nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
No Fill flash:
Fill flash:
Fill flash:
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
No Fill flash /Fill Flash
- Thread starter nicolas claris
- Start date
Cem_Usakligil
Well-known member
So using the fill flash makes a difference even when deployed at such distances under harsh daylight. Just look at the rocks accross the bay entrance, impressive!
Which flash dit you use, the 580EX? At what power level?
Cheers,
Which flash dit you use, the 580EX? At what power level?
Cheers,
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Na na NAH!!
No way the flash is lighting the sky and making it brighter! The exposure setting or brightness has been changed between the two pictures!!!!
Or where am I mistaken
Nicolas?Asher
Last edited:
Kathy Rappaport
pro member
Flag
The flag on that ship is either Spain, Portugal or Italy...not that anyone asked - I think Portugal.
But, why do I like the no fill flash better - it looks more realistic to me. Something is off.
The flag on that ship is either Spain, Portugal or Italy...not that anyone asked - I think Portugal.
But, why do I like the no fill flash better - it looks more realistic to me. Something is off.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Kathy,
Untill we know what is done to each, then we can't say which is better for your taste. Either one can be most probably adjusted to suit you. I reallly wonder about the total exposure of the second picture.
Asher
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
You've all been fooled by the 24 mm, boat and island are not far at all.
However this is a first try for me to shoot fill flash on a so wide outside area with a big white hull just in front, just like a bride's dress...
It is possible that the fill flash exposure have been overexposed as we're at 1/250 (which is max speed for fill flsh) this would explain the sky.
But I find this very interesting, bringing colors to water (at foreground) and there's a lot of room for down expose the raw, the result wil be much more nice that with the no fill flash.
My intention for the whole shoot was to bring light and clarity, there we are!
Flash was Canon 580 ex ETTL standard settings (power could have been lowered, I agree)
NO PS except batch sharpening action (same for both pics)
EXIFs
Lighroom workflow
However this is a first try for me to shoot fill flash on a so wide outside area with a big white hull just in front, just like a bride's dress...
It is possible that the fill flash exposure have been overexposed as we're at 1/250 (which is max speed for fill flsh) this would explain the sky.
But I find this very interesting, bringing colors to water (at foreground) and there's a lot of room for down expose the raw, the result wil be much more nice that with the no fill flash.
My intention for the whole shoot was to bring light and clarity, there we are!
Flash was Canon 580 ex ETTL standard settings (power could have been lowered, I agree)
NO PS except batch sharpening action (same for both pics)
EXIFs
Lighroom workflow
Cem_Usakligil
Well-known member
Ah! The good old extra wide angle....
Re. you playing nasty exposure tricks on us; call me naive but I've trusted your original post inherently since it came from you Nicolas. So next time you decide to pull a rabbit out of your hat, I'll be an excellent and foremost victim <LOL>.
Cheers,
PS: I can't help but notice that you use the "flourish"panel end marks in LR! A renaissance man with a feeling for flair, indeed <big grin>
Indeed! I tend to forget the effects of a 24mm or wider. Only yesterday I was shooting subjects which were only a couple of feet away from me using my 12-24mm, the end results look as if they were many meters (x3 feet approx.) away.
Re. you playing nasty exposure tricks on us; call me naive but I've trusted your original post inherently since it came from you Nicolas. So next time you decide to pull a rabbit out of your hat, I'll be an excellent and foremost victim <LOL>.
Cheers,
PS: I can't help but notice that you use the "flourish"panel end marks in LR! A renaissance man with a feeling for flair, indeed <big grin>
Last edited:
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
I would add that in LR, for "Fill flash" workflow, exposure is set to -0,30 (it could even be lowered a bit more) and that brightness is lower than on the "No fill flash" one...
Cem_Usakligil
Well-known member
Hi Nicolas,
I mean the ornamental looking marks that are at the bottom of your LR screen captures, just above the words Fill Flash. You can get rid of them in the LR: Edit > Preferences > Interface > Panel End Marks > Set to None, box or flourish.
Cheers,
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Why that? no trick there!
Cem_Usakligil
Well-known member
Sorry for my tongue-in-the-cheek style, sometimes I assume that all can follow my somewhat dry humour. Prior to your explanatory reply, others such as Asher and Ron have "hinted"at the possibilty that the exposure of the second image was much higher thus it could not have all been caused by the fill in flash only. So I saw a joke in there, about the possibility that you were playing tricks on us just to test our powers of observation <smile>. Hence my reference to a non-existant trick.
I hope I've made myself clear now, phew! <big smile>
Cheers,
Steve Saunders
New member
The almost couple of stops difference in shutter speed between both shots will explain the brightness overall. I use fill-flash outdoors all the time, but actually prefer the first shot here.
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Wow! that's a neat tip! I'll get rid of it immediately…
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
yes, <big smile> <big smile>
Hi Nicolas,
What an incredible flash you have For a start, the flash has distributed its incredible amount of light evenly across the whole boat without any fall-off. Furthermore, it's apparently made a huge difference to those dark rocks behind the boat whilst not blowing out the exposure on the boat itself. The white boat. Amazing - you've successfully overcome the inverse square law...
Fortunately, your settings show that physics had remained firmly steadfast with respect to your particuly flash unit. What has happened however is that the camera's shutter speed went from 1/640 to 1/250, the X-Sync speed, the aperture and ISO remained fixed and therefore the exposure increased by over a stop.
