a light touch
One of the ideas that has been mentioned here previously, is when using on-camera flash indoors, to approach it with a studio mind-set where possible. Instead of bouncing flash upwards towards the ceiling, or even simply behind you, the idea is to think “where would I have placed my softbox if this were a studio?”
Then it is simply a matter of pointing the on-camera flash in that direction, and flagging any spill light from the flashgun. I most often use a piece of black foam to flag my on-camera speedlight.
The image above is from a recent wedding - the bride & groom’s portrait session in a museum. And this is what the ambient light looked at those settings:
(which were 1/125 @ f3.5 @ 1000 ISO for all three these images)
.
The difference is due to bouncing on-camera flash to my right and 45′ upwards into this area:
(and I used that black foam half-snoot to flag the spill from the flash.)
A little bit of flash will go a long way at the right aperture and ISO combination.
geoff Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 5:50 am
Wow - a museum that let you:
a. take a photograph and
b. use flash
I find this more interesting!
was the fast-ish shutter speed (1/125) the only one you could select to reduce ambient light (when coupled with your chosen ISO and aperture) or was it to reduce shake induced by using a longer lens (camera-shake)?
Neil Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 6:25 am
Dave Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 8:00 am
I can’t believe this is ONE speedlight?! Just ONE light on-camera? And it’s bounced, flagged, and gel’ed too?! (I’m taking a leap here and saying you gel’ed it because the tungsten bulbs look white). I would never believe one on-camera bounced speedlight could produce this much light, especially gel’ed down a stop or so, and forced to bounce all over the place. It’s just amazing. Can I also presume you’re probably around +2/3 FEC or higher? Looks bright and the dress is nice and white.
Thanks once again. I keep shooting on-camera bounced and gel’ed and I keep seeing incredible results!
Neil Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 8:05 am
Dave Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 8:08 am
Sorry, forgot to ask my question: Why does the ambient shot look underexposed? I thought an important point was to properly expose for the ambient, then use the flash to fill-in and highlight. This isn’t outdoors and there isn’t a big background seperation so I can’t see why underexposing the ambient by a stop or so makes much sense, especially when you’re forcing the flash to light so much area to begin with, why make it work so hard? What were your thoughts here?
Thanks!
Neil Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Alireza Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 11:38 am
Thanks for sharing this point. But I wonder why don’t you go for faster lenses in these situations? You’ve got a very nice 24mm f/1.4L in your gear. Is it because of the added directionality of light by flash or maybe because of the shallow depth of field?
And one silly question: Could you bounce the flash to your left wall and gel it to get rid of the color cast?
Neil Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Dillan Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
I am an absolute amateur at flash photography, and I’d just like to say that I think you are a brilliant photographer. Your site is wonderful, and I value articles like this very highly. Without seeing your examples, I would not even know that such techniques were even possible. Your examples encourage me to put more effort into flash photography; without it, I would take the same uninspired photos using direct flash that everyone else seems to take. Thank you for opening up an entirely new world to me!
Ralph Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
Hi Neil,
Would you get the same results if you used a full snoot rather than foam flag (half-snoot, if that;s the term)?
Neil Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Allen Said,
July 11, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
Excellent tutorial Neil and thanks for giving such in-depth answers to the follow-up questions
Mistie McDonald Said,
July 12, 2008 @ 9:12 am
This is an awesome article…and will help me a lot when I’m shooting. I was wondering though -why have the ISO so high? I understand for action stuff, but why for portraits due to grain issues. I do know the higher the ISO the more light sensitive it is..but the grain/noise would be greater to. Anyway I am definatly checking out your other articles and its good to know this article was about a speed-light cause that’s what I have on my Canon. I love that flash…Great tutorial!
Neil Said,
July 12, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Han Cheng Said,
July 12, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
You managed to bounce the light?
I thought in museums, the ceilings are too high and bounce flash is rendered useless?
I have a stofen-omibounce + SB600. Tried in a museum once but the ceilings are too high to bounce.
Neil Said,
July 13, 2008 @ 1:49 am
Allen Said,
July 14, 2008 @ 10:09 am
The Stofen would drop the light output quite a bit, wouldn’t it? I’ve learned (probably from Neil) that if I’m bouncing the light to remove any diffuser, the bounce itself is diffusing the light plenty
Tom K. Said,
July 14, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Neil,
Thank you once again for this brilliant (no pun intended) lesson on how to use on camera flash more intelligently.
I am wondering what flash zoom setting you used in the example photos. I have a 580ex and am a bit confused by flash zoom settings.
How do you determine what zoom setting to use when shooting photo in these situations?
Regards,
Tom K.
Neil Said,
July 14, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
Tom K. Said,
July 14, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Many thanks for the info Neil. This web site is one of the finest gems for learning flash on the planet.
Regards,
Tom K.
Harry Simpson Said,
July 15, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
Neil,
Have another wedding this weekend and stopped by for some inspiration….
Question: when half snooting and bouncing flash - which part of the flash did you snoot - the side away from the subject or did you use it like a gobo?
And I suppose you’re shooting ETTL with the flash set at normal power?
Thanks
Harry
Neil Said,
July 15, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
Rachel Said,
July 16, 2008 @ 2:27 am
Hi neil just wanted to clarify something. In manual mode someone told me the other day that E-TTL flash doesn’t work? I am a little confused because I know you work in manual mode setting your camera depending on wether you are using flash to fill or work with ambient and then compensate accordingly. Clarification would be great. thanks
Lucian Said,
July 16, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Dear Rachel,
As I’ve been an avid reader of Neil’s tutorials and techniques for quite awhile, lemme see if I can answer some of your queries for him (also for me to find out if I’ve gotten his teachings right.)
