Here’s a question that comes up often in emails I receive:  Do I use a diffuser of some kind outdoors or do I just use direct flash, with the flash in the straight ahead position.

The simple answer is that yes, outdoors I most often shoot with my speedlight straight-on with no diffuser or light modifier, especially if I only use my speedlight for fill-flash. 

But then again, the answer is not quite that simple - so let’s take this back a few steps:

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

What are your settings?  -  a question that I am often asked about various images. 
And quite often, the answer is surprising  -  it doesn’t really matter.   
Sometimes the specific settings are of importance, but usually much less so than the method of getting to correct exposure of the ambient light and the flash.

This is the photographic equivalent of teaching someone to fish, versus just slapping a fish down on a dinner plate.  Just telling my settings will reveal very little about the how.  And yet, the how is far more important than just a listing of seemingly random figures.

Let’s look at this recent image from one of my workshops on flash photography - especially since it is exactly the kind of thing which I teach during the course of the day.

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

1/100 @ f1.6 @ 1000 iso

“Dragging the Shutter” is a term used to describe the technique of using a slow enough shutter speed to allow a measure of ambient light to register when using flash.

This term originates from an era when photographers would determine correct flash exposure for on-location photography by :
 - setting the ISO speed according to the film used,
 - setting the aperture according to subject distance  (depends on flashgun’s guide number),
 - then using the shutter speed as the ONLY way of independently allowing more ambient light in, slowing the shutter speed far lower than max sync speed when shooting in low light.

(This worked fairly well for colour negative film, because the labs took up the slack in exposure miscalculation when printing the images.)

However, with TTL flash on a D-SLR, you have more flexibility than this.  And I’m of the opinion that the phrase “dragging the shutter” is archaic in the era of TTL flash photography.

As explained on these two previous pages …
 - Manual flash vs TTL flash,
 - juggling the three controls
… TTL flash exposure will follow your chosen aperture and ISO.
This means that your choice aperture and ISO effectively becomes ‘transparent’ to your flash exposure.

Hence you can equally well use your aperture and your ISO and your shutter speed, to allow more or less available light in, independent of your (TTL) flash exposure. (Obviously we have to work within reasonable ranges.)

So it would be of great benefit not to get locked into the idea of “dragging the SHUTTER” to control your available light, when you could equally well use any of the three controls when you use TTL flash.

.

.

Many photographers seem to have a hard time wrapping their heads around this idea - that with TTL flash it isn’t only the shutter speed that you can control, but that you can now use all three settings (shutter speed, aperture, iso), to control how your available light registers .. and still not affect your flash exposure.

Let’s look at all of this in relation to some images:

1/100  @  f1.6  @  1000 iso
Canon 1Dmk3 / Canon 85mm f1.2 II / Canon 580EX

.

1/125  @  f1.6  @  1250 iso
Canon 1Dmk3 / Canon 85mm f1.2 II / Canon 580EX

.

1/100  @  f2.0  @  1600 iso
Canon 1Dmk3 / Canon 85mm f1.2 II / Canon 580EX

If you look at my settings for all three images, my shutter speeds weren’t all that slow, BUT if you look at the images you’ll notice that the available light most definitely did register.  And this was because of my choice of aperture and ISO.  With a wide aperture, and a high ISO,  I allowed ambient light to register, and give context to my photographs.  And then I added TTL flash to it, and exposed correctly for my subjects, opening up shadows and controlling contrast and cleaning up skin tones.

I didn’t need to specifically “drag my SHUTTER” to get to this point.

What is at the very heart of this, is the idea that you get better results with on-location flash photography, when you make sure your ambient light registers to some extent - whether you use your aperture, ISO or shutter speed.

So in trying to understand this technique, don’t stare yourself blind against the idea that shutter speed is the only thing which allows you to independently control your ambient light, separate from your flash exposure.  With modern (ie, TTL) flash photography, this technique has become a lot more interesting and versatile.

The reason why I want (if possible) only indirect light from my on-camera flash, is that any direct flash looks too harsh.

Here’s a typical example:
As you can see, using the Stofen helps to disperse some light and is a huge step up from direct flash.  But you can also see in the entire frame that the light from top to bottom is uneven.  In the close-up you can see how there is a hard shadow on the bride’s face, as well as some specular reflection on her skin from the flash directly from the Stofen.  And in some way, any time there is flash directly from the flash modifier on your subject, you get this kind of light.  It is inevitable. 

