Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Messing with flash

Subject: Re: [OM] Messing with flash
From: DZDub <jdubikins@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 23:38:28 -0600
Yes, I appreciated your looking and commenting.  You missed the point about
repeatability, but I probably mislead you by using that word.  I can't
recreate/repeat the photo settings I made precisely because I moved the
flash all over the room, trying things.  Also I have a flash meter.  I
didn't use it.  In fact, I had the flash on auto.  In fact, I adjusted
exposure by changing ISO instead of stop.  All I was trying to do was
experiment with bounced mainlight and a bare bulb in various places around
the room.  If can find a combination I like, I might concentrate on
repeatability.  The combination that interests me the most produced the
result that people seemed to like the least, though the conclusion I am
drawing is that really well-done flash ought to draw you to the subject and
not otherwise be noticed so much in itself.

Good, natural light excites me.  On a good day, there are just few minutes
of it at the beginning of the day and again at the end.  It would be very
satisfying if I could get my flashes to do the same thing.  I'm not saying
it can't be done because I have seen it done, but I haven't done it yet
myself.

Joel W.


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Chuck Norcutt <
chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I did but apparently missed a few words.  But I hope you got something
> out of the rest of it, particularly the need for measurement for
> repeatability.
>
> Dr. Flash
>
>
>
> On 2/21/2014 2:25 PM, DZDub wrote:
> > Ah, you didn't read the original note concerning the background.
> >
> > Joel W.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Chuck Norcutt <
> > chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> No, I don't find it harsh at all.  I think your flash work was perfectly
> >> fine but your choice of background should be re-examined.  You've ended
> >> up with two subjects with one competing with the other.
> >>
> >> Just getting the background out of focus isn't always enough.  Clone out
> >> the bright bits in the background and you'll see a significant
> >> improvement.  One of my earliest photography lessons is that the
> >> brightest part of the photo automatically becomes what attracts the eye.
> >> The bright bits attract the eye and then become the subject whether you
> >> wanted that or not.
> >>
> >> As to flash being not repeatable it's only because you're not measuring
> >> it.  You can easily measure the ambient light with your camera's meter
> >> or any other meter.  Measuring flash requires a flash meter... something
> >> that can measure a bright 1/50,000 second burst.  Get yourself a flash
> >> meter that can simultaneously measure both flash and ambient and report
> >> the percentage contributed by flash and you'll be good to go for
> >> repeatability.  But if you're using multiple lights measure each light
> >> independently (to know the balance between them) and then measure the
> >> total light for the final exposure.
> >>
> >> Without the flash meter, if you're experimenting and find something you
> >> like then record the distances and angles, flash power and type of
> >> diffuser along with the camera exposure info.  Only then will you be
> >> able to repeat it.
> >>
> >> Dr. No-Competing-Bright-Bits
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/21/2014 10:53 AM, DZDub wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Chris Trask <christrask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I probably shot a dozen or so variations each of three different
> >>>>> settings/subjects.  The current discussion of flash sent me back to
> >> have
> >>>>> another look with fresh eyes at the ones I thought were the most
> >>>> successful:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=11470
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?  I would appreciate your criticism.  The thing that is
> >>>>> frustrating for me is that there was so much experimentation involved
> >> that
> >>>>> I have no basis for repeatability at this point.  I would just have
> to
> >> go
> >>>>> at it again.  Plus, the bare bulb is a bit unpredictable and very
> >>>> dependent
> >>>>> on the room, distance, height.  So many factors!
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        Orchid 2 and Orchid 3 are very good, especially the latter as
> the
> >>>> light amount of shadow highlights the texture of the flowers.  The
> >>>> backlighting of Orchid 1 highlights the veining of the petals, but
> some
> >>>> minor fill flash projected from the lower left or bottom would
> overcome
> >> the
> >>>> harsh graduation of the shadows and bring out the textures.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Chris.  Do others find it harsh?  I often like direct sun
> >> creating
> >>> shadows of this kind on flowers outdoors:
> >>>
> >>> http://jfwilcox.jalbum.net/April%20Flowers/#IMG_0396_editedw.jpg
> >>>
> >>> Joel W.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> >> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> >> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> >>
> >>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz