Fill flash
Aug 18, 2015 10:34:43 #
Very nice job, you might try to move your fill, off camera to the side to give a little shadow and modeling, otherwise for a family portrait, professionally done.
wayne-03 wrote:
Working with on camera flash, trying to get the right amount of fill.
Canon 7D
18/135mm lens
Canon 580EX speedlite
Flash exposure compensation -1
Canon 7D
18/135mm lens
Canon 580EX speedlite
Flash exposure compensation -1
Aug 18, 2015 16:27:09 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
Wrong! The woman and the table are completely in the shade of a large tree. She is NOT sitting in sunlight. There are NO shadows cast by sunshine on the grass. The speedlight is the PRIMARY light source, not the secondary (aka fill) light source. A faint shadow from speedlight is directly under bench. The sky is providing indirect "fill" light, and the sun is shining directly on grass in background, not on foreground subject.
The primary lighting is indeed sunlight, not the flash. It isn't direct sunlight though, it is very diffuse skylight.
The real problem is that there is no need for fill light when the primary light is so diffuse! Fill is meant to bring the shadows up, but when the primary light is coming literally form every direction, there are no shadows that need filling. In fact if the flash had been set to +1 rather than -1, which actually would make it the primary light, the result might have been nicer (more depth due to added texture).
Another way would have been to move her to a location in direct sunlight. From the looks of the shadows in the background it wasn't too high contrast, but enough that would then allow the flash to be used as a proper fill and varied to actually have the desired effect of adjusting the ratio.
Sep 8, 2015 17:41:49 #
Apaflo wrote:
The primary lighting is indeed sunlight, not the flash. It isn't direct sunlight though, it is very diffuse skylight..
Sorry but the other poster is correct.
The shadow doesn't lie.
The flash is throwing a shadow on the underside of the table and bench...it's stronger than the diffused sunlight...so the sunlight cannot (by definition) be the primary light source.
Sep 8, 2015 18:33:06 #
rpavich wrote:
The flash is throwing a shadow on the underside of the table and bench...it's stronger than the diffused sunlight...so the sunlight cannot (by definition) be the primary light source.
Any place where one of the two light sources is blocked there will be a shadow.
The only place where there are deeper shadows is under the table/bench, where there is additional shade from the sunlight.
On her face and in places where neither source of light has additional shade there are few shadows, and they are not deep. An example would be around her eyes where a strong light from the flash would leave distinct shadows of the rims of her glasses.
Sep 8, 2015 19:02:04 #
Apaflo wrote:
Any place where one of the two light sources is blocked there will be a shadow.
The only place where there are deeper shadows is under the table/bench, where there is additional shade from the sunlight.
On her face and in places where neither source of light has additional shade there are few shadows, and they are not deep. An example would be around her eyes where a strong light from the flash would leave distinct shadows of the rims of her glasses.
The only place where there are deeper shadows is under the table/bench, where there is additional shade from the sunlight.
On her face and in places where neither source of light has additional shade there are few shadows, and they are not deep. An example would be around her eyes where a strong light from the flash would leave distinct shadows of the rims of her glasses.
It doesn't matter whether it's diffuse or direct like the flash versus the shade which ever throws a shadow is the primary light source sorry that's just the way it is . With that I will leave this thread
Sep 8, 2015 19:15:28 #
rpavich wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it's diffuse or direct like the flash versus the shade which ever throws a shadow is the primary light source sorry that's just the way it is .
There was no suggestion that diffuse versus direct made any difference in that respect.
The point is that where there is no additional shade like there is under the table there are virtually no shadows at all. Around the eyes is a good place to look.
The difference that diffuse versus direct light will make is only in how sharp the shadows are. Note that shadows from the very diffuse sunlight are not sharply defined, while shadows from the flash are. That makes it very hard to even see that fact that under the table is shaded from the sunlight. But that shade is exactly why the shadows from the flash can be seen there. And the shadows from sunlight around the eyes are very diffuse and impossible to see.
Sep 9, 2015 08:34:43 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
This is not "fill flash", as it is the primary illumination. You need another, primary light source on your subject in order to have speedlight as fill.
A fill light "fills" the dark shadows cast by the primary light source, such as the sun.
A fill light "fills" the dark shadows cast by the primary light source, such as the sun.
Agree. Look at the second shot. She is sitting in the shadow of the trees, so there is no other light source for the flash to fill. That is after all the purpose of "fill in flash" to fill the shadow of blown out highlights
Sep 9, 2015 20:32:12 #
wayne-03 wrote:
Working with on camera flash, trying to get the right amount of fill.
Canon 7D
18/135mm lens
Canon 580EX speedlite
Flash exposure compensation -1
Canon 7D
18/135mm lens
Canon 580EX speedlite
Flash exposure compensation -1
Per your approval I am posting my adjustments to picture two. I hope they meet your approval
Sep 13, 2015 22:26:17 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
This is not "fill flash", as it is the primary illumination. You need another, primary light source on your subject in order to have speedlight as fill.
A fill light "fills" the dark shadows cast by the primary light source, such as the sun.
A fill light "fills" the dark shadows cast by the primary light source, such as the sun.
Right. And you can see from the tree shadows that the sun is behind the trees to the left. Without the fill flash she would be dark instead of bright.
My vote is "well done".
Sep 13, 2015 22:27:28 #
boberic wrote:
Agree. Look at the second shot. She is sitting in the shadow of the trees, so there is no other light source for the flash to fill. That is after all the purpose of "fill in flash" to fill the shadow of blown out highlights
What gives you the idea there needs to be blown out highlight fill flash to work?
Sep 22, 2015 10:34:49 #
MtnMan wrote:
What gives you the idea there needs to be blown out highlight fill flash to work?
Ishould have not said "Blown out" I meant to say just Highlights. Fill flash is used to fill in the shadows. A reflector of some kind can be used ,sometimes, to the same effect.
Oct 19, 2015 18:41:44 #
I have to agree with bkyser and others that the flash is the key light and not the sun. Looking at the shadow behind the tree in the upper left, you can see the sun light direction. There are no shadows on the subject from that direction. And as mper812 pointed out, the WB is off. I think if it were set for "flash", the subject would be better balanced.
Oct 21, 2015 08:09:27 #
I remember the days when I would have added an 81A or 81B filter to give her a bit of a tan.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.