On the right-hand side images, I simply took the Stofen off, and pointed the flash over my shoulder into the rest of the hallway.  As you can clearly see, having only indirect light from the flashgun, completely changes the look of the image.

.
Remember :  any time your subject can see your flash-tube you have direct flash.

This implies that if you are ”bouncing” flash with the flash set to 45′ upwards, you’re not doing anything to improve your flash photography.
There are  occasional times to do that with specific intent, but mostly it just gives bad results.

The key idea here is that bouncing your flash does not mean simply putting a flash modifier on your flashgun and pointing it at the ceiling.

As to why I prefer not to bounce from the ceiling -  in a studio set-up you would most likely never set up a soft-box directly over someone’s head as the only light-source. Similarly, why would you want to bounce flash from above someone, if there are walls and other surfaces around to bounce from ? Pointing the flashgun upwards is a poor choice compared to other possibilities when shooting indoors.

It is with this approach that I want to specifically choose where I want my light to come from.

There are times I do want to throw light forward from my flashgun.
But this is a specific choice, whether a short-cut or a specifically intended thing, or just a limitation of the scenario I am working in.

While the techniques described on these pages are heavily dependent on shooting indoors which provide places to bounce flash off … it wouldn’t seem possible to use these techniques outdoors.  After all, you can’t bounce flash off the clouds.  (Although we’ve all seen photographers attempt this outside. )

So while there are obvious limitations in applying these bounce flash techniques outdoors, there are times when these techniques can still be quite effective.

.

.

As a start, an example that I show in the tutorial pages is of this image taken at a wedding that I photorgaphed in Aruba.

Here I had my daughter hold up the gold side of the Lastolite reflector. And hopefully this gives the idea of light from the sun setting over the ocean. (It had just gone down, and the light was blandly grey.)

.
However, these bounce flash techniques do imply some kind of surface to bounce your flash off.

.

.

But you shouldn’t feel limited by not having an obvious area to bounce light off.
Have a look at this sequence:

Nice evening light:
Settings of  .. 1/125th @ f2 @ 1000 ISO .. exposed properly for skin tones and the dress.
BUT, the evening sky and the light from the lamp are lost.

.
1/250th @ f2 @ 320 ISO …
Nice enough detail in the sky and the lamppost, but the couple is lost in murkiness.

So this is (for me anyway), the kind of opportunity where a touch of flash would work wonders.
So I turned my flash-head 90′ to my left, and bounced light into the shop displays.
Not any particular surface .. just off the general shop displays.

And here are the results, still at 1/250th @ f2 @ 320 ISO.

It works for me.
And I know my client will love it when she sees it.

.
To show you exactly what I was bouncing light from, have a look at the shop displays to the left in this test shot:

… and this crop from another test shot:

Yup, I bounced flash off that stuff.  Nothing in particular .. but, enough light will spill back from whatever is struck by the light from my flashgun .. to give enough light on my couple to enhance the photo.

.

.

 Here’s another example :

It was really dark already. This was at 1/100th @ f1.2 @ 1250 ISO
Canon 5D and 85mm f1.2 II
I was really squeezing the last bit of light out of the setting we were in.  I wanted to use the tree behind them with the last remaining autumn leaves, but the evening light was also coming from behind them.  So their faces were shaded. Not good.

I therefore bounced flash off the brick wall of the temple.  I’d guess it was about 10 meters from where I was standing.  But enough light spilled back to register at that wide an aperture and high an iso.  Because the light from the flash is now coming in from an angle, the foreground doesn’t have that typical on-camera flash look to it.

Here’s another image from the same sequence.
(I did edit this though for the dark rings under his eyes from lack of sleep. )

But in this example and the previous one that I show here, I got lucky.
There was some kind of surface or objects nearby to bounce light off.

So, would these techniques work outside ?
Maybe.  Quite often not, but sometimes it will. It depends.
It will require some thought.

This posting is going to seem a little dry, and overly techy … but it pertains to questions that I am often asked.  So hang in there and let’s go over some of the basics and see how it all fits together.

There are two distinct ways in which flash is handled.  Manual flash or Auto / TTL flash.
(For the purposes of the explanation here, Auto and TTL flash can be grouped together wrt D-SLRs.)

.

.

