Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
Moving My Subject Closer to Fill Flash on My Camera to Balance the Exposure of the Subject and the Background
Oct 24, 2021 23:42:10   #
Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS
 
Please evaluate original image of zoo goers in front of the zoo entrance arch and evaluate the under exposed faces of the subjects when compared to the colorful arch. The image was shot with my Sony RX10M4 set on manual at 1/125 second; F5.6; ISO 2000 to expose the arch correctly. The focal length was 12.96mm; fill flash forced; red eye reduction on and the resolution set at 300 pixels/inch. To reach my goal of exposing both the arch and the subjects equally, I had to do post editing. The attached edited version involved: (1) cropping (2) lowering the contrast (3) raising the brightness to expose the faces correctly and (5) increasing the resolution. In a few days I am scheduled to take images of the zoo director in the same location and at the same time of night. If I simply move my camera flash closer to him so that my fill flash exposes his face correctly therefore eliminating the need to decrease the contrast and increase the exposure, will there be a need to lower the ISO to decrease the noise in the image, or is the noise in the edited version acceptable?


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 05:13:53   #
Grahame Loc: Fiji
 
Shooter41 wrote:
Please evaluate original image of zoo goers in front of the zoo entrance arch and evaluate the under exposed faces of the subjects when compared to the colorful arch. The image was shot with my Sony RX10M4 set on manual at 1/125 second; F5.6; ISO 2000 to expose the arch correctly. The focal length was 12.96mm; fill flash forced; red eye reduction on and the resolution set at 300 pixels/inch.


In the original image Exposure (recorded image brightness) there is absolute minimal clipping of the arch lights and this raises the question as to whether you could have increased exposure a bit to open the shadows slightly in the surrounding area, 'if' wanted. A few blown areas (loss of detail) of lights would of had minimal affect on the image.

ISO2000 has given you some noise and this could possibly have been reduced. A speed of 1/60 could have been used as the subjects are static thus resulting in ISO1000. Less noise would have given you more leeway in PP if required.

There may possibly be some leeway with your aperture to open up slightly wider but this should consider the DoF.


Shooter41 wrote:
To reach my goal of exposing both the arch and the subjects equally, I had to do post editing. The attached edited version involved: (1) cropping (2) lowering the contrast (3) raising the brightness to expose the faces correctly and (5) increasing the resolution. In a few days I am scheduled to take images of the zoo director in the same location and at the same time of night. If I simply move my camera flash closer to him so that my fill flash exposes his face correctly therefore eliminating the need to decrease the contrast and increase the exposure, will there be a need to lower the ISO to decrease the noise in the image, or is the noise in the edited version acceptable?
To reach my goal of exposing both the arch and the... (show quote)


By increasing the brightness in PP globally you have increased the noise in the entire image. An option would have been to just brighten the people/faces. As to whether the noise is acceptable in the edited version this is really down to personal taste and is subjective. Also it depends upon what the use is for the image, if I produce something for 'only' screen viewing I don't care how it looks when blown up to a far greater size.

You do not say how you are controlling your flash, but mention "If I simply move my camera flash closer to him so that my fill flash exposes his face correctly". With your camera set up to 'expose' the light arch correctly you could simply adjust the flash power manually to achieve the correct lighting on the face/s.

Grahame

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 09:29:51   #
petrochemist Loc: UK
 
Normally I balance my flash & ambient lights using shutter speed, but here the ambient light is brighter than the flash, so that won't work as you're already at the sync speed.
Increasing flash power or moving the flash closer does the job where more light is needed from your flash.

The distance here doesn't look very great, so I suspect the flash used was an under powered pop up type. It might be worth looking at 3rd party external flash units. Some of these are quite cheap & full of features, perhaps even being triggered by your pop up flash when you want to get the flash off camera. I got a Meike MK320 for my Sony A7ii & NEX 6, it cost under £50 and supports TTL, bounce etc. :)

Reply
 
 
Oct 25, 2021 09:42:42   #
Jimmy T Loc: Virginia
 
Shooter41 wrote:
Please evaluate original image of zoo goers in front of the zoo entrance arch and evaluate the under exposed faces of the subjects when compared to the colorful arch. The image was shot with my Sony RX10M4 set on manual at 1/125 second; F5.6; ISO 2000 to expose the arch correctly. The focal length was 12.96mm; fill flash forced; red eye reduction on and the resolution set at 300 pixels/inch. To reach my goal of exposing both the arch and the subjects equally, I had to do post editing. The attached edited version involved: (1) cropping (2) lowering the contrast (3) raising the brightness to expose the faces correctly and (5) increasing the resolution. In a few days I am scheduled to take images of the zoo director in the same location and at the same time of night. If I simply move my camera flash closer to him so that my fill flash exposes his face correctly therefore eliminating the need to decrease the contrast and increase the exposure, will there be a need to lower the ISO to decrease the noise in the image, or is the noise in the edited version acceptable?
Please evaluate original image of zoo goers in fro... (show quote)


I hope that you don't mind but I sent your second pic through Topaz DeNoise using the default settings. I will delete all copies after you respond or three days.
Then I used PhotoScapeX (free) to "Dehaze" and then "Darkened Highlights".
Note: I did not address the eyes.
Quick, easy, and painless.
Smile,
JimmyT Sends


(Download)

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 10:01:45   #
frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca. For the last 50 years.
 
