apertures in the same scenario is 'shooting at night' or 'shooting in a mine'.

Wilts example of 1/60s f2 is FAR from any HSS or High shutter speeds. Just like 'shooting at night' or 'shooting in a mine' is.

I suggest you reread everything. Particularly in relation to who dragged this from a HSS specific question to some other unrelated scenario.

Wilt wrote in post #15286659
Let's revisit, since PhotographersWorldWide seems to have major problems with that statement in blue. The key is what I said earlier in the
paragraph (italics and green color added), which PhotographersWorldWide does not consider in the objection!

If I have subject at 16' and 1/400 f/8; with GN130 flash my max range with flash is 16' but I cannot use it due to shutter speed exceeding X-sync (the topic of the OP).
If I put -2EV ND filter on the lens AND keep my lens at f/8, I can use 1/100 and gain the use of my flash. But the flash now only reaches the distance imposed by effective aperture f/16...8'. 8' is less range than 16', right?

Wrong.

Adding an ND filter effectively reduces ISO. (It affects both ambient and flash equally). Reducing ISO reduces GN. (GN = ft x Distance @ a specific ISO).

At 1/400s f/8 you had no range - because it doesn't work.

1/400s - f/8 - No flash range
With a 2x ND gives:
1/100-X - f/8 - flash range 8ft.

You gained the use of your flash along with an 8ft range. Theres no loss of range. You can't lose what you don't already have..