OCF, Helo me improve

[ronlane]

I finally got the Photix Atlas II radio flash triggers today. I got them home and have been practicing with the set up and got a few shots but thought I would ask for help to get better. C&C.

Using 24-135mm at 85mm. Using a wireless shutter.

1.

IMG_7840 by Ron_Lane, on Flickr

2.

IMG_7834 by Ron_Lane, on Flickr


3.

IMG_7818 by Ron_Lane, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

Well...a bare flash casts fairly hard-edged light. It creates a pretty crisp-edged shadow. At close ranges, as in the self-portrait shot of you at the bottom, the rate of light fall-off can be exceptionally fast. See how the cheek closest to the camera is pretty bright...but the middle of the forehead area is properly exposed, and then the left side of the picture is almost black??? That is what happens when a light is moved very close to the subject; this is due to the Inverse Square Law...basically, when a light is moved in close, the degree of fall-off is astounding. When a light is moved farther away, the rate of fall-off becomes very moderate, and the lighting will be pretty much "even", across the width of a normal scene.

Anyway...the difficulty with OCF and speedlights is not being able to literally SEE what a particular light position/power/placement/set-up will be like--until after a picture has been made!!! So, it's a matter of trial and error. I think the best thing to do would be to get a small table lamp with a 75-watt bulb in it, and use the light that escapes out of the top of the lampshade as a previewer. A sort of stand-in.

(TPF'ers: Ron and I know one another off-line, a little bit. Ron is eager to learn, and can take criticism like a Major League Baseball Umpire.)

I think you want to avoid raking the light across the face as much as you did in all three of these...the angle of the light creates a pretty strong shadow, which is not all that flattering. Anyway...work with it, see what you can come up with. Maybe check out the Strobist web site for some tips on theory and technique, and do some of Hobby's strobist exercises. Do you have an umbrella and light stand available???

 

[ronlane]

Thanks Derrel. I was playing with the light in the back ground being off and on. I'll figure it out one way or another, just have to keep trying.

I was defusing the flash with DIY (a piece of paper). I do not have an umbrella or a light stand at this time. I had it sitting on a table and pointing it at different angles. Should I try a reflector with the light turned away from the subject?

 

[Derrel]

Well, you know, hard-edged light is not necessarily "bad". Sometimes, it is dramatic. TO really soften a flash, the light source needs to be large in relation to the size of the subject, and the distance. So...a piece of say paper that is 8 x 11 inches doesn't soften the flash very much, but bouncing the flash off of the wall, or the ceiling creates a HUGE light source, that puts out pretty soft light.

The thing is...indoors, with slow shutter speeds, like say 1/8 second at f/5.6, the flash can be used as fill light and the photos are a mixture of ambient light + flash light. When the shutter speeds are faster, like say 1/180 second or so, then the flash becomes the sole light source, and the pics are "flash-as-main light" or "all-flash". So...not sure what you want to do.

I would suggest trying the flash at angles of like 20 to 45 degrees from faces, to start with, and see how that looks. Try bouncing the flash into the wall/ceiling juncture, and have the kids fairly close to that, and see whatcha can get. Use the refrigerator as a reflector for the flash. Try some ceiling bounce + slow shutter speeds. There are sooooooooo many ways to use flash, we cannot possibly cover all of 'em here in anything less than a book!

 

[cgipson1]

Ron.. I have a couple of extra 33" shoot though's that I don't use anymore.. PM me an address, and I will send them to you..... if you want them.

 

[ronlane]

I remembered that my monopod had an attachment of a tripod and would hold my flash. So I used that and then I got out my reflector and tried again. These are just the flash for light.

1. This one is just the flash moved closer to 45 degrees from face and camera.


IMG_7845 by Ron_Lane, on Flickr

2. This one I used the reflector under my face to fill in from below with the flash in the same place.


IMG_7864 by Ron_Lane, on Flickr

3. This one is bouncing the flash off the reflector.


IMG_7869 by Ron_Lane, on Flickr

This is very interesting. I got my drive back tonight.

These three aren't bad to me but I like them in reverse order (3,2,1). Any improvement?

 

[ronlane]

Thanks Charlie, I sent you the message.

 

[cgipson1]

Thanks Charlie, I sent you the message.

I will get them out!

 

[KmH]

In post #6 you have used mixed lighting - incandescent/tungsten and flash.

Those parts of your face not lit by the flash are orange.

A digital camera can only cope with a single light color temperature in each image.
So with 2 mixed lighting sources, to avoid light source color temperature issues we gel one of the light sources.

An orange color cast is indicative of a digital camera's white balance being set to daylight but using an incandescent/tungsten light source.
Most flash units produce light that has a color temperature very close to daylight (5500°K or so).

If you put a CTO gel on the flash unit, it will produce light close to the same color temperature as the incandescent light source. You then set the camera white balance to incandescent/tungsten.
The light in your photos will then lose the orangeish color cast.

 

[ronlane]

Thank you Keith. Are you talking about below the right eye? I am not totally understanding the color change you are referring to. On those last 3 images, I don't believe that I had any light but the flash. The desk lamp in the background of 1-3 was turned off on that set. The only other light coming in the room was from a bathroom that was was not shining on me at all.

It could be something that I did in PP that changed it. Would it help if I cooled it down?

 

[ronlane]

Keith, you don't need to answer that, I see it now after looking. Here is the edited version that I cooled down to fix it. Is this better? I needed to cool that entire set of pictures down and it helped I believe.


IMG_7869 edited by Ron_Lane, on Flickr

 

[Geaux]

too blue

 

[ronlane]

Thanks Geaux. Happy meduim?


IMG_7869 by Ron_Lane, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

This still looks a bit too ruddy (reddish/pinkish) to me.

Kundalini just posted a nifty link to The Rangefinder magazine's on-line January article about the one-light portrait. It has several really GOOD illustrations about how to use one flash unit for portraiture. I am referring to the article that begins on page 70.

Rangefinder - January 2013

 

[ronlane]

Thanks Derrel, I will read that article today. It seems that there is a REALLY fine line on this photo of being too red and too blue. It's driving me crazy.