Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
Shadows
Page <prev 2 of 2
Aug 22, 2016 15:58:41   #
elwynn Loc: Near Atlanta, GA
 
Tou could try a bracket that wound raise the flash and allow you to center the flash with the lense. That would drop the shadow directly behind and below the subject.

Reply
Aug 22, 2016 17:25:26   #
birdpix Loc: South East Pennsylvania
 
Casting Einstein's theory of General Relativity aside and the ability of gravity to bend light rays this one is a no brainer. The only way you can have a shadow on the right hand side of the subject is if the light source is on the left of the camera. Given that the top of the shadow is pretty even with the tops of the subjects heads indicates that the light is at about eye level of the subject. Note the lack of a shadow under the nose and the shadows on the right side of the face and nose. This tells me that the photographer turned the camera up to portrait orientation with the flash on the hot shoe. Newspaper and wedding photographers have been dealing with this since the invention of flash photography. Get the flash up and away from the camera and move the subject away from the background and the shadow will move down and out of sight.

We only need the OP to confirm that that is what he did.

Reply
Aug 22, 2016 17:45:37   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
birdpix wrote:
Casting Einstein's theory of General Relativity aside and the ability of gravity to bend light rays this one is a no brainer. The only way you can have a shadow on the right hand side of the subject is if the light source is on the left of the camera. Given that the top of the shadow is pretty even with the tops of the subjects heads indicates that the light is at about eye level of the subject. Note the lack of a shadow under the nose and the shadows on the right side of the face and nose. This tells me that the photographer turned the camera up to portrait orientation with the flash on the hot shoe. Newspaper and wedding photographers have been dealing with this since the invention of flash photography. Get the flash up and away from the camera and move the subject away from the background and the shadow will move down and out of sight.

We only need the OP to confirm that that is what he did.
Casting Einstein's theory of General Relativity as... (show quote)


Yup...

Reply
 
 
Aug 23, 2016 07:52:51   #
Jim-Pops Loc: Granbury, Texas
 
I saw all the other comments and thought I had nothing to contribute but I have a SB700 and decided to see if I could duplicate your dilemma. I went in our back bedroom that has 8-9 Ft ceilings and shot a small lamp that had a dark shade on it, stepping back and shoting at 70 mm lens setting. Turned the camera sideways (portrait) and I got the same exact results as you did. This was using the dome defuser. I then bounced the flash off the side wall and still had the same problem. I then set the flash to aim at the ceiling and began to get somewhere. The shadow was falling below the lamp. If it was a face it would fall low but you would see some shadow behind the neck and shoulders while a bit softer shadow. Depending on how high the ceiling you might have to adjust the exposure with your exposure compensation up a tick. I took the flash off the camera with a hard wire extension between the hot shoe and the flash got it away from the camera and got the same results.

I had this same problem shooting our club portraits at a local country club. I final got pleasing results bouncing off the ceiling and keeping the subject away from the wall. You said you don't have the room but your file states you have your 18-140 lens set at 140 mm. If this information is correct set your lens to around 70 mm and bring the subject closer to you, keeping them further away from the wall. Once this is accomplished still set your flash to bounce off the ceiling and your shadow will be minimised.

PS. When I had the camera in landscape mode and perfectly set in the middle of the lamp shade the shadow was evenly distributed left and right. Not sure why yours was still off to the right unless you were a smidgen to the left of center and you cropped so you don't notice being off to one side.

Reply
Aug 23, 2016 12:32:26   #
Jim-Pops Loc: Granbury, Texas
 
Went to the studio to test some more. We think you are getting a bounce off the left wall that is removing the shadow on the left. We did some test. We also tried to use a sheet of white fomecore and held it on the right side close to the the subject. Set the flash to bounce off this sheet and it all but removed the shadow. If the wall to the right or left is white you can just position the subject closer to that wall and you should get the same results removing most if not all the shadow.

Reply
Sep 1, 2016 05:08:32   #
Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska
 
SX2002 wrote:
Please don't mention studio lighting as quite often I'm asked to take shots where a studio set up is impossible, as in this case...

Studio lighting is exactly what does need to be mentioned! Not that you should buy and use studio strobes, but what you need to study and learn about is how they are used. Then you emulate the same techniques to get the same effects using speedlights.

That is exactly what the excellent articles by Jim-Pops are about! These shots would have benefited from the flash being moved higher and to the left of the camera (using a remote cable or a radio trigger), and having a reflector on the right side to produce "fill" light to remove the high contrast shadows. And be aware that moving the subject close enough to a wall at the side and out of the picture can provide a great reflector!

But while there are basic setups, every time you do this will be a little different, and this subject is bigger than we are able to convey in even a couple dozen text messages! Go to Google and YouTube to search for "one light portraits". There are several good videos that explain it and show the effects.

