In article <32DCF82C.37A5@mci.com>, ronald.frank@mci.com says...
>Bob Neuman wrote:
>> In article <5bednb$63m@access1.digex.net>, arjohn@access1.digex.net says...
>> >In article <5b4h6u$jls@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>> >Bob Neuman
[about flash for weddings...]
>> >>Um, nothing, and nowhere - at least during the ceremony...
>> >>Flash is usually acceptable during the processional and recessional
>> >>(and an on-camera [or on-bracket, if you can stand those dark shadows
>> >>under chins...;-] [...]
>> > Huh? I hope you're joking . . . since when does a flash bracket
>> >used with a professional grade flash (120-J, Quantum Q-Flash) give you
>> >dark shadows under the chin? I know the poster was asking about his 285,
>> >but if you're gonna start talkin' brackets, why go halfway? Even with a
>> >fresnel lens flash (285, 622, etc) shadows are really minimal with a
>> >bracket. Unless you like red-eye :-)
>> Hmmm, flash is flash, whether "diffused", spread by a Fresnel lens, or
>> whatever - and the qualities of the image made with it are controlled
>> by the source size, position of the source relative to the lens, the
>> distance from the subject (and background), and the nearness (relevance)
>> of reflecting surfaces... [much deleted...]
[it would help if you would write shorter lines so I don't need to edit,
and I am removing this from r.p.marketplace, where it doesn't belong..]
>So your suggesting that placing an umbrella on my strobe vs. placing a
>softbox on my strobe, vs using bare light vs. using a standard reflector
>are all the same because flash is flash?? What in the heck are you talking
>about!
I didn't say that. I think you misunderstand the term "diffusion", which
I take to mean the spreading of the direct light, as by placing a
handkerchief (or other diffusing material) over the flash (between the
light source and what the light strikes). I noted "and the nearness
(relevance) of reflecting surfaces" above as one of the conditions that
DOES change the quality of the light...
>Since diffusing a flash modifies the "REFLECTIVE" surfaces around the light
>source it CHANGES the quality of light. Flash maybe flash, but diffusing
>the flash will most certainly modify the outcome. Suggesting diffusion
>does nothing and then stating that the nearness of reflecting surfaces
>effect flash behavior is contradicting yourself.
Not at all - if you diffuse the light of a flash without significantly
enlarging the light source, nothing is accomplished (except reducing the
light level, and broadening its coverage - both useful at times, but they
do not generally result in a softening of shadow edges or depth [without
relevant {close and highly reflective} surfaces, or very close placement
of the subject]). What I try to do is dispel myths - and there are a
lot of them in photography - mostly, it seems, about flash...
>> Placing a light further from the lens increases
>> the size of shadows (the reverse is the shadowless ringlight...), causing
>> what I call, "the famous flash-bracket-induced wrought-iron chin braces"
>> so evident in sample photos printed in flash-bracket ads...;-).
>Moving the flash a few inches higher above the lens (maybe 6 inches max)
>hardly has much effect on increasing shadows.
It does when shooting close - just look at the "before" and "after"
samples (without, and with, flash bracket) in the flash bracket ads
for a good illustration of why one should NOT use a bracket for close
shooting... BTW, you are right that using a bracket at a distance has
no bad (or good) effect on the image - so I choose not to bother
using one...
>> And, BTW, I very rarely see red-eye with my camera-mounted SB-24's...
>Rarely is not good enough. Also, if you shooting in good ambiant light
>maybe this is the case. I shoot Weddings, and a dark reception room is
>NOT a good place to be using a medium telephoto lens with no bracket.
>Redeye will result.
Rarely is good enough for me, since I see red-eye in no more than one or
two photos total per several weddings I shoot. Since I use no assistant,
and carry two identical cameras and flashes, 4-5 lenses, and about 30
rolls of film (plus batteries, etc.), I choose to simplify my technique
and gear - a bracket is of little value to me, and the same with
mini-soft-box gizmos, reflector cards, etc. - all of which do have
limited usefulness under some conditions, but I must be able to work
quickly and efficiently under often unknown conditions, so I use what
works universally well, and ignore what doesn't. I don't have red-eye
problems.
