D5100 vs D200 use with flash + soft box

tissa · May 16, 2012

So I just got back from a practice photo shoot with a firend of mine. We are learning how to use a flash and soft boxes. He is shooting Nikon D200 and I am shooting D5100. I have SB900 which will only work on camera or off camera in a slave mode. He has SB600 I believe and his can work on and off camera just fine coz his camera has a commander mode.
My question is. Whenever he wasnt using his flash we still used mine in a slave mode. It would fire like it is supposed to. But the pictures on his camera looked a LOT better, with a nice brightened up background, with no glare in the eyes that the build-in flash produces etc. Mine, however, looked like snapshots, with glare in the eyes, darker background and all around different light. We had exactly the same settings, but the photos looked different.

I will post examples later. But for now, why is that happening?

zamanakhan · May 16, 2012

how were you triggering yours vs his? it could just be that you can turn on the commander flash to also help with fill.

tissa · May 16, 2012

D5100 doesn't work as a commander. When I mention "same settings, but different results" we did not use his flash but only mine as a slave. So it would fire the same way for mine or for his camera

Derrel · May 16, 2012

Your description of your shooting companion's photos as having, "a nice brightened up background" makes me think perhaps he was shooting with a much slower shutter speed than you were. When using flash, the shutter speed controls how bright, or dark, the background is. if the shutter is firing at say, 1/250 second, backgrounds that are reasonably far behind the range of the flash will be DARK. With the shutter speed set to a slowish speed, like say 1/20 second, MUCH more non-flash light will be allowed into the camera from the areas that are BEHIND where the flash reaches, and so the backgrounds will be LIGHTER.

One of the best ways to ensure a bright-ish backdrop is to shoot flash (when indoors) at slow speeds, like 1/20 second or so.

tissa · May 16, 2012

#1 was D200 and #2 was D5100

tissa · May 16, 2012

Derrel said:
Your description of your shooting companion's photos as having, "a nice brightened up background" makes me think perhaps he was shooting with a much slower shutter speed than you were. When using flash, the shutter speed controls how bright, or dark, the background is. if the shutter is firing at say, 1/250 second, backgrounds that are reasonably far behind the range of the flash will be DARK. With the shutter speed set to a slowish speed, like say 1/20 second, MUCH more non-flash light will be allowed into the camera from the areas that are BEHIND where the flash reaches, and so the backgrounds will be LIGHTER.

One of the best ways to ensure a bright-ish backdrop is to shoot flash (when indoors) at slow speeds, like 1/20 second or so.

Like I have mentioned we both had the SAME settings on camera. And I am talking about the shoots that we did using the same settings and with only one working flash in slave mode (my flash)

Vtec44 · May 16, 2012

Maybe it's because of different sensors? One is CCD and the other one is CMOS. I don't have a clue... just randomly throw this out. lol On top of that, lighting seems to be better diffused on the D200 picture.

Derrel · May 16, 2012

I could SEE, with my own eyes, that the picture on the left is shot mostly with a LARGE, SOFT light source as the exposure; see the soft, delicate shadow under her nose, and the way there is a very "soft" transition between the brighter areas and the shadows??? THat is the sign of a HUGE light source....like say....the light from the sky. His f/stop was f/4.5. NO shutter speed was seen in my EXIF reader.

The shot on the right is lighted mostly by ELECTRONIC FLASH. THe sharp-edged shadow on the nose is a dead giveaway.

I don't want to appear to be rude or confrontational, but these two photos were NOT lighted the same way. HIS shot is almost all lighted by daylight. Your shot is what is called "flash-as-main light". The "EXPOSURES" these two photographs were made with are vastly,vastly different. I'm not talking about what the 'settings' were or what you think they were--I mean the light that exposed these two photos is of VASTLY different makeup. One is daylight. The other is flash. Period.

