I don't get it...

[paigew]

Why do my photos come out clear with flash one second, then blurrythe next? Am I not letting the flash charge enough between shots? (speedlight/bounced)

f2 1/100 iso800
first shot

2nd


3rd..still blurry


4th...clear again

 

[ronlane]

How long are you waiting between shots? I'm not sure what would cause this, but I am interested in learning. Thanks for sharing.

 

[paigew]

these were taken seconds apart...the capture time is actually the same, but the top photo was first, then after the second I have one more (less) blurry photo then another crystal clear one. Maybe I shoot to fast? But the flash is firing so ....

 

[jaomul]

That's a lot of blur for 1/100 sec. The second one looks more like a double exposure. Sorry I know that is of no help.

 

[ronlane]

these were taken seconds apart...the capture time is actually the same, but the top photo was first, then after the second I have one more (less) blurry photo then another crystal clear one. Maybe I shoot to fast? But the flash is firing so ....

Then it is possible that the flash didn't recycle enough. When I've done this, my flash doesn't seem to go off. Resulting in a perfectly exposed BLACK photo

 

[paigew]

these were taken seconds apart...the capture time is actually the same, but the top photo was first, then after the second I have one more (less) blurry photo then another crystal clear one. Maybe I shoot to fast? But the flash is firing so ....

Then it is possible that the flash didn't recycle enough. When I've done this, my flash doesn't seem to go off. Resulting in a perfectly exposed BLACK photo

that is what I was thinking but the flash still fired so I wasn't sure. And it is exposed the same...

 

[ronlane]

Hopefully someone in the know will stop by with an answer shortly.

 

[Derrel]

Judging by how bright and well-exposed the background is, I think the exposure settings, f/2.5 At 1/100 second at ISO 800 is pretty close to the needed ambient exposure, and the flash is basically acting as a secondary light source. She is moving, as we can see by the ghost image on her right arm (camera left arm). At 1/100 second and f/2.5 at that ISO level, the daylight and the flash are BOTH the light source.

If the f/stop were made smaller, like say f/8, then the ambient would be below the flash value. At that exposure (f/2.5 + 800 ISO + 1/100 second worth of daylight) you are combining a MAINLY daylight exposure, along with a small squirt of flash that is creating a secondary or "ghost" image of her. THis is almost the perfect balance for some unusual creative effects, but the thing that's annoying is that you're not after that effect.

If you were to have exposed about four EV LESS ambient light, then this would become a flash-as-main light shot; what this is is basically, an ambient light exposure with a tiny bit of flash fill.

 

[tirediron]

Do you by any chance have rear curtain sync enabled on your camera?

 

[paigew]

Judging by how bright and well-exposed the background is, I think the exposure settings, f/2.5 At 1/100 second at ISO 800 is pretty close to the needed ambient exposure, and the flash is basically acting as a secondary light source. She is moving, as we can see by the ghost image on her right arm (camera left arm). At 1/100 second and f/2.5 at that ISO level, the daylight and the flash are BOTH the light source.

If the f/stop were made smaller, like say f/8, then the ambient would be below the flash value. At that exposure (f/2.5 + 800 ISO + 1/100 second worth of daylight) you are combining a MAINLY daylight exposure, along with a small squirt of flash that is creating a secondary or "ghost" image of her. THis is almost the perfect balance for some unusual creative effects, but the thing that's annoying is that you're not after that effect.

If you were to have exposed about four EV LESS ambient light, then this would become a flash-as-main light shot; what this is is basically, an ambient light exposure with a tiny bit of flash fill.

Okay so are you saying that the flash didn't fire correctly (not enough time to recharge) but since it was only a little fill flash it was still exposed (just blurry from low ss).?

Do you by any chance have rear curtain sync enabled on your camera?

No I just checked and I am pretty sure I do not have that enabled.


Whats weird is you can SEE the catchlights from the flash in the 2nd blurry shot so I know it fired.....right?

 

[tirediron]

...Whats weird is you can SEE the catchlights from the flash in the 2nd blurry shot so I know it fired.....right?

Potentially; it's also possible that there's something in the room (window, mirror, shiny appliance) that's causing the catchlight, but the EXIF data seems to indicate the flash was firing; Derrel's analysis of the exposure is spot-on, so that does make sense. That is, the flash fired and created the catchlight, but didn't really contribute anything to the overall exposure. What doesn't really make sense to me is the appearance of the ghosting; it looks very much like a rear-curtain sync type of effect.

 

[paigew]

...Whats weird is you can SEE the catchlights from the flash in the 2nd blurry shot so I know it fired.....right?

Potentially; it's also possible that there's something in the room (window, mirror, shiny appliance) that's causing the catchlight, but the EXIF data seems to indicate the flash was firing; Derrel's analysis of the exposure is spot-on, so that does make sense. That is, the flash fired and created the catchlight, but didn't really contribute anything to the overall exposure. What doesn't really make sense to me is the appearance of the ghosting; it looks very much like a rear-curtain sync type of effect.

Okay yes that makes sense. I don't think the rear curtain was enabled. I have never messed with that at all before and it wasn't selected when I went to check. So I guess I am wondering how I prevent this? I supposes allow less ambient :*(

 

[Overread]

I'd agree with Derrels assessment.

As for minimizing this happening you've two basic options;

1) Increase the shutter speed to account for motion; this will require you to use a wider aperture (less depth of field) and/or a higher ISO (more noise - though note correctly exposed you will have less noise than if you underexpose at a lower ISO and then bump up the brightness in editing).
This is basically running off the ambient light and having the flash for fill lighting.

2) Shift to flash dominated lighting; this generally means shifting into manual mode (auto and semi-auto can't do it that well because they can only read the ambient and can't factor in for the flash contribution to the scene). So using a smaller aperture/lower ISO and letting the flash light increase so that its the only contributing light source to the exposure (ergo if you took the shot with the same settings without flash you'd get a black shot - fully underexposed).
Note you need to have flash fully dominant otherwise you'll get a ghosting where a darker, but exposed blurry area on any movement is recorded and shown on the shot.


If you want to avoid the "deer headlights" effect of flash you need to diffuse it - a common way indoors if you have a flash with an adjustable head is to bounce the light off the walls; it reflects around the room and makes the walls into the light source for the subject. Another option is softboxes, umbrellas and other lighting modifications - although these tend to be more for stand light sources (though you can get smaller softboxes for speedlite flash units - though for a major light source in a scene like this bouncing would be best)

 

[tirediron]

So I guess I am wondering how I prevent this? I supposes allow less ambient :*(

Easiest way would be to slip a couple of Valium in the children's lunch-time milk before the shoot so they don't move as much, but failing that, yeah, you could expose for strobed light only!

 

[paigew]

Thanks all! That's kinda what I figured. It is weird though that I got clear shots at all because she WAS moving (slightly) the whole time.