Roped into a school fair...

Looks good to me. As far as the shadow, if they stood a few feet from the backdrop that could have gotten rid of the shadow. You might not have had enough room to do that. If they all turned out like the one you posted, I'm sure everyone is very happy. Good job!

Thanks, I'm a little bit of a perfectionist (despite my skills falling far short) so I over-criticise anything I do.

Space wise there wasn't enough room for them to have been further from the curtain, not that I thought of that however but will bear that in mind next time. In fact I considered taking the tripod down as the day went on as I was being knocked and jostled - funnily by parents, the kids were great and were very aware of the equipment

I'm only viewing it on my netbook John but that picture looks fine to me and I'm glad the venture went well for you.

David

Flash to ambient balance too high. I was hoping you would have disregarded the bad advice regarding ISO. You should have been shooting at ISO800 or ISO1600. That aside, even if you perhaps don't have the right balance of light, you at least have sufficient light, and you have good even coverage. You did a decent job.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean regarding ambient to flash, but I also don't get why ISO 200 is bad advice if you can get the light, either way I wouldn't have known to disregard it as as far as I knew/know its not bad advice.

John_N wrote in post #11360017
Sorry, I don't know what you mean regarding ambient to flash, but I also don't get why ISO 200 is bad advice if you can get the light, either way I wouldn't have known to disregard it as as far as I knew/know its not bad advice.

I must say I find your response just a little confusing John but, if I were you, I'd try to be satisfied with the result you've achieved. Once you begin posting images for critique you tend to receive varied opinions.

David

No, I'm pretty happy with what I got but I don't understand Christopher's remarks.

ISO as far as I was aware is used to either increase speed or as a way to get more light (sort of), so 200 when I have enough light from the flash seems okay and makes sure no noise creeps in from high ISO (although the 7D is pretty forgiving in that respect) - in fact correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it best to use ISO100 whenever the light allows?

So I don't get why it was bad advice and even if it were I didn't get the warning until it was too late.

The other point was that I just don't know what he meant by "Flash to ambient balance too high"

I'm not wanting to come across as ungrateful; I just want to understand and now I feel there's a(nother) gap in my knowledge and understanding, this was after all the first time I'd ever tried anything like this and other than a few macro shots one of the first times I've brought the flash out of its bag.

PS - Just spotted the edit - I'm happy for it to be ripped apart, in fact I welcome it

I'm assuming Christopher suggested you should use a higher ISO in order to introduce more ambient (natural) light to help eliminate the shadow. You would have also needed to reduce the power output of your flash.

Personally, I think I'd have rigged up some sort of a reflector situated to the left.

I hope that helps.

David

David's read on my suggestion is right on. Introducing more ambient via Increasing the ISO would have substantially helped (though not eliminated) with the deepness of the shadows.

By flash to ambient ratio I mean the following. When you photograph a scene with flash you are in a way combining in an additive way (not sure if I have the algebra right here !) two images: 1)the one that is exposed by only the ambient light in the room (the shot you would have got with your flash turned off) and 2) the one exposed by your flash. Whenever you take a photo with flash then you are combining these two 'exposures' into one image.

You might say: but if the light from the ambient + the light from the flash add up to a decent exposure (and I think your photos are exposed well, have enough light) then isn't that all ? what difference does it make what the ratio between ambient light vs. flash light is ? I would suggest that the qualities of ambient vs. the qualities of flash usually differ greatly (color, directionality etc.) so that changing this ratio has an effect on the color + light qualities of your photos. I was just saying that it is my opinion that you should have reduced your flash by about 2 stops and increased your ISO by the same.

Again, for a first time at doing this kind of work you did pretty well.

I think you've explained that very well Christopher. I see you are a wedding photographer which says a lot. It amazes me how some members go and shoot weddings for money with no apparent idea about how to balance flash with ambient light either indoors or out.

David

Many thanks that makes a lot of sense - reducing the flash would have softened the shadow nicely as well as not washing out the colours (something I struggled with in PP) and I could have still got nice results at up to 1600 from what I've seen of the 7D

Just one more question (I know there were bound to be more!)

I went with a highish stop (5.6) so ensure the entire character and subject were sharp (when taking pics of my daughter I have a bad habit of getting her nose in focus but not eyes - and no she's not Pinocchio ), so given these were for others - free I know but still I wanted to do a good job for them - I err'd on the side of sharp.

Given the range (2.18m according to exif info) what could I have got away with?

Woodworker wrote in post #11362808
I think you've explained that very well Christopher. I see you are a wedding photographer which says a lot. It amazes me how some members go and shoot weddings for money with no apparent idea about how to balance flash with ambient light either indoors or out.

David

I couldn't imagine doing this work without being technically solid--there's so much going on so quickly that if you haven't delegated the technical work mostly to automation (my brain, not the camera's !), you're dead !

John_N wrote in post #11363981
Many thanks that makes a lot of sense - reducing the flash would have softened the shadow nicely as well as not washing out the colours (something I struggled with in PP) and I could have still got nice results at up to 1600 from what I've seen of the 7D

Just one more question (I know there were bound to be more!)

I went with a highish stop (5.6) so ensure the entire character and subject were sharp (when taking pics of my daughter I have a bad habit of getting her nose in focus but not eyes - and no she's not Pinocchio ), so given these were for others - free I know but still I wanted to do a good job for them - I err'd on the side of sharp.

Given the range (2.18m according to exif info) what could I have got away with?

You were shooting at 30ish mm range on a crop body from 2 meters away ? I think 5.6 is about the limit I would go. The wider you shoot and the further away you get, the larger the aperture (smaller f/stop) you can get away with. check out this page: http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html
It suggest that at least with one row you would have been safe even as low as f/4, but you have to leave room for movement / positioning. f/5.6 looks to be a decent choice, though on a crop body I might have stopped down (higher f/) a little more. That's me, though !

Good to know and thanks for the link which agrees - thanks again for everyones help.