One really good video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLXB46ZItIE except that while it shows the effects of different techniques it does not show how to do that with simple portable equipment that would be closer to your style.

Reply
Sep 1, 2016 06:38:55   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
Though it was concluded the camera was held in vertical format with which the flash was attached to the hot shoe and never turned the head to bounce off ceiling. Just shot it with flash in vertical position, the two small flash reflections in glasses confirm it. Tried it and got the exact same results.

Reply
 
 
Sep 1, 2016 06:45:52   #
Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska
 
OnDSnap wrote:
Though it was concluded the camera was held in vertical format with which the flash was attached to the hot shoe and never turned the head to bounce off ceiling. Just shot it with flash in vertical position, the two small flash reflections in glasses confirm it. Tried it and got the exact same results.

If you got the exact same results, the flash had to have been in the exact same position.

Think about what causes a shadow...

Reply
Sep 1, 2016 09:22:09   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
Apaflo wrote:
If you got the exact same results, the flash had to have been in the exact same position.

Think about what causes a shadow...


Seriously?

Your right, is might have been an 1" off depending on equipment differences.....the point being the results were the same. Shadow to the right eye level. I put the flash on the hot shoe, rotated the whole rig to the left 90°, and eye level to center of lens. BTW, I know what causes a shadow...do you?

Reply
Sep 1, 2016 09:47:29   #
Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska
 
OnDSnap wrote:
Seriously?

Your right, is might have been an 1" off depending on equipment differences.....the point being the results were the same. Shadow to the right eye level. I put the flash on the hot shoe, rotated the whole rig to the left 90°, and eye level to center of lens. BTW, I know what causes a shadow...do you?

Okay, you put the flash essentially in the same position that it was previously. Why would the results be different?

Reply
Sep 1, 2016 10:09:45   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
Apaflo wrote:
Okay, you put the flash essentially in the same position that it was previously. Why would the results be different?



Same position as previously....previously to what?????? They aren't different, I don't say they are , (unless I'm missing something here) all I said was I get the same result as the OP by rotating the camera 90° left and at eye level. (which is probably what the OP did and couldn't understand why he's getting the results he got) the OP had a setup consisting of a Nikon SB700 flash on a D7100, I did it with a SB910 on a D750 rotated 90° and got his results....nothing more nothing less. Camera and a flash attached to his camera. Most are getting into all these elaborate ways of what might be or causes and how he shot it. I'm telling you how I duplicated his results, that's all.

Reply
 
 
Sep 1, 2016 12:55:38   #
Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska
 
OnDSnap wrote:
Same position as previously....previously to what?????? They aren't different, I don't say they are , (unless I'm missing something here) all I said was I get the same result as the OP by rotating the camera 90° left and at eye level. (which is probably what the OP did and couldn't understand why he's getting the results he got) the OP had a setup consisting of a Nikon SB700 flash on a D7100, I did it with a SB910 on a D750 rotated 90° and got his results....nothing more nothing less. Camera and a flash attached to his camera. Most are getting into all these elaborate ways of what might be or causes and how he shot it. I'm telling you how I duplicated his results, that's all.
Same position as previously....previously to what?... (show quote)

My mistake then! I thought you were saying it should not do that, but you clearly mean that you fully expect that is what it will do! And I do agree with you.

Reply
Sep 1, 2016 13:40:38   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
Apaflo wrote:
My mistake then! I thought you were saying it should not do that, but you clearly mean that you fully expect that is what it will do! And I do agree with you.


No Prob.... I would have posted a shot showing my result but usually it gets taken down if not invited to do so by the OP.... now we shall put this thread to bed, I hope :)

Reply
Sep 3, 2016 02:24:12   #
greg vescuso Loc: Ozark,Mo.
 
With your camera in portrait orientation, now point your flash up at the ceiling but pull your bounce card out of your flash and adjust your flash power until your exposure is correct. In a small room this should help.

Reply
Sep 3, 2016 06:35:34   #
OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey
 
greg vescuso wrote:
With your camera in portrait orientation, now point your flash up at the ceiling but pull your bounce card out of your flash and adjust your flash power until your exposure is correct. In a small room this should help.


This I know and absolutely it will help.... If it were me and I had no choice but to use on camera flash, (don't understand that restriction either) I would just shoot a horizontal format, bounce the flash (with card out for catch lights) and crop the sides in PP. A concern with bounce would be producing a shadow on his face from the glasses. Sure not the best lighting for a portrait, but if getting rid of that wall shadow is all he's concerned about...What gets me, is why he couldn't have moved to a room with more area or perhaps a room with a window. Shoot with him seated, perhaps a different lens, why a flash at all...don't know I wasn't there. Maybe strict rules of forbidden travel around the office. LOL.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Analysis
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.