Taking flash pictures indoors

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I tried taking some pictures of a birthday party. The main lights were
fluorescent. I tried AV setting on my Digital rebel with the onboard
flash up and the white balance set to fluorescent. The pictures turned
out yellowish. I tried setting white balance to flash and pics were not
much better. I tried using the portrait setting with flash and the pics
turned out bluish gray. I am not sure what settings I should have used
to get more natural looking skin tones.

Any suggestions for the future?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken wrote:
> I tried taking some pictures of a birthday party. The main lights were
> fluorescent. I tried AV setting on my Digital rebel with the onboard
> flash up and the white balance set to fluorescent. The pictures turned
> out yellowish. I tried setting white balance to flash and pics were not
> much better. I tried using the portrait setting with flash and the pics
> turned out bluish gray. I am not sure what settings I should have used
> to get more natural looking skin tones.
>
> Any suggestions for the future?

Flourescents usually are available as warm white or cool white. By
setting the WB to flourescent, you were telling the camera that the
light was probably going to be somewhat blue. Therefore the camera WB
setting "compensated" by making your photos less blue. However, if the
flourescents happened to be warm white (rather than cool white), the WB
setting you selected made a warmer (yellower) light, more yellow.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <11f5je9t6vnerdc@news.supernews.com>, not@real.address
says...
> Use RAW... (Note.. I don't use RAW all the time, but this is
> one case I do).
>
> This may sound elaborate, but it works.
>
> When I'm shooting under any light (other than tungsten or
> daylight), I throw down an 18% gray card and shoot it under
> the existing lighting.
>
> Once I process the images, I use the eyedropper function in my
> RAW editing software and choose the gray card as the white point.
>
> My software allows me to apply this white point to all the other
> shots taken under the same light.
>
> I find this more convenient that setting up a custom white
> balance at the time.. It works well.

I use this method too, with good results.

Even if you don't have a 18% grey card with you, you can "cheat" by
finding a neutral object in the scene and using that to set your white
balance. Sometimes you have to fine tune a bit, but it works better
than nothing.

If you absolutely have to shoot JPEG, you can create a custom WB by
shooting a white piece of paper or a grey card. You can then use the
custom WB function. You can also bracket for WB with many cameras.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dirty Harry" <nopsam@nojust.com> wrote in message
news:2mDIe.119942$s54.104613@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:frSdnXvt9qfTWm_fRVn-iA@comcast.com...
> > I tried taking some pictures of a birthday party. The main lights were
> > fluorescent. I tried AV setting on my Digital rebel with the onboard
> > flash up and the white balance set to fluorescent. The pictures turned
> > out yellowish. I tried setting white balance to flash and pics were not
> > much better. I tried using the portrait setting with flash and the pics
> > turned out bluish gray. I am not sure what settings I should have used
> > to get more natural looking skin tones.
> >
> > Any suggestions for the future?
>
> Get a white pringles lid (hard to find them now cause most are clear),
they
> work awesome for setting white balance. You put it over the end of the
lens
> and shoot with the proper exposure and then use the custom WB and pick
that
> pic. Works awesome for every kind of light combo.
> --
> www.harryphotos.com


http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photo [...] 3242315317
27#comments
here is more details, anyone else do this? I was amazed at how good it
works.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:frSdnXvt9qfTWm_fRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>I tried taking some pictures of a birthday party. The main lights were
>fluorescent. I tried AV setting on my Digital rebel with the onboard flash
>up and the white balance set to fluorescent. The pictures turned out
>yellowish. I tried setting white balance to flash and pics were not much
>better. I tried using the portrait setting with flash and the pics turned
>out bluish gray. I am not sure what settings I should have used to get more
>natural looking skin tones.
>
> Any suggestions for the future?



Hi there.

Joseph Meehan has identified the problem correctly, as being "Mixed
Lighting".

Some parts of the photos are only lit by the fluorescents ( mostly
greenish ), some parts are only lit by the flash (slightly bluish), and the
rest are lit by both sources. So the WB setting is never going to correct
this conflict.

The real solution is to use a powerful flash, with the shutter speed set to
its highest synch speed, and the aperture set small enough, so that the
Flash is forced to fire at almost full power.

This ensures that the Flash becomes the main light source, and will be much
more bright than the room lighting. The fluorescents will then only supply
some low level light into the shadows cast by the flash. The WB should be
set for Flash.

