Ambient to Flash ratio for Indoor shoot

i)I've tried to shoot using bounce flash with diffuser but the skin tone looked harsh. I used manual flash output and ETTL average flash but with no promising result. The histogram showed a good graph, but still the result is either a bit under or the face/skin was harsh. This was done using 100% flash to ambient light ratio.
I used Manual f4 to f5.6, 1/125 ISO100-ISO250

ii)Then I tried to reduce the flash to ambient ratio by increasing ISO to 800-1600. f4-f5.6 and 1/25. The shoots changed from reddish to yellowish.

ii)I tried to shoots without flash but with a f4 IS lens is not possible even with ISO1600. Same with using 50mm f1.4( can go lower than 1/60 due to hanshake).

The question is among all these method which is the correct way of shooting dimly lit indoor environment?

That's a wide angle panel, not a diffuser, it just wastes power unless you need wide coverage. Harsh isn't a description I recognise for skin tones, best post a picture.

Shooting indoors when it's dark is something I do quite a bit of at wedding receptions, I use multiple techniques:
- Multiple flashes triggered by radio slaves.
- Ambient (not always possible)
- ISO1600, F2.8, 1/60th, flash on ETTL FEC+1 bounced from the ceiling, wide angle panel not being used. This exposes the subject and prevents the background being dark, a bit of ambient light is good.

tim, using high ISO such as 1600 would create lots of noise. Are you using a full frame or 1D series body?

Also using multiple flash is only possible if the shooting is not ad hoc.

Do you use flash bracket?

I thought direct flash would wash out the details. That's why I turn the flash 90 deg and turn the bounce card 45 deg to soften the light.

Thank you for the lesson there Daniel. I use 40D bodies for weddings. Noise isn't an issue if you expose properly and don't want to do massive prints. I have a 50" print shot at ISO800, and i've done MANY 12" prints at ISO3200 and they look great. Noise only bothers people who pixel peep.

I don't use a flash bracket any more, I use off camera lighting or ambient light instead. I often use direct flash as fill. Direct flash doesn't wash out details, but it's fairly flat, boring lighting. Bouncing the light off the ceiling or a call is reasonably effective too.

May I know why you didn't use flash bracket?

Regarding the noise at ISO1600 and above, even if I get the correct exposure the noise is still there. Unless I resize the image otherwise the client would surely pixel peep it.

Like Tim, I regularly shoot at ISO 1600 for a bit of ambient balance inside dim function venues. Never a problem if the exposure is correct. The only time you will encounter too much noise is if it's severely underexposed and you end up having to push the shadows. But that looks ugly at ISO 100, too... I have shot entire wedding receptions at ISO 1600, and have never had one client complain. I wouldn't do it if I had no confidence in the process - I'm scared of angry brides!

danielyamseng wrote in post #6062329
May I know why you didn't use flash bracket?

Because I understand light, and how to use it. Why do you think you need a flash bracket? A bracket is only useful if you use an on-camera flash as your main light. I don't do that.

danielyamseng wrote in post #6062329
Regarding the noise at ISO1600 and above, even if I get the correct exposure the noise is still there. Unless I resize the image otherwise the client would surely pixel peep it.

Only camera nerds pixel peep, wedding customers don't. Commercial customers probably will, but in that case you're usually in a studio setting and can control everything. I've photographed about 75 weddings and not once has a customer made a single comment about noise in an image. I once underexposed an ISO1600 shot by 1.5 stops and had a very noisy image, the customer didn't care - I got the shot and captured the moment. Your comment on "unless I resize" indicates you pixel peep. Expose the image properly at ISO1600 and have it printed as an 8x12", show five people the image and see if any of them comment on the noise without being prompted.

danielyamseng wrote in post #6060742
i)I've tried to shoot using bounce flash with diffuser but the skin tone looked harsh. I used manual flash output and ETTL average flash but with no promising result. The histogram showed a good graph, but still the result is either a bit under or the face/skin was harsh. This was done using 100% flash to ambient light ratio.
I used Manual f4 to f5.6, 1/125 ISO100-ISO250

ii)Then I tried to reduce the flash to ambient ratio by increasing ISO to 800-1600. f4-f5.6 and 1/25. The shoots changed from reddish to yellowish.

ii)I tried to shoots without flash but with a f4 IS lens is not possible even with ISO1600. Same with using 50mm f1.4( can go lower than 1/60 due to hanshake).

The question is among all these method which is the correct way of shooting dimly lit indoor environment?

I'm not sure I follow all of this, but I think you have some basic concepts wrong. Please forgive me if I simply don't understand what you are saying.