Manual flash

Firstly, flash could simply be a constant amount of light that is emitted from the flashgun.  In the case of manual flash, there is NO control by the flashgun or camera, over the intensity or duration of the pulse of light from the flash unit.

This is manual flash.  Photographers can control the output of their flashguns by adjusting the settings in fractions of the maximum possible output, eg, ¼ power, 1/16th power.   It should be obvious that the absolute value of ¼ power will vary from flashgun to flash gun, as each model and make of flashgun has a different maximum power.  Manual flash exposure is most easily measured by a handheld flashmeter.

With manual flash,  four things control the exposure metering of our subject:
 - the actual output level from the flashgun, (ie the ratio of the full power),
 - distance from our light source to the subject,
 - aperture,
 - ISO.

Any of these four things can be used to control the amount of light falling on your subject.

.

.

TTL flash

The second way to control flash exposure, is as an automatically controlled flash burst. This flash output can either be controlled by the flashgun itself (usually called Auto mode), or by the camera in conjunction with the camera’s metering system (usually called TTL flash).  When the flash is controlled by the camera, as then measured as the amount of light coming through the camera’s lens, it is called Through-The-Lens flash metering, (hence, TTL flash.)

For most purposes in understanding the basics of flash exposure with D-SLRs, there is little difference between Auto flash and TTL flash.  So, as mentioned earlier, for simplicity’s sake here, we could group Auto flash and TTL flash together.  (There are differences with pre-digital cameras and older flashguns, in how Auto flashguns interface with the cameras, and then the explanation is slightly more complex.)

Anyway, with  TTL flash, the flash output is varied and controlled by the camera’s metering system. This means that for a certain range, our chosen aperture or ISO, or distance to our subject, does not influence our TTL flash exposure.

This is such a crucial point to understand about TTL flash, that I want to mention it again for emphasis. 

With TTL flash, our chosen aperture or ISO (within a certain usable range), doesn’t affect our exposure - and in a sense becomes transparent to our exposure metering. What does affect our exposure, is the reflectivity of our subject, and how large our subject appears within our frame.

This is something that is difficult to comprehend at first, but is easily verifiable with your D-SLR.  There, at home, you can photograph any subject in your immediate surroundings using a TTL capable flashgun.  You can change your aperture from f4 to f5.6 to f8 … and your exposures should look the same.  Similarly if you changed your ISO, your TTL flash exposures should look the same.  The reason for this is that your camera and flashgun’s TTL flash metering system takes care of the basic flash exposure … and can do this within a certain range of chosen apertures and ISO settings.  Your flashgun will emit more or less light as required for correct exposure, dependent on your settings … but your exposures should appear similar.

So, looking back at the four things which affect manual flash, you’ll notice that none of these, not distance, nor aperure, nor ISO setting, seem to have an effect on our flash exposure. (Within reasonable range of course.) 

And it is in this, that the huge difference arises beween approaching metering for manual flash, and TTL flash metering.

The only way to control TTL flash metering, is with flash exposure compensation.  You could control manual flash exposure with any of the four variables mentioned earlier on, but with TTL flash, you would have to change your flash exposure compensation.

.

.

In these differences, the individual strengths of using manual flash, or using TTL flash, can be seen.  And this will most likely affect which of the two kinds of flash lighting we end up using. 

With manual flash, since the flash is a specific level, our subject’s reflectivity or our choice of composition (ie, how we frame our subject) has absolutely no impact on our metering.

This is a hugely important aspect of manual flash.  Once we have our lights set up at a specific distance, and determined our aperture and ISO … then the subject’s reflectivity (ie, how much lighter tones or darker tones there are), have NO effect on our flash exposure.

However, with TTL flash, the subject’s reflectivity / tonality, and our choice of composition, WILL affect our flash exposure.   And hence, we often need to control our flash exposure with the flash exposure compensation. 

More on Flash exposure compensation

.

.

The concepts explained in this section are so essential to our further understanding in flash photography, that I would strongly suggest re-reading this section until it makes sense.  Also check other webpages or books on this topic.  It is also important to your own understanding of flash photography, to try and figure this out with your own camera and flashgun. 

In  thoroughly grasping of the differences between manual flash and TTL flash, our approach to balancing flash with available light will become so much easier.  But that is subject matter for a future series of topics.

There is a fundamental principle in lighting :
the larger your light source, the softer your light.