What you described is pretty much what Neil has been teaching:
- work in manual mode
- set ambient exposure depending on whether you want to use flash as fill flash or to be an impt source of light (for the former you would have to meter the ambient light for proper exposure; while for the latter some degree of underexposure is usually required to achieve an overall appropriate exposure after flash is added in)
- decide on the appropriate flash exposure compensation
i) for fill flash, usu some deg of negative FEC is require to prevent it from appearing too harsh
ii) for flash as an alternative light source, the amt of FEC varies depending on the situation (and how you arrive at the right value is by a combination of experience + some trial and error)
PS: Perhaps the “manual mode” that someone else told you about refers to manual flash mode and not manual exposure mode per se (sounds similar but completely different). In manual flash mode, there is no metering by the flash unit to determine what it thinks is the appropriate flash output - the flash unit relies on you to decide how strong the output is. It is thus a different flash mode as compared to ETTL flash.
Otherwise, if you are talking about manual exposure mode, then both ETTL and manual flash works perfectly fine.
(I really hope I haven’t confused you or anything. If I have made a mistake regarding anything, Neil, please correct me =)
Neil Said,
July 16, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
Dave Said,
July 16, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
I tried this with a large area such as this and I’m not convinced that half-snooting in a situation like this makes any noticable difference. The amount of forward directional light is very little and not much of it is making a large impact at this distance. Unless I am misunderstanding exactly how much of the strobe is actually pointing at the subject? I imagine it is pointed up and to your right, nearly over your right shoulder. If I were the groom, could I see the flash head from where I was standing?
Have you tried a comparison leaving it on or off? I suspect, in the heat of shooting, I would just leave it on and forget about it.
Thoughts?
Neil Said,
July 16, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Rachel Said,
July 16, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Thanks for the clarification Lucian. When you are relatively new to all of this flash business you can very easily doubt yourself. How you described the teachings of neil is exactly what I thought.
The individual may have as you said misunderstood what I meant …or…. may not know as much as what they think. I have suggested to a few people the techniques taught on planetneil and have met with a condescending, “well when you have been doing this as long as I have…” Their loss.
Neil, do you use independent light meter’s. Should we have one and learn how to use it. This is something I really don;t know a lot about and if it is going to help me create better shots would love to know and learn more.
I am sure you are never short of things to teach here but if you are ever looking for an idea it is something not many people bother with
Neil Said,
July 17, 2008 @ 2:03 am
Lucian Said,
July 17, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Hi Rachel, if I may again:
I think light meters are very accurate ways of measuring exposure, but as Neil has pointed out, it may not have *that* crucial a role in the digital era as compared to film days where messed up exposures meant wasted time and money.
I don’t use external light meters personally because
i) it’s an extra load to carry around, esp when you need to be on the move (for the kind of photography I like). There’s already enough in the form of camera + lens + flash +/- tripod to lug around as it is.
ii) I find it an acceptable compromise to use the camera’s light meter and adjust based on test shots / histogram results.
It never kills to use a light meter, and some purists may insist on it, but to me it is a personal preference (like many things in photography) and you will have to see if it is beneficial for you (but like Neil said, the knowledge is never wasted =)
——–
Re: the comments made by others regarding the teachings here:
I have to admit that I’m not someone who just take people’s teachings for granted. I truly have to see the logic and reasoning behind the words in order to be fully convinced.
And convinced is what I have been after having read many of Neil’s articles. Not just regarding flash photography, but I’ve found his reasoning behind his articles of exposure modes, camera shake, why we shouldn’t be too hung up on noise and high ISO (to list a few) pretty solid.
The final test is how it applies in RL though, and the results have been wonderful. In the end, I would say let the pictures speak for themselves and find what works for you.
Rachel Said,
July 21, 2008 @ 1:28 am
Thanks Neil and also Lucian for your comments. I really appreciate people’s willingness to share their knowledge and opinion. I am on a very tight budget and I have to think very carefully about the next addition to my kit bag. What you say makes sense to me and I will for now skip the light meter and put the $$$$ to something else, thanks
Yiftach Said,
July 24, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
First time looking at your site, Wow ! Thanks.
Just a comment about light meters, I find that when I am doing a family grouping inside and using umbrellas and studio flashes, I can easily wind up over exposing one side of the grouping by having for example, my right flash one stop or more brighter than my left flash. I can not see this on my cameras monitor !
This can cause me lots of problems when you have people in white dresses and men in black etc. I use a light meter to make sure my flash is even from both sides of the large family grouping.
Jeff Said,
August 5, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
Hey Neil,
Great post (as usual). Question: For this shot, you underexposed by 1.5 stops, but yet used 0 exposure compensation. Why don’t you need +1.3 ( or +1.7) FEC to compensate for the underexposure of the ambient? I understand the concept of exposure compensation (both FEC and in camera: +1 or so for white subject; -1 or so for black, etc.), but I keep wanting to equate FEC with ‘power’. Is that wrong? Like my above question indicates, I would think you’d need extra flash ‘power’ to make up for the 1.5 underexposure. I’d appreciate your thoughts. Thanks!
- Jeff
Neil Said,
August 8, 2008 @ 11:02 pm