I interpret you to say that you are shooting with the flash on manual with ETTL exposure set to average. If the flash is on manual, you have no ETTL whatsoever.

If you tried to change the light ratio by increasing ISO, then you did nothing but change the overall exposure if the flash was in manual.

What did you mean by having 100% flash to ambient light ratio? Did you measure this with a flash meter?

What do you mean by skin tones looking harsh? Do they look washed out? If that is what you mean, then the faces are simply being overexposed. Cut back the flash output.

If I understand you correctly, you say the only difference between the low ISO and high ISO images is a shift from a reddish tone to a yellowish tone. I would believe that would be a correct observation if everything is in manual because you are increasing the exposure of the ambient light which I assume is incandescent. The more you underexpose incandescent lights, the redder they look. At a proper exposure, they have a yellowish tint. It is a rare person that can see this yellow tint in real life with their naked eye, but it is obvious in photographs.

If you are trying to judge a properly exposed flash picture by a histogram that looks like a properly exposed daylight picture's histogram, then you will have a hard time with the exposure unless the image has unusually even lighting with the background being as bright as the foreground. Most flash histograms look underexposed. The difference is that the graph will extend to the right even if it isn't very high. The reason the histogram has more high areas to the left is that the background is usually darker than the foreground so it adds a lot of darker tones to the overall image.

A lot of what I have said is based on assumptions. It would be very helpful to see examples of the images and to clarify whether or not the flash was actually set on manual.

Let me add that there is probably no "correct" way to shoot indoors with flash, but I like to use the camera set to manual either exposing for ambient light or giving up on ambient light altogether and just picking an exposure that is compatible with the depth of field I want and a reasonable shutter speed. I set the flash to ETTL and bang away. If I seem to be getting an incorrect flash exposure, and this is actually fairly hard to judge without experience, then I adjust with Flash Exposure Compensation. I also use Tv or Av if I want more ambient light effect and if the light is different in different places and I don't want to re-meter with every new location. I have also been known to use P, but that is fairly rare.

Run a test - put the camera in manual, 1/125, f4.0, ISO 200, flash in ETTL and take a picture indoors/low light. Take some more shots running the FEC up and down to see if it changes the exposure for you.

Direct flash can look harsh. Bounced flash, using ETTL, should not require any special exposure compensation - ETTL should take care of it. Learning how light bounces and what it will look like when it gets where you want it is a real learning experience that continues for a lifetime.

Jim M wrote in post #6062739
I'm not sure I follow all of this, but I think you have some basic concepts wrong. Please forgive me if I simply don't understand what you are saying.

I interpret you to say that you are shooting with the flash on manual with ETTL exposure set to average. If the flash is on manual, you have no ETTL whatsoever.

I guess I'd rephrase the sentence " I used manual flash output and ETTL average flash but with no promising result"
I've tried to use manual flash output and the ETTL flash set to average mode, but with no satifactory result.

Jim M wrote in post #6062739
If you tried to change the light ratio by increasing ISO, then you did nothing but change the overall exposure if the flash was in manual.

for ISO 250, f5.6,1/125
while at ISO800, f5.6,1/15

Jim M wrote in post #6062739
What did you mean by having 100% flash to ambient light ratio? Did you measure this with a flash meter?

Yes, otherwise I can't guess the ration unless I'm using the 1D series body.

Jim M wrote in post #6062739
What do you mean by skin tones looking harsh? Do they look washed out? If that is what you mean, then the faces are simply being overexposed. Cut back the flash output.

They looked washed out, just like a direct flash. I've even tried to reduced flash output using FEC -1 (direct flash) but either I get an underexpose image or the image lost details.

Jim M wrote in post #6062739
If I understand you correctly, you say the only difference between the low ISO and high ISO images is a shift from a reddish tone to a yellowish tone. I would believe that would be a correct observation if everything is in manual because you are increasing the exposure of the ambient light which I assume is incandescent. The more you underexpose incandescent lights, the redder they look. At a proper exposure, they have a yellowish tint. It is a rare person that can see this yellow tint in real life with their naked eye, but it is obvious in photographs.

Thus is that a correct expose should be shift towards yellowish color? Is there a way to capture a correct skin tone without using flash gel?

Jim M wrote in post #6062739
If you are trying to judge a properly exposed flash picture by a histogram that looks like a properly exposed daylight picture's histogram, then you will have a hard time with the exposure unless the image has unusually even lighting with the background being as bright as the foreground. Most flash histograms look underexposed. The difference is that the graph will extend to the right even if it isn't very high. The reason the histogram has more high areas to the left is that the background is usually darker than the foreground so it adds a lot of darker tones to the overall image.