Using any of the myriad of flash modifiers that are on offer, helps in achieving that - spreading the light from the on-camera Speedlight much wider, thereby creating softer light that direct flash would’ve given.  However, (and this is a big however), these flash modifiers also throw light forward.  Ultimately all flash modifiers do the same thing - they disperse a lot of light around the room, while throwing some measure of light directly forward to lift shadows under the eyes and bring a sparkle to the eyes.

That is a huge step up from using direct flash - (or poorly bounced flash.. ie, flash at 45′ or 60′ forward) - but won’t be as good as directional light.  Directional light falls onto your subject from a specific angle.  This direction can very often be carefully chosen even when you use an on-camera flash indoors.

The image at the top is from a wedding I photographed a few weeks ago.
I touched up the WB in RAW, and that’s that. Simple, and it looks just great.
The light is soft, and the baby wasn’t bothered by any direct flash … since there was NO direct flash at all.

[edited to add on Dec 15 : I originally  used the term 'scrim'. 
I have since changed it for the more correct description of 'half-snoot'.]

The way I achieve directional light from my flash is by adding what is in effect, a half-snoot to my on-camera flash.  The half-snoot will partially block the light, and also direct it.  I also very often when shooting in tungsten light, use a filter on my flash to bring the cold light of the flash closer to the warmer tones of tungsten light. 

I simply stick a piece of gel over the head of my Speedlight with some gaffer’s tape. It is low-tech, but it works.

By gelling my flash for tungsten I change the grungy orange backgrounds to a more pleasing warm tone.

The gel used in the image of the baby above, was full CTO.  I keep my camera’s WB to Tungsten.  And in post-production I fine-tune the WB, since by bouncing my flash, it picks up an additional colour from the walls and ceiling.  The gel shown in the illustration here is 1/2 CTS.  I then keep my WB of my camera to 3800 K, which is still much closer to Tungsten, than the 5400K of flash.

The black half-snoot that I add to my Speedlight is just as simple.  It’s a piece of thin black foam bought from an arts store, and then cut smaller.

I keep the piece of black foam tied to my Speedlight with a hair band that I stole from my daughter.  Yup, low-tech and simple … and it works!

This piece of black foam around my Speedlight has two advantages:
1. Directional light.  I can now much more precisely direct where I want my light to come from.
2. Less annoying to others.  In turning my flash to the side or to point behind me, I would risk blasting other people directly in the face with flash. This piece of black foam keeps that from happening.  I now direct my flash over people’s heads, and no flash hits people directly in the eyes.

And thatis the flash modifier I most often use. Total cost is less than $2.oo However, if you feel the need to splash some money on hardware that is custom-made for you, send $40 to my Paypal account.  I will cut a piece of foam for you, add the hair band, and even sign it with silver pen. Oh, go on, you know you want one. It will surely become a collectible.

The additional advantage with this light modifier is that you retain the cool all-black stealthy ninja-photographer look. This is Elisabeth, who often works with me as a 2nd photographer. She’s cool.

.

.

The only other light modifier that I use, is a Stofen cup.  This I use when I am in a situation where I do need light thrown directly forward. I also use it in rooms where the ceiling is too high to successfully shoot with the black half-snoot.

However, I still want a measure of control over where I direct my light.  Therefore I cut a hole in the top of the Stofen so that the majority of light can still be thrown in a direction of my choice, instead of being scattered all around. (I do keep a spare Stofen on hand that is unblemished, as well as an Amber coloured Stofen.)

To be able to flip the Stofen in and out of position, I keep it down with a piece of gaffer’s tape.  So if I want to take a shot without it, I simply flip it over.

.

.

And there they are - the only light modifiers that I use when I use on-camera Speedlights.
In my weddings and portrait work,  I often do use off-camera lighting, whether Speedlights or Q-flashes.  But with on-camera strobes, these are the only light modifiers I use.  And they are all I need.

Several photographers have asked me how in much of my photography has flash been used.  And I would say that about 80% of my work when I photograph weddings and environmental portraits, has flash of some kind.

Whether nearly all flash :

(a single on-camera speedlight, gelled to tungsten, and bounced over my left shoulder,
1/25th @ f4 @ 1600 iso)

.

