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 »’)

This image from the recent photo-session with Amy and Nick in Manhattan received a number of comments and questions about the technique.  The basic camera settings for several sequences of images here, were 1/20th (at f8) and 1/10th @ f11.  The image above was one of a sequence at 1/20th.  But there’s more to it …

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

Amy and Nick are one of my couples whose wedding I am photographing later this year.  They met up with me in Bryant Park in Manhattan this past weekend, and course we had to get photographs of them going for a ride on the carousel.  

Every time they went by me on the carousel, I would fire off a series of images. The carousel presented a lighting problem in that towards the outside, it was brightly lit by clouded sun .. and towards the inside, it would be much more shaded.  Usually I will try to control the contrast of a scene by using fill-flash of some kind.  But in this situation with the carousel, and given the the scope of this kind of shoot, getting a perfect photo in-camera would be impossible.

Simple on-camera fill-flash would not help here because there are parts of the carousel in the way.  Also, as they swung by me, Nick would be much closer to me and the fill-flash would be of no help whatsoever in getting more light onto Amy.

Therefore, because of the wide range in exposure from the outside of the carousel to the interior, the images I took here needed some additional work in Photoshop to achieve the final result I envisioned for my couple.

__(’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 »’)

Many photographers who have entered the industry in the last several years aren’t readily aware that a number of the digital techniques and special effects available today in Photoshop, are actually based on processes that were available to film shooters of past years.

One effect that seems to be a particular favourite of photographers recently is cross-processing - an effect where colours are made more vivid, and the tonality and contrast are skewed to create a high-fashion or slightly surreal effect.

Fuji Sensia 200 exposed at 125 ISO - processed as C41 print film.
Nikon F90 camera;  Nikon 24-120 mm f3.5 - f4.5
Johannesburg, ca 1998

.
Currently I shoot exclusively in the digital format, but before digital, I used slide film for most of my personal photography. With no darkroom available to me or the inclination to use one, I had very limited options to manipulate the images I got on slide film.  Cross-processing however, is a fairly easy and really amazing technique that is accessible to anyone who uses a one-hour lab.

Cross-processing entails developing film in non-compatible chemistry.  Transparency film uses E6 chemistry and print film uses C41 chemistry.  So with cross-processing you would switch film and chemistry combinations, developing colour negatives in E6 and vice versa.  Hence … cross processing.

If print film (negative film) is developed in E6 (transparency) chemistry instead of the usual C-41 process, then a positive image will appear on the film. In similarly when transparency film is developed with a C41 process (like in a 1-hour lab), then it will produce a negative image - which can then be printed.

Due to the incompatible chemistry required for the two types of films, the contrast and colours go haywire. Wonderfully so!

Fuji Sensia 200 exposed at 125 ISO - processed as C41 print film.
Nikon F90 camera;  Nikon 24-120 mm f3.5 - f4.5
Johannesburg, ca 1998

.
For anyone who would like to try this technique, it is still accessible to anyone who uses a film one-hour lab. Simply shoot on E6 (transparency) film and ask your one-hour lab to process it as print film.

Photographs that would look best with cross-processing, are those with a simple and bold composition. Subjects or scenes which are inherently more colourful also tend to work best.

The lighting should preferably also be fairly flat, and not too contrasty, since the highlights will blow out and shaded areas be overly dark. Cross-processing increases the contrast a lot - though you may want to use this for effect.

What helps to retain shadow detail in the negative, is to over-expose the film by a stop.  That extra bit of exposure will also give more colour saturation. Push processing isn’t recommended, because cross-processing already makes for a very contrasty print, and push-processing may increase contrast too much.

According to some magazine articles, Kodak slide film responds better to cross-processing than Fuji, but I have only tried Fuji slide films - Fuji RD 100 and Fuji Sensia 200 - both with great results.  The results differed between those two films, but as to what is better is difficult to judge, since the results depend on the final filtration and exposure decided on by the mini-lab operator I use.  I always handed my exposed film in at the one-hour lab with clear instructions that Iactually do want slide film developed as if it were a print film.

Fuji Sensia 200 exposed at 125 ISO - processed as C41 print film.
Nikon F90 camera;  Nikon 24-120 mm f3.5 - f4.5
Johannesburg, ca 1998

.
The results you get back from the lab will vary greatly from lab to lab and who prints them for you. Since the negs look nothing like normal colour negatives, and the filtration to get decent results is vastly different from a normal neg.  So your lab owner needs to like you a lot as well for you to get decent results this way.

Even though the cross-processed effect can also be created digitally - the simple technique here is still valid for film shooters.  The final result with cross-processed film may not be predictable - but because the tonality and colour is so different you can’t really fail for the results will be surprising and out of the ordinary.

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.

(1/20th @ f2.8 @ 1250 iso)

I am frequently asked whether I use a tripod at all to help overcome the slow shutter speeds that I often shoot at.  The question also often relates to shooting handheld, below the arbitrary value of 1/60th of a second.

The choice of shutter speed at which you will get a sharp (enough) image will depend on a number of factors, such as how fast your subject is moving and at what angle compared to your camera, and whether you are panning with your subject.  And also choice of lens, and camera’s sensor size, and your own ability to hold a camera steady.  And luck.  And also on how large you want to display the image.

