Post your best flash/ambient balance pics...

whoty wrote in post #15405081
Would you all consider this image balanced well?

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ddbias/82191750​81/
heidi-3 copy by DBiasphotography, on Flickr

I hesitate to say it barely fits, but yes. I like it a lot.

I really sorry if my post looks dumb but I'm now completely lost with the concept of this thread. I was with the impression that the aim of a perfect balance between flash and ambient lights was achieved when the use of the flash is subtle enough to pass unnoticed but with the whole picture well lit.
Some of the examples are very well lit and perfectly sharp and exposed, but the use of the flash or an unnatural font of light is completely obvious.
Please let me be enlightened (pun intended! lol)

Purpose of this thread is for that exactly,to post images of well balanced photos. Even though every image posted will not be of perfect balance,it's informative to see others perception of a well balanced photo. We learn from each other.

I really liked this one.
The flash is a RX 1200 near full power as well if i'm not mistaken.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/adurianj/756517​4890/

A few more pics with varying amount of flash. I have included the image I posted earlier so you can see it together with other pics from the shoot and observe the differences in flash balance.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/27883438@N07/8​322356347/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/27883438@N07/8​322356591/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/27883438@N07/8​322356075/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/27883438@N07/8​323416146/

All nice Robert. That last one stands out as having used flash, but the other three are really nicely balanced.

labomba wrote in post #15419992
Some of the examples are very well lit and perfectly sharp and exposed, but the use of the flash or an unnatural font of light is completely obvious. lol)

I wonder if they would be so obvious to you If you didn't know already?

Nice images Robert. Especially #2.

labomba wrote in post #15419992
I really sorry if my post looks dumb but I'm now completely lost with the concept of this thread. I was with the impression that the aim of a perfect balance between flash and ambient lights was achieved when the use of the flash is subtle enough to pass unnoticed but with the whole picture well lit.
Some of the examples are very well lit and perfectly sharp and exposed, but the use of the flash or an unnatural font of light is completely obvious.
Please let me be enlightened (pun intended! lol)

Are you looking for something like this? Key light was daylight coming in thru an open door, hair/back light was a strobe firing thru a softbox.

Maybe, I'm crazy, but to me the idea of balancing flash and ambient means that the use of flash is hard to see. Don't get me wrong, these are all great pics, but lots of the shots in this thread are obviously flashed. I don't know if I'd call that a good balance...

Tiberius47 wrote in post #15422826
Maybe, I'm crazy, but to me the idea of balancing flash and ambient means that the use of flash is hard to see. Don't get me wrong, these are all great pics, but lots of the shots in this thread are obviously flashed. I don't know if I'd call that a good balance...

You got exactly my point! I understand that there are really works of art on this thread and believe me I have learnt a lot over the past 3 year reading (not posting = too lazy or too newbie for that) on P.O.T.N., but I got intrigued with the ones you can't figure out at first sight that was an flash involved.
Like Whoty's picture or the last post of Doidinho's shooting session or pictures #1 and #3 of JColman's posting.
In those ones, you would think that they could have been achieved with some sort of reflectors directing the ambient light. Adrian's balcony is another one, full flash but very well disguised.

labomba wrote in post #15423448
.
In those ones, you would think that they could have been achieved with some sort of reflectors directing the ambient light. Adrian's balcony is another one, full flash but very well disguised.

I can't speak for the others but a reflector would not have worked on any of my shots as there was not sufficient ambient light to bounce onto the subjects.

jcolman wrote in post #15423529
I can't speak for the others but a reflector would not have worked on any of my shots as there was not sufficient ambient light to bounce onto the subjects.

I could not have used a reflector in my shots either as it was very overcast the day I shot the images. I actually lit the images with this thread in mind.

I'm going to say it again, I think that providing more description, asking questions, and commenting on the lighting in the shots will provide valuable insight on the lighting intent and be way more helpfull than just posting pics.

If anyone has any questions or comments on how or why I lit my images the way I did, post em here. Hopefully it's contagious.

doidinho wrote in post #15423679
I could not have used a reflector in my shots either as it was very overcast the day I shot the images. I actually lit the images with this thread in mind.

I'm going to say it again, I think that providing more description, asking questions, and commenting on the lighting in the shots will provide valuable insight on the lighting intent and be way more helpfull than just posting pics.

If anyone has any questions or comments on how or why I lit my images the way I did, post em here. Hopefully it's contagious.

In that case Robert, could you tell us a bit about that last image of yours? It's quite different from the others where you created nice soft shadowing on the subject to match the softness of the overcast weather. But in the last you chose to go with a very defined shadow on the subject, contrasting with the surroundings. I do agree that some explanations of these shots would be much more interesting than just a posting thread.

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #15423804
In that case Robert, could you tell us a bit about that last image of yours? It's quite different from the others where you created nice soft shadowing on the subject to match the softness of the overcast weather. But in the last you chose to go with a very defined shadow on the subject, contrasting with the surroundings. I do agree that some explanations of these shots would be much more interesting than just a posting thread.

The whole time we were shooting, I was being very cognizant of the natural light, I was trying to find good natural light, and then add to it and craft it rather than overpower it. It was overcast the day we shot, so the light was super flat.

All of the images except the last were shot near some sort of wall or overhang so that I could get some directionity to the ambient light.

Towards the end of the shoot I ran out of places were I could mold the ambient light and really wanted some ships in the background. For the last shot in the series (which was the final frame of our shoot) I moved the model out in the open. The light was so flat that the only way I could get directionality was with the flash, thus the more pronounced shadows in that shot.

I critique all my work and had already noticed the more pronounced shadow and contemplated it a bit. I look at both the background and model and think they are both well exposed. The shadow (and flash) is evident on Sara's face, but the flash is almost undetectable on the dock. The only thing I think I could have experimented with is perhaps exposing the background by an extra 1/3 stop.