Roy G

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene Palmiter wrote:
>
> Two ways to be sure...I used to use a warmcard set for fluorescent lights
> www.warmcards.com I think...but now I shoot everything in RAW mode and fix
> the casts in the computer.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Gene Palmiter
> (visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
> freebridge design group
> www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
> "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:frSdnXvt9qfTWm_fRVn-iA@comcast.com...
> >I tried taking some pictures of a birthday party. The main lights were
> >fluorescent. I tried AV setting on my Digital rebel with the onboard flash
> >up and the white balance set to fluorescent. The pictures turned out
> >yellowish. I tried setting white balance to flash and pics were not much
> >better. I tried using the portrait setting with flash and the pics turned
> >out bluish gray. I am not sure what settings I should have used to get more
> >natural looking skin tones.
> >
> > Any suggestions for the future?

Yep. Courtesy of other posters in the rec.photo. groups, there are two
ideas which are said to work well. One is to use an ordinary white foam
plastic disposable coffee cup over the lens, disable autofocus, and
shoot from the subject's position, treating the camera as you would an
incident meter. The resultant blank image is then used to set white
balance. This helps to get the balance right where it matters, e.g. the
subject's face, since you aren't going to get the whole scene balanced
anyway. A second spinoff of this method is that the indicated exposure
read through the cup is pretty close to the correct exposure as per gray
card, but is easier to do. Use the camera on 'manual', adjust the
stop/shutter till the camera indicates proper exposure, and then shoot
your subject at that setting. Play with it first, of course. This idea
came from Alan Browne.

The second is the same procedure as outlined above, but using a white
plastic Pringles lid instead of a coffee cup. I don't know who suggested
this, but it has been repeated a number of times by different posters.

There is also a commercially produced filter-like lens attachment which
is used in the same manner, but is fairly expensive at about $120 US.
See: http://www.expodisc.com/


I personally haven't tried these ideas, tho' I intend to try the coffee
cup one soon.

Colin D.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
>
> Colin D wrote:
> >
> > Gene Palmiter wrote:
> > >
> > > Two ways to be sure...I used to use a warmcard set for fluorescent lights
> > > www.warmcards.com I think...but now I shoot everything in RAW mode and fix
> > > the casts in the computer.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Gene Palmiter
> > > (visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
> > > freebridge design group
> > > www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
> > > "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:frSdnXvt9qfTWm_fRVn-iA@comcast.com...
> > > >I tried taking some pictures of a birthday party. The main lights were
> > > >fluorescent. I tried AV setting on my Digital rebel with the onboard flash
> > > >up and the white balance set to fluorescent. The pictures turned out
> > > >yellowish. I tried setting white balance to flash and pics were not much
> > > >better. I tried using the portrait setting with flash and the pics turned
> > > >out bluish gray. I am not sure what settings I should have used to get more
> > > >natural looking skin tones.
> > > >
> > > > Any suggestions for the future?
> >
> > Yep. Courtesy of other posters in the rec.photo. groups, there are two
> > ideas which are said to work well. One is to use an ordinary white foam
> > plastic disposable coffee cup over the lens, disable autofocus, and
> > shoot from the subject's position, treating the camera as you would an
> > incident meter. The resultant blank image is then used to set white
> > balance. This helps to get the balance right where it matters, e.g. the
> > subject's face, since you aren't going to get the whole scene balanced
> > anyway. A second spinoff of this method is that the indicated exposure
> > read through the cup is pretty close to the correct exposure as per gray
> > card, but is easier to do. Use the camera on 'manual', adjust the
> > stop/shutter till the camera indicates proper exposure, and then shoot
> > your subject at that setting. Play with it first, of course. This idea
> > came from Alan Browne.
> >
> > The second is the same procedure as outlined above, but using a white
> > plastic Pringles lid instead of a coffee cup. I don't know who suggested
> > this, but it has been repeated a number of times by different posters.
> >
> > There is also a commercially produced filter-like lens attachment which
> > is used in the same manner, but is fairly expensive at about $120 US.
> > See: http://www.expodisc.com/
> >
> > I personally haven't tried these ideas, tho' I intend to try the coffee
> > cup one soon.
> >
> > Colin D.
>
> Well, no time like the present, as my old dad used to say. I gleaned a
> styrene coffee cup from the kitchen - a clean one, luckily - and stepped
> outside to have a go.
>
> We have a large white corrugated iron fence around our back yard, very
> bright in the sun. I stuck the cup over the Canon 17-85 lens, AF off
> (stops the lens trying to focus on the cup), set the camera to manual
> and f/11, and adjusted shutter speed to centre the exposure indicator
> in the VF. Came out at 1/400 at f/11. Took a shot through the cup and
> white-balanced on the resulting gray image. Then I shot the fence, and
> the rhubarb patch in front of it. Looked at the LCD and the histo.
> Whites very close but not touching the right-hand end, excellent. Went
> indoors to the lounge, pale off-white wall, large brown piano, venetian
> blinds half-closed. Some daylight, but turned on the fluorescents.
> Stood in the corner by piano, cup on lens, set exposure via exposure
> indicator to 1/4 sec at f/8, took shot of cup, WB on the image, then
> shot the lounge with walls, piano, etc. from across the room. Again,
> great exposure, the walls close to the highlight end on the histo.
>
> Loaded the images into Photoshop and looked at WB. Excellent exposure
> and color rendition, from the white fence and rhubarb to the lounge
> walls and piano, all looked good.
>
> This system works.
>
> Colin D.

