Flash Question

[gagey]

How do you prevent shadows when the flash is pointing direclty at the subject? I was doing a photo shoot outside and it just got done raining so it was very gloomy outside and there wasn't really outside light that was strong enough not to make their eyes look dark so I pointed the flash directly at them but when there was anything behind them it had a slight shadow.

 

[Derrel]

The flash needs to be elevated and aimed slightly downward and slightly off to one side. A tall, old-style flash bracket like a Stroboframe rotary link for example, will help with this problem. Lacking a bracket, one can use a TTL remote flash connecting cord, like the Nikon SC-28 or SC-29 (SC being strobe connector),and simply hold the flash up high in the left hand, and aim it at the subject and slightly down and to the right. Each camera maker has its own TTL connecting cords.

 

[gagey]

When I didn't have it directly at them their faces were shawdowed. I tryed to change positions but not sideways. I have the sb600 flash I guess I should mention.

 

[Scatterbrained]

You could get a cord that will allow you to hold the flash up with one arm while working the camera with the other. Any way you look at it you have to get the flash off axis. I've actually gone so far as to hold up the white foam lid of a cooler with one hand and bounced my flash off of it. It beat aiming the flash straight on but can get tiresome really quickly.

 

[Big Mike]

The flash needs to be elevated and aimed slightly downward and slightly off to one side.

Wouldn't having it off to one side, create visible shadows? Sure, having it higher will help to throw the shadows down lower, but depending on the circumstance, they will still show up in the photo if the flash is to the side.

That's why the more modern flash brackets flip (or rotate the camera) so that the flash is directly above the lens, throwing the shadow behind the subject, where the lens can't see it.

 

[Scatterbrained]

The flash needs to be elevated and aimed slightly downward and slightly off to one side.

Wouldn't having it off to one side, create visible shadows? Sure, having it higher will help to throw the shadows down lower, but depending on the circumstance, they will still show up in the photo if the flash is to the side.

That's why the more modern flash brackets flip (or rotate the camera) so that the flash is directly above the lens, throwing the shadow behind the subject, where the lens can't see it.

The OP was complaining about shadows directly behind the subject.

 

[Big Mike]

The OP was complaining about shadows directly behind the subject.

I'm guessing it was only a problem when they turned the camera to portrait orientation, thus moving the flash to the side of the lens.

 

[Derrel]

With the flash slightly off to the side, there's less tendency to get red-eye on longer throws.

Speaking of red-eye: there's an old formula on that: each inch that the flash is moved away from the lens axis gives 72 inches of safe shooting without redeye. So...1 inch x 72 inches= 6 feet, so each inch of flash/lens axis separation means six feet of free and clear shooting.

With the flash 4 inches away from the lens axis, you're safe from red-eye for about 24 feet. And so on. With the flash just slightly off to the left hand side of the lens, like on a 622, 544 or Metz 45 series, the shadows are off to the side, AND the flash is not directly on-axis, so it gives a slight bit more modeling/shaping to the faces, and prevents that dreadful, dull, dead-looking flash-directly-over-the-lens look, where there is absolutely zero modeling/shaping of the face. Schwettylens got into a situation last week photographing a family with a shoe-mounted flash, with that deadly-bad directly on-axis flash...it made his subjects look like cut-and-paste people...

 

[Big Mike]

I agree, having the flash off to the side does help with red-eye and does make for more appealing light, although it's arguable how much you gain in light quality by moving the flash a couple inches.
But the question at hand was about shadows behind the subject...and having the flash directly over the lens will solve that problem.

 

[Ejazzle]

do you only have one flash?

 

[Derrel]

The farther the flash is off-axis, the more the lighting quality improves...with each inch away the flash is moved from the lens axis, you get six more feet without red-eye...
I still think the best approach is to have the flash held off-camera, on a cord, and aimed with the left hand...one of the old-school ways is to hold the flash in your left hand and to aim the flash from high, and across the subjects' face(s), and/or to bounce the flash off the ceiling, or walls, aiming it different places while still being connected to the camera with the remote cord. That's a pretty old-school way of doing things, made even easier with autofocus AND digital LCD review right after the shot is taken.

Holding the flash in-hand using a Norman 200B or 400B is old-school...but it creates beautiful,natural-looking light. A wedding 'tog friend of mine from Dallas, Texas swears by the Quantum Q-flash, rigged with the Norman-brand 5-inch parabolic reflector and a diffuser sock...his "direct flash" shots look beautiful, and have a sort of old-fashioned quality about them. They look really,really good,even at long distances like 75-90 feet inside big,huge churches. He has the flash off to the left side of the camera about 5 inches.

Maybe I mis-read or misinterpreted what the OP wanted to accomplish?

 

[Big Mike]

My take on it, was that the OP was getting side shadows while using a camera mounted flash. As such, I assumed they were shooting in portrait orientation, thus rotating the flash to the side, which caused the side-shadows "when there was anything behind them".

It wasn't a question about the quality of the light, IMO anyway.

So while moving the flash off the camera will certainly improve the lighting on the subject, it doesn't address the issue of the shadows behind the subject...unless you are moving the flash directly above the lens...ie: a flip bracket.

 

[KmH]

When I didn't have it directly at them their faces were shawdowed.......

Which is what professional studio photographers strive for, though without sharp edged, harsh shadows unless they want that stark effect.

Otherwise, that's what light modifiers, like umbrellas, are for.

 

[kundalini]

If a picture is worth a thousand words, here's about 3000 of them.

If you can't bounce of the ceiling (for whatever reason) and you are near a wall, the SB600 flash head can be swiveled to fire backwards.

If you're not near a wall and can't bounce off the ceiling, you can get something to put behind you to bounce the flash off of.​

As mentioned, you can also get a cord for your hotshoe and go old skool.​

I also have a flip bracket that sets the flash ~5" above the lens. It will also telescope and give me an additional 14" above.​

The point all of us are making (I think) is that you don't have to have your hotshoe flash pointed directly at the subject.



And before any of you wisecrackers make mention of it, I know I am demonstrating with a SB800. Couldn't be bothered to dig it out, but they essentially work the same.​

 

[DC-Photog]

Increase the ISO and decrease the flash power. Your flash is taking over the scene.

I shoot rainy, gloomy days at 800 ISO (or higher). If I'm using a flash in any TTL mode, I'll power it down to -1 or -2. The flash behaves better and does a nicer job of being the fill light that I want. No shadows on the ground behind the subject.