Jimmy T wrote:
I hope that you don't mind but I sent your second pic through Topaz DeNoise using the default settings. I will delete all copies after you respond or three days.
Then I used PhotoScapeX (free) to "Dehaze" and then "Darkened Highlights".
Note: I did not address the eyes.
Quick, easy, and painless.
Smile,
JimmyT Sends
I hope that you don't mind but I sent your second ... (show quote)


But your ended up with red faces.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 10:02:44   #
gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast
 
Jimmy T wrote:
I hope that you don't mind but I sent your second pic through Topaz DeNoise using the default settings. I will delete all copies after you respond or three days.
Then I used PhotoScapeX (free) to "Dehaze" and then "Darkened Highlights".
Note: I did not address the eyes.
Quick, easy, and painless.
Smile,
JimmyT Sends
I hope that you don't mind but I sent your second ... (show quote)


IMO, that looks terrible, over cooked.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 10:11:12   #
Jimmy T Loc: Virginia
 
gvarner wrote:
IMO, that looks terrible, over cooked.


Ouch!
No need to sugar coat your opinions . . .
OK, now let's see your versions.
I promise that I will respond in a kinder manner . . .
Smile,
JimmyT Sends

Reply
 
 
Oct 25, 2021 10:50:40   #
gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast
 
Jimmy T wrote:
Ouch!
No need to sugar coat your opinions . . .
OK, now let's see your versions.
I promise that I will respond in a kinder manner . . .
Smile,
JimmyT Sends


No need for my version. The OP's second shot is great.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 11:42:30   #
cony25
 
Shooter41 wrote:
Please evaluate original image of zoo goers in front of the zoo entrance arch and evaluate the under exposed faces of the subjects when compared to the colorful arch. The image was shot with my Sony RX10M4 set on manual at 1/125 second; F5.6; ISO 2000 to expose the arch correctly. The focal length was 12.96mm; fill flash forced; red eye reduction on and the resolution set at 300 pixels/inch. To reach my goal of exposing both the arch and the subjects equally, I had to do post editing. The attached edited version involved: (1) cropping (2) lowering the contrast (3) raising the brightness to expose the faces correctly and (5) increasing the resolution. In a few days I am scheduled to take images of the zoo director in the same location and at the same time of night. If I simply move my camera flash closer to him so that my fill flash exposes his face correctly therefore eliminating the need to decrease the contrast and increase the exposure, will there be a need to lower the ISO to decrease the noise in the image, or is the noise in the edited version acceptable?
Please evaluate original image of zoo goers in fro... (show quote)




This is a very tricky situation....overwhelming light on the top and darkness surrounding it. I had the same situation last Sunday. I had a big neewer flash, and tried hitting the people only. After many attempts playing with the flash power, I was finally able to get some uniformity.

But it is very tricky, the light contrast. I would like to see what other experts say.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 13:52:47   #
noobie Loc: South Chicago
 
Shooter41 wrote:
Please evaluate the original image of zoo-goers in front of the zoo entrance


Some folk's approach is to expose for the ambient light *in Manual* and then simply adjust fill flash power to properly expose the foreground subjects. If you're into calculating exposures you can get it in one shot. Otherwise, keep adjusting the flash power level until it's what you like.

Another way of thinking of this is to consider you are making two separate exposure settings - one for the ambient light and a different one for the subjects.

This same technique works when shooting on sunny days against bright backgrounds.

Judging by the shadows of the subjects, the principal light source was to their right side or, if you prefer, to the left of the image frame.

Here's what 10 minutes in Photoshop can do...left it the original frame size and removed the two folks on the right of the frame.



Reply
Oct 25, 2021 15:05:36   #
frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca. For the last 50 years.
 
gvarner wrote:
No need for my version. The OP's second shot is great.



Reply
 
 
Oct 26, 2021 19:58:59   #
ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA
 
I put the 1st image in Affinity Photo and used three layers: denoise, curves, and a blank layer to remove the two women on the right (distractions).


(Download)

Reply
Oct 26, 2021 23:00:05   #
frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca. For the last 50 years.
 
ecobin wrote:
I put the 1st image in Affinity Photo and used three layers: denoise, curves, and a blank layer to remove the two women on the right (distractions).


Now that's good. Good job Elliott.

Reply
Oct 28, 2021 21:02:45   #
Hip Coyote
 
First, keep in mind that this is not some sort of photo that will be displayed in a museum. It is a great family/friend moment...but as a photog, we want the best shot we can get, right? Further, when we critique photos, we need to stay away from words that really do not accurately describe what the issue is...terrible does not add to the conversation. Over saturated red faces is an accurate statement. The edited photo is over saturated. No getting around that.

The other thing to remember, I hope, is that if we want to get better, we have to be CRITICAL of our work. That is how we get better. There is a distinct lack of analysis on UHH...so I applaud the OP on asking for help.

I tried to mess around with shot. See the attached. I selected the subject using LR's new feature, did some adjustments, cropped, added a bit of vignette. I see a few other things that might be improved...horrizon level might be slightly off, the Welcome sign probably needs to be a bit more white...Not perfect...no revision will be. Be happy for the moment, put the photo in a book and be happy! I deleted this after posting...so no worries there I hope.

In the future, suggest you expose for the background with out flash to get it as you want. Add flash to the subject as needed to get that right and go from there.

My opinion only, water marks or names on photos are distracting and do not add anything of value to the photo.



Reply
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 2011-2021 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.