tissa · May 16, 2012

Derrel I do not know how you are making such conclusions but the girl is sitting under the same tree with the same day light (which was actually evening). We were standing next to each other and I took a pic from a different angle. Our camera settings were the same. We used one flash that was in slave mode and was mounted on a softbox. However, I do see what you mean. It seems as if when I take a photo the flash in the softbox was either not as powerful and I get that glare from the build-in flash or something. I do not know. And may be somehow his camera could get better light from that softbox. But we used the same flash in the same softbox with camera settings being the same. The results are different and we both do not know why. That is why I am asking on here.
My friend's guess was just like Vtec44 said that it might be a different sensor, but I do not understand how sensors can make such a big difference

Derrel · May 16, 2012

See the BLACK background behind her? THere is only one way to turn the background JET-BLACK. I opened up both files and looked at them. I can see your on-camera flash, and I can SEE the catchlight from the softbox in your image. I can literally SEE, with my trained eyes, that your shot is lighted by electronic flash. But his shot has an almost equal balance of light on her, and it is soft light, and the background has the same density as she does.

I can literally use my eyes, and over 30 years' worth of photography experience to literally "SEE" the exposure differences. Note the tree and its foliage. Do you see how the woman is lighted at almost the same level as the background in his camera's shot? Do you see how in your shot, there are areas of blackness in the background? Why? Because his camera is exposing for the BACKGROUND, and your camera is NOT. His shot has a huge amount of DAYLIGHT making up the exposure on the background and her, and yours does NOT.

I do not know what the "settings" you used were; the files do not have complete EXIF information. Yours is totally stripped and has ZERO EXIF data. His has only the aperture of f/4.5. Could you post your shot in its ORIGINAL form, with the EXIF info intact. My point is not about the "settings"--I am saying that these two images are exposed very differently...the fundamental light used in his shot has a HUGE amount of what is called "ambient" exposure....your shot is almost ALL FLASH. And I say this based on experience. That is how I am making "such conclusions". I am not trying to be rude or confrontational, but you are here asking, and I am here answering. I gave an answer before you posted the two sample photos. I'm pretty confident that, after later seeing the shots, that my conclusion is sound. Let me state this another way: these two shots are not made identically...there is one, or two, different exposure parameters in the exposure of these two shots. That is why they look so,so different.

Vtec44 · May 17, 2012

The last sentence of my previous post, diffused light, was based on the shadows underneath her chin and nose (D200) and the harsh shadow on her face on the side of her nose. Also, the catch light in her eyes indicating that the "settings" maybe the same but the lighting was not.

jrizal · May 17, 2012

Derrel said:
See the BLACK background behind her? THere is only one way to turn the background JET-BLACK. I opened up both files and looked at them. I can see your on-camera flash, and I can SEE the catchlight from the softbox in your image. I can literally SEE, with my trained eyes, that your shot is lighted by electronic flash. But his shot has an almost equal balance of light on her, and it is soft light, and the background has the same density as she does.

I can literally use my eyes, and over 30 years' worth of photography experience to literally "SEE" the exposure differences. Note the tree and its foliage. Do you see how the woman is lighted at almost the same level as the background in his camera's shot? Do you see how in your shot, there are areas of blackness in the background? Why? Because his camera is exposing for the BACKGROUND, and your camera is NOT. His shot has a huge amount of DAYLIGHT making up the exposure on the background and her, and yours does NOT.

I do not know what the "settings" you used were; the files do not have complete EXIF information. Yours is totally stripped and has ZERO EXIF data. His has only the aperture of f/4.5. Could you post your shot in its ORIGINAL form, with the EXIF info intact. My point is not about the "settings"--I am saying that these two images are exposed very differently...the fundamental light used in his shot has a HUGE amount of what is called "ambient" exposure....your shot is almost ALL FLASH. And I say this based on experience. That is how I am making "such conclusions". I am not trying to be rude or confrontational, but you are here asking, and I am here answering. I gave an answer before you posted the two sample photos. I'm pretty confident that, after later seeing the shots, that my conclusion is sound. Let me state this another way: these two shots are not made identically...there is one, or two, different exposure parameters in the exposure of these two shots. That is why they look so,so different.

