Tecnhnical HELP big time...

[manaheim]

^^^ wow, very interesting and both very cool shots.

This is fantastic info. Thanks kmatt for the examples, and thanks all!

 

[Helen B]

Just doing a bit of research, I think I better understand this concept of dragging the shutter. It makes total sense...

however... I have found plenty of evidence to indicate that you do get motion blur on your background (and you may get fringing on your primary subjects as well) on the longer shutter times... are those of you who do this merely accepting the results of this effect?

Sometimes it seems appropriate, sometimes it doesn't. It's rather like colour balance. Sometimes you want the flash to be perfectly colour balanced with the ambient light, sometimes you don't.

As Jerry explained (I think that SilverGlow's attack was unjustified) there are times when you need a fast shutter speed, and that may require a high ISO. In many of the situation in which I take pictures using flash and ambient combined, the effect of some motion blur is acceptable and, I believe, adds to the life of the scene. Though most of my pictures of this nature are unsuitable for public display, this thread has examples of mixed ambient and flash, with blur and sharpness. The flash was gelled to match the colour temperature of the ambient light. Only #2 was taken without flash.

Best,
Helen

 

[JerryPH]

Your the forum no at all.

And it seems that your educational level is that of a preschooler... becuase that's where they teach the difference between KNOW and NO.

It took me about 3 days of reading your bully type posts to figure that out.

lmao! You need a few more days of reading then.

You lack experience and know how, and your posts show it. I am going to love to give you a dose of your own medicine. That means to rebuttal your post, then insult the poster you disagree with...that your MO, and so lets see if you like your own medicine, ok?

Give me your best shot, I can take it... something apparently YOU cannot.

For one thing, a true pro knows how to drag the shutter. That means he shoots indoor shots at night at ISO 400 to mitigate noise the best. Sure your camera provides clean ISO 800 or 1600 but ISO 400 is much cleaner.

Dragging the shutter... the act of using a slower shutter speed along with a flash, to increase background light. Is that what you are talking about, becuase THAT is what dragging the shutter is. I already mentioned that in my first post... apparently it was not something you realized... lol.

Let me repeat... If you use a flash, the exposure of your main lit subject WILL NOT CHANGE, they will be lit the exact same level... the background will however lighten up (that's why you are dragging the shutter, not to expose the main lit subjects better, but to increase ambient... unless you are so far away from your main subject that you need ambient to increase the exposure of what your flash cannot light). So, though perhaps a true pro may know this basic piece of information... you apparently did not.

In addition to your ignorance, you fail to understand that once you are in a room, you IN FACT can use the same exact settings for all the shots, baring special rare circumstances. This is because iTTL or E-TTL <SNIP>

LMAO. and now you want to tell me about TTL as if it was something new? Uhhmm... ok. You are a pro, becuase you leave the CAMERA on whatever and use TTL to set the flash for you becuase you don't know better.

Yeah... a real pro.

Only an ignorant nubee would flash shots indoors at ISO 1600 if he doesn't need to do so.

And only an IGNORANT wanna-be has selective reading. To quote from my post above:

ISO... Saying over 800 is too much is an obvious sign of someone lacking a little real life experience in low light situations where flashes are impractical.

So Mr. 300 weddings... are you telling me that you use TTL flash ALL THE TIME? Even in church ceremonies where you are specifically told not to? Or where you are more then 35 feet away from the subject? Someone here is showing their ignorance at this moment... and its not me.

I would suggest you step up and learn how to shoot in a way that utilizes your camera maker's flash logic, call it E-TTL, or iTTL or just TTL

*I* suggest that you step up and learn how to shoot for YOURSELF and stop depending on automatic flash settings designed by some Japanese engineer decades ago. TTL has known inherent limitations that are easily exceeded and by learning to control your camera and flash individually, can you exceed those settings, friend.

Now set the body to manual, flash to full auto so that it takes advantage of your camera maker's flash logic.

ONE (Japanese engineer somewhere in some back room), man's idea of what they (certainly not I under all conditions), want my flash to do... sorry, I can and have done better myself... as have THOUSANDS of others, both professional and amateur, because we did take the time to "step up" and learn about how to PROPERLY light a scene without depending on what someone else's ideas of how it should be lit. You need to spend some time on www.strobist.com , Planet Neil and any of hundreds more websites and maybe try to learn something new yourself. At over 300 weddings without any changes... you are due a few.