I’m not going to attempt a broad explanation covering every possibility that we’ll encounter as photographers, but answer the question in terms of the work that I do - which is primarily wedding and on-location portrait photography.  

My own preference is for ’sharp’. I like crisp images, and don’t much like too much motion blur.  But this is a personal artistic choice.  So I tend to shoot at higher shutter speeds where I can.  Part of this is simply because I am not that steady in hand-holding a camera.

And in attaining higher shutter speeds, I tend to use fast optics, or shoot at higher iso settings.  Or I just use flash at times to stop motion blur.   But there are times when I am shooting in low light, and have to use a slow shutter speed …

Now I know this will aggravate many photographers, and perhaps rightly so .. but I rarely use a tripod.  I have two of them that I constantly have in the car (okay, okay .. van) that I travel to shoots with. One of the tripods is a big beast, and the other a superlight carbon-fibre tripod. (Both are made by Manfrotto.)

For most of the photography work that I do, I find that my shooting style is too fast-paced for a tripod, and hampers the fluidity with which I want to work.
So as an alternate to using a tripod, I make do with:
- stabilised lenses,
- being careful in steadying myself, or
- purposely placing my subject such that they are shaded and will be lit by flash.

In this first example, which has appeared elsewhere on these pages: 
The piano player is shaded compared to the brighter background.  So he was mostly lit by flash .. and this would’ve frozen any camera shake.  (The ultra-wide angle lens would also help mask camera shake in this instance.)   Any noticable camera shake would’ve been in the out-of-focus background. ie .. you’d never notice.

(1/15th @ f4 @ 800 iso)

.
In fact, I use this idea in how I very often specifically set people up in areas where they are shaded in comparison to the background. I then  use the instantaneous burst of flash to freeze any noticable camera shake.  This next image, an impromptu portrait of my friend Thomas, shows in part how I set out to manipulate such a scenario. 

I deliberately positioned him in a darker part outside this venue, and then lit him with bounced flash.  In this case, the shutter speed of 1/100th was fairly high, but the technique would’ve worked just as well at a much slower shutter speed - simply because the flash would’ve stopped any noticable camera shake.

.
In this image - a candid photo of a mom and her daughter, the flowergirl - I was shooting at a slow shutter speed, but knew that the low ambient light would barely register, and therefore flash would stop any camera shake.  (The stabilised lens just clinched the deal.)

.
With this photo below, the background was lit by a (manual) Q-flash triggered with a radio slave, and the foreground is light from a bedside table lamp. To enable the tungsten light to spill enough light onto the bride for the camera to register, I had to use a slow shutter speed of 1/40th (@ f2.8).   I controlled how bright my background is, by changing my ISO and aperture … and then I could control how bright the tungsten light would appear in relation to that, by riding my shutter speed. 

The slow shutter speed here was possible because I used a stabilised lens.  But I also ensured success by shooting a sequence of images. So part of my slow-shutter speed technique, is to make sure I take a series of shots.

Stabilised lenses are essential additions to any camera bag.  It enables you to get sharp images under circumstances that would be difficult otherwise.  With the image at the top of this posting, the slow shutter speed was just due to the low light levels - and the stablised lens was crucial.   

In this engagement session, I was able to get a slow enough shutter speed (1/20th @ f10) to get the New York taxi cabs to streak past. The stabilised lens was essential here.

.
Therefore attaining a usable image at a slow shutter speed, is not just down to a single thing that we could do - but a combination of techniques applied with some thought.

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.

… aperture / shutter speed / ISO

Those are the three controls we have over our exposure of ambient light.
But depending on whether we are using manual flash or TTL flash, our control over our flash (in relation to our ambient light), changes somewhat.

To recap quickly from the previous posting where I went over the differences between manual flash, and TTL flash.

With manual flash,  two (of the four) things that control our exposure:
 - aperture,
 - ISO.

With TTL flash,  we have only one control over our flash exposure:
 - flash exposure compensation.

The reason for this, as explained is that our two controls that affect manual flash, seemingly become transparent with TTL flash.  And therefore we have to control TTL flash exposure with flash exposure compensation.  The flip-side of this is … that we can now use aperture and ISO to affect our ambient exposure.  This we couldn’t do with manual flash, because it would’ve affected our flash exposure as well, and not just our ambient exposure.

The point of this posting? 
It’s just a correction to a lot of the mistaken advice I’ve seen on the photography forums,
where incorrect advice is given,  such as:

 - aperture doesn’t affect ambient exposure. 
Yikes!  Just because shutter speed is the only independent control you have over ambient exposure when using manual flash, doesn’t mean that aperture doesn’t affect ambient exposure.

- your choice of aperture affects flash exposure. 
Weeeell, it could be.   As we’ve seen, this depends on whether you’re using manual flash or TTL flash.  If you’re using TTL flash, you could use aperture to affect only your ambient exposure. ie .. you could affect your ambient-vs-flash ratio by controlling your aperture. (The same goes for your ISO setting.)

This and the previous posting have been very wordy, so perhaps it is time for some photos again …