Fill-flash is a bit of a misnomer here. You're really talking about the
flash being the main light for the foreground, not a fill light. The
problem then is that we have two main lights. When I addressed this
several days ago I said:
"If faced with this kind of lighting in a portrait situation, to see the
people and keep the background in control requires a fair amount of
flash power. The camera is best set at minimum ISO, the shutter needs
to be set at maximum flash sync speed and the aperture set for the
proper ambient light exposure of the background. Then you need enough
flash power to light the foreground according to the now predetermined
aperture."
But the situation I'm describing is not the same. Instead, it's
something like what you see here:
<http://www.chucknorcutt.com/family.php> where the people are in the
heavy shade of the tree but at least part of the background is in full
sun. The background exposure must be correct for full sun lest it be
totally washed out. Since you're going to mix flash in here you want
the largest aperture possible (to minimize the considerable flash power
needed to compete with the sun) and that means using max flash sync
speed on the camera. But once you've done this the aperture is
pre-determined and your only option is enough flash power to light the
foreground somewhere close to the exposure of the full sun while being
very careful not to go over it. Going over it even slightly can cause
the background to look artificial.
In the case of Micheal's picture of the dog and woman on the dock, I
don't think the situation could be handled in quite the same way.
First, the dog and woman are fairly far away and trying to light them
equivalent to the background sunlight would take a lot more flash power
than you're likely to be toting around. The picture in the link above
was lit with at least two T-32's behind an umbrella and up fairly close.
But I don't think it would be desirable to do that for Michael's shot.
The dog and woman are obviously standing in the shade and I think we can
keep them there as long as we're willing to accept that the background
is the subject and not the foreground. The only problem is that they
were a bit too much in shadow and causing attention strain and so I
brightened them up in post processing. I think a portable flash fired
at full power from the position of the camera would do pretty much the
same. It would brighten them up a bit and improve the picture without
throwing enough light to turn them into the main subject.
But, of course, Micheal's original idea was that they be the main
subject. That's a different problem that I'm not sure I know how to
solve given the composition and ambient light. I have long learned to
accept my photo mentor's admonition not to bust my head trying to solve
a difficult photo situation. He says very simply (and very forcefully);
"Don't take the picture there".
Chuck Norcutt
usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Quite late to the show with this, though long work days intrude.
>
> If one were setting this up to work w/o post processing with the
> foreground a bit brighter, what would be the optimal adjustments.
> Would fill-flash do the job? If one makes assumptions regarding
> distance to the dock and lighting conditions, is the estimated GN
> required reasonable especially with a slow synch speed. Often think
> about grad ND filter if the sky is too bright and washing out detail
> in the background, if exposing for the foreground. Remember my
> nicely Moosterized "donkey woman photo" from the Azores well. Maybe
> it is best just to fix it later in post, if desired, though the PS
> wizard skills are not easily developed.
>
> Mike
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|