And yes, like thousands of other wedding pros have found, 1/20s shutter speed is not too slow because the flash will freeze hand held and subject movement. I often find 1/15s to be fine too...THE FLASH FREEZES MOVEMENT WITH VERY SLOW SHUTTER SPEEDS....

1/15th... 1/20th... You have a lot of weak spots in your education, friend. Even at 1/15th hand held with a flash or not, you will have motion blur in everything that is not very close to your flash. At those shutter speeds, you will be letting in a LOT of ambient light too... so all that lovely motion blur will be nicely exposed in all your backgrounds. Uhm.. yeah... you're a real pro.

I've shot at least 300 weddings

... and in 300 weddings, never thought to improve on an obviously weak strategy? Sheesh, I am NOT impressed!

I think that you are being purposefully blind. TTL flashes are cool, I use them often and have nothing against them except the limitations they impose upon the photographer. However, in a wedding scenario (since that seems to be where your expertise (I use that work loosely in this case), is centered... you OBVIOUSLY have to acknowledge that there are times where you cannot use your precious on camera TTL flash. Certainly you cannot be so naiive to think that you can use a single on camera TTL flash to light formals where there are large groups of people in a dark room? What do you do there, ask them to hold REAL STILL as you try to pop off a few shots at 1/15th or slower hand held?

How do you set your camera up when you are not allowed your flash? In 300 weddings, I cannot fathom how you even take a half decent shot from the back of a church 50-150 feet away where you used an on camera flash! Do you even do that shot? The first kiss shot taken from the back of the church is one of THE MOST POIGNANT shots taken by a wedding photographer!

using this flashing strategy and it works great. Nearly all my weddings are inside very dark churchs AND I HAVE NEVER HAD TO USE AN ISO FASTER THEN 400. EVER.

Not in all cases! If you are the average wedding photographer that cannot use a flash all the time or struggle to try to flash people 30, 40 or more feet away, that a lot of your pictures have to... suck! It's either that or you are the kind of photographer that is ALWAYS 30 feet or closer to your subjects. Which means your candids have to suck (you cannot get sincerely good candids when you are 5 feet away from the subject flashing away!). Your formals in larger weddings DEFINITELY will have to suck because of the physics of what a single on camera flash can (and in this case CANNOT) light.

So before you start bullying people around and acting like a no-at-all, first consider that you really don't know as much as you think.

I was not bullying, but I can see how someone with issues and is insecure could see this. I accept no resposability for your insecurities. I am a newbie, I never said otherwise or bragged about doing 300 weddings with settings that are laughable to anyone that knows... but you have proven to everyone here... that you are a newbie too.

 

[JerryPH]

(I think that SilverGlow's attack was unjustified)

Thank-you Helen, that means a lot to me.

Yes, I really like examples of background motion, when it is done to add to the effect:

That is just an awesome example of what I meant... but can you imagine if 900 out of 1500 shots taken had this in them? It is good when used in moderation, but used in excess is an example of someone really over-enthusiastic about the effect (lol) or someone not understanding how lighting works. To say that this is how they set their camera and never change... wow, it just blows me away.

I'm breaking my butt to learn all this the best and most proper way I can, and when I see someone that calls themselves a professional say things like this, it just blows me away.

How sad.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Your best bet is to use strobes and light up the background as well. Then use your on-camera flash as the key light in concert with the strobes. Or if you have it set up right, you may need no on camera light at all.

Obviously it's not always going to be practical to set up something like this. But if you can get it set up, then run with it.

 

[ksmattfish]

It's silly to fight about technique. Hasn't everybody gone digital yet? Practice! Experiment! Digital makes it easy to learn what techniques work best for you.

 

[SilverGlow]

Sometimes it seems appropriate, sometimes it doesn't. It's rather like colour balance. Sometimes you want the flash to be perfectly colour balanced with the ambient light, sometimes you don't.

As Jerry explained (I think that SilverGlow's attack was unjustified) there are times when you need a fast shutter speed, and that may require a high ISO. In many of the situation in which I take pictures using flash and ambient combined, the effect of some motion blur is acceptable and, I believe, adds to the life of the scene. Though most of my pictures of this nature are unsuitable for public display, this thread has examples of mixed ambient and flash, with blur and sharpness. The flash was gelled to match the colour temperature of the ambient light. Only #2 was taken without flash.

