Flash
Feb 19, 2012 22:03:59 #
My husband & I just bought a sony alpha 55. We've been taking pictures with it without using the flash because both my husband and I thought the lighting looked better without it. Today I read about using fill flash to make sure your photos are not under exposed, but you don't want the flash to over expose them either. Do you avoid over exposure by the +/- that can be changed on the flash? Also, I am posting two examples of pictures my sister-in-law took with my camera one with and one without flash, which do you think is best?
Feb 19, 2012 22:08:49 #
Definitly the second!!!! and love the expression on that baby's face!!!! Adorable!!!
Feb 19, 2012 22:10:32 #
First shot looks to me as if the white balance is not set correctly. With that corrected, it would be easier to pick between flash and no flash. Not having the correct settings in the first photo makes this an unfair battle.
Feb 19, 2012 22:15:27 #
laineysmama5810 wrote:
My husband & I just bought a sony alpha 55. We... (show quote)
Both of your photos are emotional. In the top image, the scene is warm because the lighting in the room is from tungsten bulbs without a change in the WhiteBalance. Photos appearing like yours emote warmth, intimacy, etc.
The lower image is also striking. How could it not be. You are blessed with fine husband and beautiful child. The Flash however, is cooler than tungsten and is harsher lighting.
By the way, flash photography consumers more battery power. Another way to eliminate the warmth of tungsten would be to change your WhiteBalance setting to tungsten. Keep in mind that if you go outdoors with the the tungsten setting, your images will be eerily bluish, almost like night (which I like to do but rarely).
So...both photos are awesome. Enjoy all that you have been gifted with.
Ray
Feb 20, 2012 01:51:19 #
Well, the Professor likes the "warmth" of the first. I am not a fan of the yellowed aged photo look and PP my film photos before they get that bad. But I am not the one you need to please either.
Flash lightens/minimizes shadow. The second photo is more true to life as the yellow has been eliminated and the picture is crisp and clear. The shadow under the chins is gone and you can actually tell what color the babies eyes are. You could have actual skin tones and eye color in the first too by changing the camera settings. You would have a different feel leaving the shadows in place by not using the flash but some think that it adds depth. It is up to you though... some people like the yellow (Warmth?) and some don't.
Flash lightens/minimizes shadow. The second photo is more true to life as the yellow has been eliminated and the picture is crisp and clear. The shadow under the chins is gone and you can actually tell what color the babies eyes are. You could have actual skin tones and eye color in the first too by changing the camera settings. You would have a different feel leaving the shadows in place by not using the flash but some think that it adds depth. It is up to you though... some people like the yellow (Warmth?) and some don't.
Feb 20, 2012 08:59:38 #
I am sorry but I have to present a contrary opinion on the technical side. Memories are important and I will not address the content.
As pointed out, a definite color balance problem. You will have to use the correct setting in the camera or in post-processing. The second photo shows strong shadows from direct flash. Both pictures are not at all as sharp as they should be. Either the lens is not very good or the focus is off.
To avoid these problems, I would use indirect flash. You could put a diffuser on your camera's flash, enough of the direct flash will be left to keep those problems. I shoot pictures like this with an on-camera flash with a tilt head. I put a diffuser over the flash. You wind up with very pleasing skin tones, modeling of the facial details, a picture in focus, no harsh shadows and a pleasing balance between foreground and background.
Good luck.
As pointed out, a definite color balance problem. You will have to use the correct setting in the camera or in post-processing. The second photo shows strong shadows from direct flash. Both pictures are not at all as sharp as they should be. Either the lens is not very good or the focus is off.
To avoid these problems, I would use indirect flash. You could put a diffuser on your camera's flash, enough of the direct flash will be left to keep those problems. I shoot pictures like this with an on-camera flash with a tilt head. I put a diffuser over the flash. You wind up with very pleasing skin tones, modeling of the facial details, a picture in focus, no harsh shadows and a pleasing balance between foreground and background.
Good luck.
Feb 20, 2012 10:26:05 #
Hope you don't mind but I am learning Photoshop Elements 10. Here is the first photo with color cast removed. (Enhance menu/Adjust color/Remove color cast...and I clicked the eyedropper on the baby's shirt...took 2 sec.)
Feb 20, 2012 10:39:07 #
MtnMan wrote:
Hope you don't mind but I am learning Photoshop Elements 10. Here is the first photo with color cast removed. (Enhance menu/Adjust color/Remove color cast...and I clicked the eyedropper on the baby's shirt...took 2 sec.)
Sorry but the cast is still there. The shirt should be right but when the colors are so far off, everything is off. Or the sample was too big. The white of the eye sometimes is good.
With no good reference point, it comes to making educated guesses as to what works and you may need a combination of tools.
Feb 20, 2012 10:52:52 #
This is the first photo. Are you kidding?
Anyhow I just learned you can click the eyedropper on different places and it adjusts each time. So you can try other spots. I picked a random one on the Baby's shirt.
Here's one clicked in the left (well, the baby's right) eye in case you like it better.
Anyhow I just learned you can click the eyedropper on different places and it adjusts each time. So you can try other spots. I picked a random one on the Baby's shirt.
Here's one clicked in the left (well, the baby's right) eye in case you like it better.
abc1234 wrote:
Sorry but the cast is still there. The shirt should be right but when the colors are so far off, everything is off. Or the sample was too big. The white of the eye sometimes is good.
With no good reference point, it comes to making educated guesses as to what works and you may need a combination of tools.
Sorry but the cast is still there. The shirt should be right but when the colors are so far off, everything is off. Or the sample was too big. The white of the eye sometimes is good.
With no good reference point, it comes to making educated guesses as to what works and you may need a combination of tools.
Feb 20, 2012 11:39:44 #
Certainly better and probably time to turn to the sliders. I find color balance to be the most difficult thing. For me, it is a battle between what I think the scene looked like and what I think it should look like!
Feb 20, 2012 12:57:58 #
Without question, the second one. And yes, you can use the ± setting for flash to vary the ratio between flash light and ambient light.
Feb 20, 2012 15:23:50 #
I don't know about this camera but do you not have a setting for auto white balance? That may help to start with. I personally ALWAYS use a fill flash on people no matter where they are, even outside in bright light. No one wants unflattering shadows on their face. It will fix not only the shadows but will be more flattering. It also will take care of those pictures that people often take that have the subject in front of a brightly lit background. I have seen so many pictures of people in the dark looking terrible but the window behind them looks terrific with pretty trees in the background. Another example is people on a front porch in the shade where the yard looks great but they are dark and underexposed. Just MHO
Feb 20, 2012 15:26:45 #
Claire. I agree with you except I have never mastered the fill technic. Please share with us how you do it.
Feb 20, 2012 15:29:11 #
WildBill wrote:
First shot looks to me as if the white balance is not set correctly. With that corrected, it would be easier to pick between flash and no flash. Not having the correct settings in the first photo makes this an unfair battle.
"Ditto"!
Feb 20, 2012 15:32:18 #
Just use either a pop up flash ( on your camera) or and external flash. That is all there is to it. As long as you are not beyond the distance your flash will reach for the settings on your camera, you should be okay. Most decent flashes will reach up to 30 feet.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.