Tim
What an incredible flash you have
For a start, the flash has distributed its incredible amount of light evenly across the whole boat without any fall-off. Furthermore, it's apparently made a huge difference to those dark rocks behind the boat whilst not blowing out the exposure on the boat itself. The white boat. Amazing - you've successfully overcome the inverse square law... Fortunately, your settings show that physics had remained firmly steadfast with respect to your particuly flash unit. What has happened however is that the camera's shutter speed went from 1/640 to 1/250, the X-Sync speed, the aperture and ISO remained fixed and therefore the exposure increased by over a stop.
Tim
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Tim
I'll convey to the flash unit your congrats ;-)
Otherwise I do agree with you about the overexposure, I did write it already in the post together with the EXIFs:
I have more shots (but no interest to show them here) where I've been carefully be at 1/250 or less, the lighting effect are still good though not overexposed.
I did post these 2 pics as they are easily comparable (same subject, same framing, same light etc.
This way of enlighting is not new, but it is new to me! and I'm happy to have tried it as the results are much better than hilight/shadow CS filter (even if that one has saved a lot of pics before!)
I'll convey to the flash unit your congrats ;-)
Otherwise I do agree with you about the overexposure, I did write it already in the post together with the EXIFs:
I have more shots (but no interest to show them here) where I've been carefully be at 1/250 or less, the lighting effect are still good though not overexposed.
I did post these 2 pics as they are easily comparable (same subject, same framing, same light etc.
This way of enlighting is not new, but it is new to me! and I'm happy to have tried it as the results are much better than hilight/shadow CS filter (even if that one has saved a lot of pics before!)
Nikolai Sklobovsky
New member
Nicolas,
next time you may wanna use High Synch Speed mode of 580.
That way you can both dim the light (it's said to be 30% dimmer) and use whatever shutter speed you want, thus avoiding overexposure..
Just a thought.
next time you may wanna use High Synch Speed mode of 580.
That way you can both dim the light (it's said to be 30% dimmer) and use whatever shutter speed you want, thus avoiding overexposure..
Just a thought.
Michael Fontana
pro member
Isn't Cala Galera on the beautifull east coast of Sardegna?
Meanwhile "Li" on the yacht looks being Liguria to me.
Nicolas,
I'm not sure but IMHO, Jeff (Schewe) was showing that on ACR 2.x....
BTW; How do you like LR?
Vers 1.1 should be pretty improved.
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hey! Bonjour Michael!
I think you confuse with Cala di Volpe (you may point here in Google Earth it's a zipped kmz file that will download, if you have Google Earth, double click it and fasten your seat belt, you're not any more under control!)
Cala Galera is a small marina that is situated just North of Port Ercole. This is 150 KM North of Fiumicino in the south part of Toscania. This kmz will point you within Google Earth to the exact place where the shot was done!
Yes LI is Liguria, but you know sometimes boats do travel!
What do you mean about Jeff (Schewe)? I don't get it…
LR (I'm still using 1.0) is easy for batching 1000 pics, but for hi res I really do prefer the new ACR (wow!) and C1 of which I wait for the new version, they are behind ACR for now…
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Thanks Nicolaï, I do know, but my learning curve is step by step... as I can only do my testing "in real life"…-) but you're fully right!
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Nikolai,
Good to see your post. There's a choice here. One could, and there's no reason not to, adding a neutral density filter or using ISO 100 to get correct exposure for the sky at 1/250th sec or else close that 2.8 to 4.0 if the planned composition allows it.
So where would you decide on using high speed flash under these circumstances. IOW, Nikolai, why would you use it when the over-exposure of the sky, for sure (and likely the rocks too) is nothing to do with the flash.
I do not use the fast synch flash, so I'd appreciate hearing your own decision tree.
Asher
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Nikolai,
Good to see your post. There's a choice here. One could, and there's no reason not to, adding a neutral density filter or using ISO 100 to get correct exposure for the sky at 1/250th sec or else close that 2.8 to 4.0 if the planned composition allows it.
So where would you decide on using high speed flash under these circumstances. IOW, Nikolai, why would you use it when the over-exposure of the sky, for sure (and likely the rocks too) is nothing to do with the flash.
I do not use the fast synch flash, so I'd appreciate hearing your own decision tree.
Asher
For DOF my good friend, here is ƒ8 but with if the kids were moving or the boat sailing I may had wished to fire at 1/1000th…
Cem_Usakligil
Well-known member
My humble answer would be: to provide frontal lighting and to descrease the shadows and the contrast, thus to avoid having to retort to "fill light" in LR or "highlights and shadows" in PS. But obviously, you knew this already so I assume you must have another reason for asking this question??
Cheers,
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
..when you can use regular fill flash, not high speed synch!
Asher
Asher
Nikolai Sklobovsky
New member
Asher,
HSS flash is quite different than the regular one. My undertsanding was that in Nicolas' case he was OK with the overall exposure/DOF abut he wanted a brighter boat. This is, in fact, a classic case for the fill flash - boat is fairly close, exposure is OK on the b/g, we simply need the f/g a bit brighter.
Regular flash has its downing limitations for shutter speeds, so if the conditions (DOF, etc) something different, HSS is the natural next step.
HSS flash is quite different than the regular one. My undertsanding was that in Nicolas' case he was OK with the overall exposure/DOF abut he wanted a brighter boat. This is, in fact, a classic case for the fill flash - boat is fairly close, exposure is OK on the b/g, we simply need the f/g a bit brighter.
Regular flash has its downing limitations for shutter speeds, so if the conditions (DOF, etc) something different, HSS is the natural next step.