The trouble with the old card-on-the-flash trick is the very big light loss. The card is translucent so most of the light passes through it rather than being reflected off of it. Secondly, the card is too small to catch much light. The spread of the light coming out of the flash is bigger horizontally and vertically than the card. If you want to go this way, then use a white mat board.

As I recommended before, buy something like the Lite Scoop II. A less expensive and less efficient option is a box-like diffuser that fits over the flash head. This does not work well when the flash is pointed at the subject so angle it up based upon the distance. Aside from the lovely modeling the Lite Scoop gives, you can use it on any flash. Many devices work only on a single model so if you buy a new flash, you also buy a new light modifier.

I would also suggest than you test these various approaches first. The best subject is a mannequin's head such as one used for a wig but any three-dimensional object will do. Use a very plain background. Put the camera on a tripod and take detailed notes on each shot. Not the exposure information but the placement of the flash. Move the subject nearer and further away from the background, rotate it relative to the camera and move the flash up and to the side. Read your manual or call Canon on how to use the remote triggering for your off-camera shots.

Have fun.

I missed this post earlier.

You can buy a good start stand, umbrella and flash bracket for about $60. I like an umbrella because you can shoot up into it and reflect forward or flip the umbrella and flash around and shoot through it. In either event and with a little practice, you can improve the lighting immensely.

As I said before, I think your camera and flash are mated to fire remotely or you can by and extension cord. I bought a 6' Vello cord on from B&H for under $20, if I remember correctly. Therefore, you total expense will be under $100 and you will have a very nice lighting setup.

Even if you do not buy all this, at least buy or improvise a lighting modifier for your flash rather than bounce off a wall or ceiling.

I disagree about the bounce flash and believe something like the Lite-Scoop is more efficient, reproducible and flexible.

The point to my settings is to eliminate the ambient light which varies in color temperature and character. What do you do if you do not have a wall or ceiling? This way, you will learn what a great creative tool your flash is. The settings intentionally underexpose the background to the point of being almost black. You then control the exposure and lighting entirely with the flash to model the face as you wish. At his close distance, you will have plenty of light.

As for the background, the tree is ideal because you probably wanted her first Christmas shot. Otherwise, you can use whatever background you. Instead of centering her in front of the tree, you could move her slightly to one side.

Having read the other posts, I offer my take on this. Although the equipment is fine, I would have used it differently. Though the lens is too short for real portraiture, it gives you the acceptable option of framing the subject in context with the holiday. The alternative is to play down the tree for which a longer lens is better. People seem to favor something between 70 mm and 115 mm.

The aperture is a problem. The focus is definitely off and assuming that the autofocus is accurate (a dubious assumption), then a smaller aperture would help. However, the tree would be more in focus and, for some, more distracting. The solution is to move the subject further away from the tree. As for exposure in this case, I would use ISO 100, 1/200, f/8 and manual exposure. Let the flash supply all the light and forget about that side light. If you want to use an on-camera flash, I would not bounce due to the large loss of flash output and possible color cast from the bounced surface. I currently use the Lite-Scoop II and that will give very flattering lighting. If you are a juggler, take the flash off the camera and hold it up and to the side. The Rebel and that flash have a wireless remote trigger. The better solution is to mount the flash on a light stand equipped with an umbrella. You can either bounce the flash into it or shoot through it.

As for the composition itself, too much red down below and not enough tree up above. Finally, I would add a little negative vignette, about -10 in LR terms, to draw the eye more into the girl.

I hope this helps rather than adding another opinion to confuse you. Good luck and I am sure your pictures next Christmas will be better.

I feel uneasy about these pictures because of the cropping. For me, seeing the whole basket completes the story being told in the picture. Without it, something is missing. And I miss the feet which convey the athleticism of the players. Seeing how high they jump adds to the drama of the moment. The alternative is to crop tighter so we see only the shooter up close.