A lot of what I have said is based on assumptions. It would be very helpful to see examples of the images and to clarify whether or not the flash was actually set on manual.

Then how would you know the image is properly exposed? Neither the Histogram nor lcd preview is accurate in this case.

Jim M wrote in post #6062739
Let me add that there is probably no "correct" way to shoot indoors with flash, but I like to use the camera set to manual either exposing for ambient light or giving up on ambient light altogether and just picking an exposure that is compatible with the depth of field I want and a reasonable shutter speed. I set the flash to ETTL and bang away. If I seem to be getting an incorrect flash exposure, and this is actually fairly hard to judge without experience, then I adjust with Flash Exposure Compensation. I also use Tv or Av if I want more ambient light effect and if the light is different in different places and I don't want to re-meter with every new location. I have also been known to use P, but that is fairly rare.

As for ambient metering, usually how much EV different from the main subject? For me I'd usually set 1 stop difference.

As for me the easiest would be using the fastest len to shoot without flash but it's not realistic for group photoshoot.

Heres what I use.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

@Airfrogusmc, nice set up. Do you use a flash meter to get the "flash up one stop from the ambient"

I shoot manual and meter the room with an ambient meter or take a spot meter reading off of something in the room thats about 18% gray or palm of my hand and open one stop. Say the ambient is 1/80 at f/2.8 I'll set the camera and strobe for f/4 at 1/80. That way the room light won't overpower.

danielyamseng wrote in post #6067995
I guess I'd rephrase the sentence " I used manual flash output and ETTL average flash but with no promising result"
I've tried to use manual flash output and the ETTL flash set to average mode, but with no satifactory result.

OK. I understand now. You tried both ways.

danielyamseng wrote in post #6067995
for ISO 250, f5.6,1/125
while at ISO800, f5.6,1/15

Well, fooey! I can't read. I see now that you changed the shutter speed. That should have made an even more dramatic change in the ambient light and would have changed the light ratio. The flash, however, would have the same exposure if you used ETTL or didn't change the manual setting.

danielyamseng wrote in post #6067995
Yes, otherwise I can't guess the ration unless I'm using the 1D series body.

OK. To be honest, I'm never in a situation where I can be deliberate enough to take flash meter readings in mixed light.

danielyamseng wrote in post #6067995
They looked washed out, just like a direct flash. I've even tried to reduced flash output using FEC -1 (direct flash) but either I get an underexpose image or the image lost details.

We may be using different meanings for the term "washed out." To me it implies a loss of color like you would get with overexposure. I'm thinking you are using it to mean a flat, front-lighting look. Which diffuser are you using? If it is a small one, it will look a lot like direct flash depending on how much bounce light is contributed. If the flash with the diffuser is actually pointed at the subject, it will look almost exactly like a direct flash because that is pretty much what it is. What are you bouncing off and how far away is it. Also, one whole f/stop of change may be too much change.

danielyamseng wrote in post #6067995
Thus is that a correct expose should be shift towards yellowish color? Is there a way to capture a correct skin tone without using flash gel?

If you are using one color of light on the subject and another color of light on the background, you will have to chose to render one or the other correctly. You can't pick both. Most people pick the skin tones lit by flash as the normal and let the background fall where it may. If the ambient is having an influence on the subject, you'd better gel the flash. Otherwise, the highlights will be one color and the shadows will be another.

danielyamseng wrote in post #6067995
Then how would you know the image is properly exposed? Neither the Histogram nor lcd preview is accurate in this case.

Use a meter? You said you were measuring with an external meter. Trust it. Or put the image on a computer screen or even print it out. Study the histograms of the best looking images. Different looking images will produce different histograms. Learn to recognize what a particular kind of image's histogram should look like.

danielyamseng wrote in post #6067995
As for ambient metering, usually how much EV different from the main subject? For me I'd usually set 1 stop difference.

Sounds good to me, but it really depends on what you want it to look like.

danielyamseng wrote in post #6067995
As for me the easiest would be using the fastest len to shoot without flash but it's not realistic for group photoshoot.

If you are talking about a large group in a dark room, I wouldn't even worry about ambient unless it was pretty bright.

It would be very helpful to see some actual examples of what you're telling us about.

sorry to hijack but i took my camera today to my cousins birthday and is getting the same results as danielyamseng so i know exactly what his talking about.

will post sample pics later.

*subscribed*