Best,
Helen

Helen, I would challage you to read several weeks worth of Jerry's postings. Surely you too (as MANY have) see that he is a bully, and know-it-all, and very sophomoric (look that one up). I gave him a dose of his own medicine. His advise is more often lacking in truth, and he talks about wedding photography as though he actually shot one. Based on his postings he has never shot a wedding, as he knows very little about proper camera workflow duing a wedding. His rebuttals to my posts are so wrong and on many levels, I just don't have the time to address each and every one. Frankly, and based on his postings, I question his grasp of basic photography...and it is amazing that he is so active on such a site knowing very little...that more then anything amazes me.

Surely I'm not the only one on to Jerry's issues, yea?!? His insecurities are self-evident in his style of posting here. And by the way, I only am a "bully" to Jerry. Otherwise I'm a very nice and helpful poster. ;-)

 

[Helen B]

Helen, I would challage you to read several weeks worth of Jerry's postings. Surely you too (as MANY have) see that he is a bully, and know-it-all, and very sophomoric (look that one up).
...

I'll hazard a guess that you don't need to look up condescending.

Any truly dedicated student of Jerry's works will see that I have disagreed with him in the past. It seems to have been amicably resolved, however.

Best,
Helen

 

[manaheim]

Silver, cut it out. Jerry is a good guy. I don't think you're being here a month and using some heavy percentage of your 26 posts to whomp on someone who contributes in a consistently helpful manner is a very productive use of your time.

 

[JerryPH]

I gave him a dose of his own medicine.

If your definition of giving me "a dose" was to make me chuckle... you succeeded. Other than that, whatever else your agenda was, it failed... sorry.

...and he talks about wedding photography as though he actually shot one. Based on his postings he has never shot a wedding, as he knows very little about proper camera workflow duing a wedding.

Hey, I never claimed to be a professional. I am not the one bragging that I did 300 weddings all at the same camera settings. But you are more than a little full of both misinformation and prone to out and out BS. Based on my postings... I've seconded a professional photographer for four weddings. To use Helen's own words, "Any truly dedicated student of Jerry's works will see" that this is common knowledge on this board.

You would have also found that I participated in exactly 83 threads with the words "wedding" in them. Try it out, and see for yourself. You do know where the search button is, I hope? You would have also seen that I started a thread specifically about newbies and wedding photography that led to several pages on my blog about this topic (though it is still incomplete).

Finally... based on what knowledge level you are showing... those 4 were more than enough to exceed your apparent level of expertise. Again... how sad.

 

[terri]

This thread has been reported already, so I hope all the participants can take a step back without further fanning the flames.

I agree with Matt - it's very silly to argue technique, and beyond silly to attack a member whose approach differs from your own.

Peace out!

eace:

 

[SilverGlow]

Silver, cut it out. Jerry is a good guy. I don't think you're being here a month and using some heavy percentage of your 26 posts to whomp on someone who contributes in a consistently helpful manner is a very productive use of your time.

I resent his constant back-handed comments out of trying to be "helpful"...I just gave him a dose of his own style....I back handed him, but if you look at the genesis of this issue, you will READLY see that he started us down this path with his back-handed reply to one of my responses....one can readly see his posts, several hundred perhaps, that are riddled with back-handed snippy flippant responses, and if one can't see that then I question the level of their self-esteam....

 

[manaheim]

I resent his constant back-handed comments out of trying to be "helpful"...I just gave him a dose of his own style....I back handed him, but if you look at the genesis of this issue, you will READLY see that he started us down this path with his back-handed reply to one of my responses....one can readly see his posts, several hundred perhaps, that are riddled with back-handed snippy flippant responses, and if one can't see that then I question the level of their self-esteam....

I disagree with your position and your methods. I feel you are completely out of line. You have firmly earned a complete lack of respect from me. I won't say anything further on this in the public space.

 

[SilverGlow]

I disagree with your position and your methods. I feel you are completely out of line. You have firmly earned a complete lack of respect from me. I won't say anything further on this in the public space.

Manaheim, you're not receiving a Christmas card from me either, so there!

Have a great time taking pictures ;-)