Shouldn't need saying, but just in case ... the camera and cup should be
treated as an incident meter. Camera adjacent to subject, looking at
light source. You are measuring the light falling on the subject, not
reflected off the subject.

Colin D.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roy wrote:
>
> "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:42F42282.EA0075C1@killspam.127.0.0.1...
> >
> > .
> >> > > >I tried taking some pictures of a birthday party. The main lights
> >> > > >were
> >> > > >fluorescent. I tried AV setting on my Digital rebel with the onboard
> >> > > >flash
> >> > > >up and the white balance set to fluorescent. The pictures turned out
> >> > > >yellowish. I tried setting white balance to flash and pics were not
> >> > > >much
> >> > > >better. I tried using the portrait setting with flash and the pics
> >> > > >turned
> >> > > >out bluish gray. I am not sure what settings I should have used to
> >> > > >get more
> >> > > >natural looking skin tones.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Any suggestions for the future?
> >> >-----SNIPPED----------
>
> >>Well, no time like the present, as my old dad used to say. I gleaned a
> >> styrene coffee cup from the kitchen - a clean one, luckily - and stepped
> >> outside to have a go.
> >>
> >> We have a large white corrugated iron fence around our back yard, very
> >> bright in the sun. I stuck the cup over the Canon 17-85 lens, AF off
> >> (stops the lens trying to focus on the cup), set the camera to manual
> >> and f/11, and adjusted shutter speed to centre the exposure indicator
> >> in the VF. Came out at 1/400 at f/11. Took a shot through the cup and
> >> white-balanced on the resulting gray image. Then I shot the fence, and
> >> the rhubarb patch in front of it. Looked at the LCD and the histo.
> >> Whites very close but not touching the right-hand end, excellent. Went
> >> indoors to the lounge, pale off-white wall, large brown piano, venetian
> >> blinds half-closed. Some daylight, but turned on the fluorescents.
> >> Stood in the corner by piano, cup on lens, set exposure via exposure
> >> indicator to 1/4 sec at f/8, took shot of cup, WB on the image, then
> >> shot the lounge with walls, piano, etc. from across the room. Again,
> >> great exposure, the walls close to the highlight end on the histo.
> >>
> >> Loaded the images into Photoshop and looked at WB. Excellent exposure
> >> and color rendition, from the white fence and rhubarb to the lounge
> >> walls and piano, all looked good.
> >>
> >> This system works.
> >>
> >> Colin D.
> >
> > Shouldn't need saying, but just in case ... the camera and cup should be
> > treated as an incident meter. Camera adjacent to subject, looking at
> > light source. You are measuring the light falling on the subject, not
> > reflected off the subject.
> >
> > Colin D.
>
> Hi there.
>
> All very good, and it is a good system for working out correct exposure and
> WB.
>
> BUT
>
> The OP was asking about using Flash Indoors.
>
> This system can not be used as an incident exposure meter for an "On Camera
> Flash".
>
> It will be Ok for measuring the WB of the scene under the Room Lighting, but
> the problem is about when there are Mixed Lighting Sources - Florescent Room
> Lights and Flash.
>
> Roy G

Well, you answered that problem very well yourself a few posts back.
The OP's problem, as you said, was insufficient flash power to overcome
the ambient lighting. I also have the 300D, and the on-camera flash is
pretty well useless beyond about 8 feet, which is generally where the
backgound is. Although I didn't spell it out, the idea in those
circumstances is to dispense with the flash and just use the room
lighting with a custom WB set. He may need to push the ISO to 800 and
use a wide open lens - and the on-board flash in 'P' mode forces a
wide-open lens anyway, to maintain maximum range. Note that if you
attempt to stop down by using the Av setting, the camera will then meter
for the ambient lighting regardless of flash or no flash, and set the
shutter speed accordingly, so you could find the shutter going off at a
slow speed with the smaller aperture, and that will just add to the
mixed lighting problem, as well as shake and subject movement.

Colin D.