>> A bracket
>> (if it does not raise the flash TOO high above the lens ;-) may be useful
>> for switching from H to V orientation while keeping the light above the
>> lens, though there are other, simpler, solutions that often work as well.
>Such as??? Maybe a PC sync cord and hand holding the flash? I find that
>approach hard to control and difficult with professional grade (heavy)
>equipment. I also like to lock my focus (when shooting 35mm) with is hard
>to do with one hand.
(I don't use AF...;-) I agree - a flash extended away from the camera on
a cord is too awkward to use - and can produce worse shadows than using
a bracket...! ;-) Again, I have no need to do this - on-camera flash
works fine. (Assuming the spacing of a flash like the Nikon SB-24...)
When I shoot at a distance (if part of the subject is not TOO far
in front of another part), the shadows are OK. When I am close, I turn
the flash head straight up (for verticals or horizontals) and pop a
medium-size white Styrofoam cup over it (it also reduces the light so
TTL can work close-in with fast film and wide apertures, places the light
somewhat above the lens for both camera orientations, broadens the light
enough to cover fisheyes, and even [yes...! ;-], slightly softens the
shadow edges [but only when close to the subject!]).
>> When thinking about flash, it is often useful to imagine the subject
>> illuminated by a bare electric light bulb - the look is similarly as
>> unpleasant as flash, and as difficult to really improve by moving the
>> bulb around a bit...
>Bare bulb is NOT the same as directional flash. Also think of diffusion
>as placing a lamp shade over the bulb. And moving the bulb around a bit
>CAN reduce or increase shadows. You state as much in you own post.
Ummm, I should maybe have said that small-flash lighting is like the light
from a single electric light bulb illuminating a cave (or outdoors), to
give a good concept of the problems of improving its harsh quality (which
is little improved by moving it about a bit (though it can be worsened...).
Of course, if one can enlarge considerably the apparent light source (not
by "diffusing" it, but by reflecting light off relatively large surfaces),
the quality of the light will be improved...
>Bob, reading your post it's sounds like you may have some experience in
>the area of lighting, but then after re-reading it, I think not. You
>completele discount diffusion as a method of controlling light. You also
>obviously have not done much professional work in a reception type of
>environment.
Hmmm, tell that to my many clients... (who like my un-cave-like lighting,
accomplished even under the most difficult conditions...). I do little
studio-type work, so I do not use umbrellas, etc. Most of my work is
location-type (and much of it is done at receptions), and I am skilled
at combining however little available light there is with the light from a
handy on-camera flash (which is versatile enough to allow light shade-offs,
spot-lighting, light angle-broadening, and moving the light source above
the lens while leaving it firmly attached to the camera...) to make
natural-looking photographs.
>Unless one uses high speed film, a tiny (if you call my Sunpak 622 tiny)
>flash on camera is often what one must rely on. I agree that studio
>strobes and umbrellas are a much nicer solution, and this is what I use
>for my indoor portraiture, and Wedding formals. But bouncing, diffusing,
>placing the flash off camera, and using brackets are all ways of improving
>the quality of light, or redirecting unwanted shadows, when one must use
>a small direct source.
I agree, but I find it unnecessary to use all that stuff to get good
results (just some of it...;-). BTW, I can't help add that I think the
Sunpak 622 is one of the clumsiest flash designs I have ever seen...
(Most of the time you do not need that much power [or you can get it with
two small SB-24's], and it is HUGE - the new small on-camera flashes allow
TTL fill-ratios to be set easily; have very fast recycle times; use 4 AA
batteries [which seem to last forever in the SB-24 - and the SB-24 has
soft coverage-edge roll-off, allowing the even lighting of deep rooms,
shading off of left or right-side near subjects, or even spot lighting
between nearby subjects to a distant one]; and the Styrofoam-cup trick
is easy to use...;-) BTW, I do use fast film (the difficulties and
problems in lighting certainly do increase if you use slow films...!),
which also simplifies much of people-type location shooting for me -
I prefer the look of natural-looking lighting (even if I have supplied
much of it...;-) to the artifice of the traditional flash look, even if
I must sacrifice some technical quality (and this from a lens-sharpness
nut, too!! ;-). (Which is why I AM a lens-sharpness nut - my lenses must
perform well at wide apertures in order to give me good results under
bad conditions! ;-)
Hope This Helps