(Once again, a single on-camera speedlight, gelled to tungsten, and bounced over my left shoulder,
1/100th @ f2.8 @ 2000 iso)

.
… or a healthy mixture of flash and available light …
(both these next images also had the flash gelled for tungsten, but I  
dialled down appropriately to match ambient light the way I wanted to.
I also took care in controlling the direction of my flash.)

.
…. or just a touch of fill-flash.
(juuuuust enough to lift the shadows from her eyes, or lift the contrast levels … so that I have to spend very little time in post-production, editing these images.)

(flash directly forward, but dialled down to -3EV to enable just a touch of fill-flash.
1/250th @ f4.5 @ 160 ISO)

.

(flash once again directly forward, but dialled down to -2EV to enable just a touch of fill-flash.
1/200th @ f5.0 @ 200 ISO)

.
Or sometimes only the available light when the existing light is just perfect.

(1/250th @ f4 @ 640 ISO)

.

(1/320th @ f2 @ 640 ISO)

.
Whatever needs to be done to create a flattering image.

It isn’t just a about sense of aesthetics:
1. Reducing my post-production time is a strong consideration whether I should use flash or not. At best, I only want to touch up WB and exposure and still have images that look great.
2. I want to give the bride the best photos on the day that I can get, without clinging to any particular rigid ideology.

.
Oh, and can we just dispell one silly notion here … that being able to shoot at a high ISO enables you not to use flash. The decision to use alternate lighting (whether flash or video lights or reflectors) has more to do with the quality of light, than the light levels. Those are two distinctly different aspects .. quality and quantity of light.

.
Back to the topic … In portaiture and wedding photography, my intention though is always to create flattering images, combined with a story-telling approach, and one that is not intrusive.  And within certain contraints, I am always considering the direction and intensity of the flash that I use.  And I am always aware of the ambient light levels, and the quality of the ambient light … and this shapes my decision as to how I use flash, and how much.  And thereby using juuuust enough flash.

Most often when photographers start using their flashguns out of the directly-forward position, they move the flash head to point 45’ or 90’ upward. The idea here is to bounce flash off the ceiling. Even though this is an improvement in most cases over using the flashgun pointing directly forward, this is also most often not ideal. We can improve on this.

If we consider how studio lights are set up, we’ll rarely see a light source directly overhead of our subject. Top lighting just isn’t as flattering as light coming in from an angle to the subject. And in the same way, why would we want to bounce flash directly overhead of our subjects?

The subtitle of this post should be: You don’t really need that Lightsphere .
(Or whatever is the flavour of light modifier for this particular month.)

We need to consider the direction of our light carefully. This is one of the areas in which we can really set ourselves apart as photographers – by carefully choosing the direction our light falls onto our subject, we can control the mood of the photograph completely.

We have to think of the actual area that we’re bouncing light off, as our light source – and not of the flashgun as our light source.

Looking at this sequence of photographs, we can see that the direction of light came from slightly behind the subject to the camera’s left. These images were all done using a single on-camera flashgun.

A very important point here is that there is there is no light coming from ‘camera’s viewpoint’. In other words, from our viewpoint (which is the camera’s viewpoint), there is no light directly from directly forward. Therefore, instead of a flat even light, we have directional light. Light is coming in from the side, and creating that interplay between light and shade that creates shape and gives dimension to our subjects. The exact way that flash was bounced here, was by pointing the flashhead 45’ swiveled to the camera’s left, and tilted about 30’ up. To stop any direct flash falling onto the bride, I blocked the strobe with my left hand. This way I shielded the light from her, and the light from the flashgun fell onto the wall to the camera’s left, and slightly behind where she was sitting.

So in effect, our light source is coming from above and slightly behind our bride. This way we’re mimicking the effect that a large softbox would’ve given us.

Another very important point here to remember is, if your subject can see any part of your flashhead, then you are indeed getting direct flash. Or at least a measure of direct flash. Most often this is not flattering. The entire reason why we are bouncing flash, is to create softer light. And direct light from your flashgun will most often not be flattering and negate the quality of light we’re trying to achieve.

Looking at two more images from this sequence, we can see in the close-up images where our light-source is. It is crucial here that we see that the light was not bounced on the ceiling, or even behind us.

Bouncing the light on the ceiling would’ve given darker eye-sockets and that ‘raccoon eyes’ effect. Bouncing light behind us, would’ve given us much softer light from our flashgun than direct flash would’ve given us – but this would’ve produced light that is too flat.