The 50 mm lens is fine for under the basket even though I think you were too close to get the composition I like. However, a lot of the action is up and down the court so you miss that. I have used both a 18-200 and 70-200 lens. The former is great at getting action near and far. However, the f/3.5-5.6 is too slow for me. The latter makes up for that but at the cost of not getting the under-the-basket action. I can get it on the opposite basket but being behind the basket is more exciting. Add this to my wish list: 18-200, f/2.8.

Two final comments. I too like to see horizontals plumbed true even if the true perspective dictates otherwise. Please include all your metadata in your uploads.

Try this in your spare time.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/02/270467575/watch-breathtaking-new-video-of-felix-baumgartners-record-jump

I looked up the depth of field and there is more than enough. Here is how he shot it.



If you assume the focal length was 20 mm and focus was 10', then then depth of field is from 6' to 42'. This is a worst case scenario. Therefore, I do not think the problem was in the focusing or f/stop. I wonder if the tripod might not have been steady enough and the camera may have been moving.

I checked the depth of field and you have plenty with that short lens. I would still stop down 2 stops to maximize lens sharpness and increase ISO if necessary. Even if you have to go up to ISO 400, you should not have noticeable noise.

Some cameras record the distance in exif data and some exif viewers will even give you the depth of field.

Bob, you are not the first one to make this mistake. We all do. I found this out when I was buying a gray market lens. Sigma USA will service it and in passing, the tech mentioned it to me.

Turning to your picture, interior shots are difficult. Either leave the lamps off or put in very low wattage bulbs. The lamps are not for lighting the room but for making it look natural. Alternatively, set the camera to manual, 1/200, f/8 or so, and ISO 100 to tame those lights. However, the outside will be dark. Or expose for the outside and use the flash as a fill. The reflection in the picture in the upper right needs to be removed. The parallels are not straight. I would fix that with the proper lens and camera profiles followed by adjusting manually.

I looked for the exif data and there was none. Please save with them. I wanted to see what lens and aperture you used. I follow the rule that the lens is sharpest at two stops down from the maximum. That may not give you enough depth of field. However, though stopping down will increase the depth of field, it will also reduce lens sharpness. Alas, no free lunch. Use a depth of field table to plan your shoot.

You can fudge the sharpness problem with some post-processing sharpening. If you have PS CC, look at the shake reduction filter. When it works, it works nicely.

This is very prudent advice. The incoming light may be distracting to the guests and, if strong enough, prevent them from seeing and appreciating the couple and ceremony. That would make life easier for them and photographer. And the photographer will not have to apologize for less than desired shots. You may not need an opaque but a shear may do the job. And also cover up those plain windows. It will be worth the money and free the photographer from these worries. She will have enough other things to worry about.

Good luck. I am sure you will do a good job.

According the Sigma USA, this is a common problem. The usual cause is not the lens and not the camera but rather the combination of the two. The autofocus is not coordinated properly between camera and lens. Sigma will fix this for no charge under warranty. You send back both camera and lens.

Look up their toll-free phone number on their website for additional help.

Hopkins, you are not the first to go through this. I have been there too. Once you realize that you have pushed the camera, lens and post-processing to their limits, you will start thinking about the dreaded next purchases. Sooner or later, you will bite the bullet. I would not buy a prime lens because that one focal length works only for a single distance and in the real world, you will usually be somewhere else.

The preceding posts have covered what I would have said except for one thing. If you can shoot and process raw, you might try that because you may pull out another f/stop or two of underexposure.

Good luck and do not be discouraged. Just save your money.

Kitcar, I did not mean to hurt your feelings so if I did, please accept my apology.

Captain, here is what is going on. You are not moving the picture from LR to PS. You are editing it in PS. As you edit it, save it as a jpg, tiff, or preferably, PSD. When you are done editing in PS, save it for the last time, close it in PS, switch over to LR and you will see the PSD along with the original jpg or raw. If you need to edit more in LR or export it, use the PS-edited file.

Keep that up and we will send you back to drawing with crayons. Meanwhile, how about editing your post?