If the EXIF info is correct, shutter speed used is 1/25 and time and date of the shot is 6:40pm May 16, 2012. Obviously the low shutter speed will allow more ambient light and again if the time is correct, at this time of the year I am presuming it isn't pitch black outdoors. Derrel has a point if you can post the picture with EXIF info.

tissa · May 17, 2012

Derrel said:
See the BLACK background behind her? THere is only one way to turn the background JET-BLACK. I opened up both files and looked at them. I can see your on-camera flash, and I can SEE the catchlight from the softbox in your image. I can literally SEE, with my trained eyes, that your shot is lighted by electronic flash. But his shot has an almost equal balance of light on her, and it is soft light, and the background has the same density as she does.

I can literally use my eyes, and over 30 years' worth of photography experience to literally "SEE" the exposure differences. Note the tree and its foliage. Do you see how the woman is lighted at almost the same level as the background in his camera's shot? Do you see how in your shot, there are areas of blackness in the background? Why? Because his camera is exposing for the BACKGROUND, and your camera is NOT. His shot has a huge amount of DAYLIGHT making up the exposure on the background and her, and yours does NOT.

I do not know what the "settings" you used were; the files do not have complete EXIF information. Yours is totally stripped and has ZERO EXIF data. His has only the aperture of f/4.5. Could you post your shot in its ORIGINAL form, with the EXIF info intact. My point is not about the "settings"--I am saying that these two images are exposed very differently...the fundamental light used in his shot has a HUGE amount of what is called "ambient" exposure....your shot is almost ALL FLASH. And I say this based on experience. That is how I am making "such conclusions". I am not trying to be rude or confrontational, but you are here asking, and I am here answering. I gave an answer before you posted the two sample photos. I'm pretty confident that, after later seeing the shots, that my conclusion is sound. Let me state this another way: these two shots are not made identically...there is one, or two, different exposure parameters in the exposure of these two shots. That is why they look so,so different.

Letme restate my question because I am not arguing here or questioning anyone's experience. I am just trying to understand why the difference is so drastic coz I do not like the way my photos came out. Like I have mentioned before me and my friend are LEARNING how to use flash etc. so i was convinced that we were doing the same exact thing. You are saying otherwise. So what EXACTLY was I doing differently? When you say "it was exposed differently" what EXACTLY do you mean? Where should I go and check my settings? Flash? Camera? Where? How can I make sure that my photos look like his because the difference you see in the pics above are the same for ALL THE PICTURES we did this evening. Every single one

tissa · May 17, 2012

My EXIF info: shutter 1/60, f. 3.5, iso 100. Lens 35 mm.

Here are two other examples:

Mine (to the right) has the same settings: iso 125, f 3.5, shutter 1/60. I am only working one speedlight that is behind her. His settings were different:shutter 1/15, F6.3, iso 100. And he used the speedlight behind her AND a softbox with a speedlight in front of her. THe difference is visible. But on the photos above (that I provided earlier) both of us are using just one speedlight that is working off camera and the differences are my shutter that is 1/60, but I have my f at 1 stop lower than he does. Mine is 3.5 and his is 4.5. Everything else was the same. are you saying that if I only lowered my shutter speed to 1/25 instead of 1/60 and provided my f was also 4.5 I would get the same results as he did?

Mach0 · May 17, 2012

tissa said:
My EXIF info: shutter 1/60, f. 3.5, iso 100. Lens 35 mm.

Here are two other examples: <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8815"/><img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8816"/> Mine (to the right) has the same settings: iso 125, f 3.5, shutter 1/60. I am only working one speedlight that is behind her. His settings were different:shutter 1/15, F6.3, iso 100. And he used the speedlight behind her AND a softbox with a speedlight in front of her. THe difference is visible. But on the photos above (that I provided earlier) both of us are using just one speedlight that is working off camera and the differences are my shutter that is 1/60, but I have my f at 1 stop lower than he does. Mine is 3.5 and his is 4.5. Everything else was the same. are you saying that if I only lowered my shutter speed to 1/25 instead of 1/60 and provided my f was also 4.5 I would get the same results as he did?

Shutter speed controls ambient and aperture controls flash exposure. So if you did the same, you would get practically the same image.