No flash modifier was used, aside from my hand blocking light. Any off-the-shelf light modifier would’ve thrown too much forward, spilling directly on the bride’s face. That direct light would’ve been unflattering.

Just how much flash was used, and how it was balanced with available light, can be deduced from this image on the left.This is the initial image, where I didn’t use flash at all, but used the available light to create a silhouette effect. The same camera settings were used for the images above. Using flash wisely made all the difference.

.
In these two images we can see exactly the effect that the flash has had – and how much available light there was. All the light falling on the bride is from the flash on the camera. And here, even more clearly we can discern from the direction of the light, that the light source is the wall to the camera left, and behind the bride. 

.
Being very specific about the direction of our light source, we’re able to create flattering portraits with the minimum of fuss.

And being specific abour direction of our light source, means we simply can’t place a flash modifier on our flashgun and shoot without putting much thought into it.

.

This web article was first posted in April ‘06 on the DWF, as a tongue-in-cheek reaction - or sarcastic response then, if you will - against the numerous articles and seminars where we photographers are urged to just look for the light.

What triggered me to write this article in the first place, was that there seems to be a trend where use of flash is disdained in favour of only using available light.
As if it is always that simple.

(This article was also published in the Sept ‘06 issue of Rangefinder magazine.)

.

.

Finding the light …

I’ve been so inspired recently by the various photographers at seminars and magazine articles, telling everyone to just look for the light and to find the light.

So many photographers just use available light, and make the rest of us who aren’t blessed with perfect light like they have in la-la-land, feel so inadequate. It is our failing as photographers if we can’t find the light and use it properly.

I felt I had to rise up to this and push myself as a photographer, and just look for the light.  It is there to be found!  Inspired like that, I approached this very colourful Hindu ceremony (April 2006), with a fresh mindset …

The temple itself is beautiful and imposing from the outside, in a blocky New Jersey kinda way.

.
The late afternoon light was incredibly harsh, and I knew I had to do something here so that my portraits wouldn’t look like the few candids I had to shoot outside in the sun. So for the portraits, I moved the bride (and others) into the open shade between the pillars in the front. The strong vertical lines behind them helped to make the simple portraits more striking.

Speaking of striking - isn’t she an incredibly beautiful bride?

.
Well, I was happy at this point. I was able to get lovely portraits using the light and the setting … but walking inside of the room where the guests were going to dance, my heart sank.

The ceiling was high, with only fluorescent lights, which meant the light was top-heavy and dim.

Light levels were low - 1/60th @ f2.8 @ 1600 iso.
Hmmm .. just not enough to stop action. And the client wouldn’t be too happy with hundreds of impressionistic colour smears for photographs.

But .. I just had to look for the light.
Nevermind that this is a dimly-lit New Jersey room, and not a brightly lit la-la-land venue.

This would be MY failing for not looking for the light,
and finding the light,
and finally .. getting to USE the light.

I scoured the place … and .. sure enough .. there it was .. light!

But .. was it available light?
I looked around .. and sure .. no one else was using it.
It was available! I could use the light!
I saw it and found it, and now I could use it!

And boy! Am I impressed! Just look at the light! Look at the colours pop!
People were dancing around me, and I could stop the action if I chose to, and have faces recognisable. The bride would be able to recognize herself and her friends and family.

.
So, a genuine thank you to everyone here who inspired me so to rise above my own inadequacies as a photographer, and just frikkin LOOK for the light.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Neil van Niekerk

.

.

technical info:

The additional strobes that I put up in the corners of the room, were Quantum T2 strobes. They were powered by Quantum 2×2 batteries, and triggered by Quantum 4i radio slaves. The stands are Red-Wing stands. These strobes were run in manual mode, and at 2/3rd stops down from full output, to ensure consistency in exposures in faster sequences of shots.

I also used an on-camera flash which was turned around and slightly bent backwards, with a Stofen with the top cut open. This meant that most of the light from my on-camera strobe was thrown upwards and slightly back .. but because of the Stofen, enough light spilled forward, to ensure there were no raccoon eyes, and that the lighting was as even as I could make it under the circumstances.

Exposure info .. all shots at 1/125th, and 800 iso.
The aperture varied between f4 and f5.0
I diallied the flash exposure compensation down in certain areas of the room.
The on-camera flash exposure was varied from +0.3 to -1.0 EV.
The on-camera strobe was in TTL mode.