On/off camera flash advice

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

adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) writes:
> I've got a Canon 300D and want to add a flash to my kit. I'm
> interested in two different applcations and one flash may not do
> everything. I've tried fo figure out the Canon, Metz, Vivatar and
> Sigma catalogs on the Internet and find I can't narrow down my
> choices.
>
> First, I'd like a flash that improves shots like this;
>
> http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9508.jpg
>
> This was shot at with the 28-135 zoom at near-max zoom with the
> on-camera flash from about 25 ft.
>
> I assume the smallest add-on on-camera flash would make a big
> improvement in the shot by allowing me to use a lower ISO and by
> putting some light on the faces. (the house lighting was worst-case,
> with just a single stage light.)
>
> Second, I'd like something I could use off-camera in sync with the
> on-camera flash. I found this flash that looks like what I want but it
> seems to be specific to Canon P&S cameras. I'd like to use it for side
> lighting for headshots, for example.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2315178B

This flash is useless as a slave with a 300D because it will trigger
off the camera's E-TTL pre-flash. Besides, with a GN of 18, and no
tilt or swivel, it is only mariginally better than your on-camera
flash. IMHO, the price ($110) is ridiculous - that must be $30 for
the flash and $80 for the Canon brand.

> How does the exposure calcualtion work with a two flash setup?

That depends on the flash. If you use two or more E-TTL compatible
flashes on a E-TTL capable body (your 300D is E-TTL capable), it is
supposed to be taken care of automatically. Same if you use two or
more auto flashes (auto works on any camera). Neither E-TTL are
perfect, so you still might need to tweak the exposure, but in
principle, they do the grunt work for you.

For manual and vari-power flashes, you need to use a flash-meter or
work out the exposure yourself from the guide numbers.

> Does a 300D camera do TTL flash measurement and exposure
> calculation?

Yes, it does, if the flashes used are E-TTL-compatible /and/
communicating with the body. For a multiple flash setup, this
usually means you need to have a master (e.g. 580EX) or a ST-E2
wireless controller in the hot-shoe.

> I'm not looking for the pro-level lighting and actually like the
> available light look for club photography.

Selecting flash for Canon digital cameras come up so often that
I've written an webpage on the subject. Please take a look at:
http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/flash.html

For club work, however, I would not use flash at all. Learn to
use avilable light - it gives a much more authentic feel. Here
is an example of a photograph I took of jazz pianist McCoy Tyner
using available light only:
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=29631309&size=o
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

In article <q5u0ibau7n.fsf@kaksi.ifi.uio.no>,
Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) writes:
>> I've got a Canon 300D and want to add a flash to my kit. I'm
>> interested in two different applcations and one flash may not do
>> everything. I've tried fo figure out the Canon, Metz, Vivatar and
>> Sigma catalogs on the Internet and find I can't narrow down my
>> choices.
>>
>> First, I'd like a flash that improves shots like this;
>>
>> http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9508.jpg
>>
>> This was shot at with the 28-135 zoom at near-max zoom with the
>> on-camera flash from about 25 ft.
>>
>> I assume the smallest add-on on-camera flash would make a big
>> improvement in the shot by allowing me to use a lower ISO and by
>> putting some light on the faces. (the house lighting was worst-case,
>> with just a single stage light.)
>>
>> Second, I'd like something I could use off-camera in sync with the
>> on-camera flash. I found this flash that looks like what I want but it
>> seems to be specific to Canon P&S cameras. I'd like to use it for side
>> lighting for headshots, for example.
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2315178B
>
>This flash is useless as a slave with a 300D because it will trigger
>off the camera's E-TTL pre-flash. Besides, with a GN of 18, and no
>tilt or swivel, it is only mariginally better than your on-camera
>flash. IMHO, the price ($110) is ridiculous - that must be $30 for
>the flash and $80 for the Canon brand.
>
>> How does the exposure calcualtion work with a two flash setup?
>
>That depends on the flash. If you use two or more E-TTL compatible
>flashes on a E-TTL capable body (your 300D is E-TTL capable), it is
>supposed to be taken care of automatically. Same if you use two or
>more auto flashes (auto works on any camera). Neither E-TTL are
>perfect, so you still might need to tweak the exposure, but in
>principle, they do the grunt work for you.
>
>For manual and vari-power flashes, you need to use a flash-meter or
>work out the exposure yourself from the guide numbers.
>
>> Does a 300D camera do TTL flash measurement and exposure
>> calculation?
>
>Yes, it does, if the flashes used are E-TTL-compatible /and/
>communicating with the body. For a multiple flash setup, this
>usually means you need to have a master (e.g. 580EX) or a ST-E2
>wireless controller in the hot-shoe.
>
>> I'm not looking for the pro-level lighting and actually like the
>> available light look for club photography.
>
>Selecting flash for Canon digital cameras come up so often that
>I've written an webpage on the subject. Please take a look at:
> http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/flash.html
>
>For club work, however, I would not use flash at all. Learn to
>use avilable light - it gives a much more authentic feel. Here
>is an example of a photograph I took of jazz pianist McCoy Tyner
>using available light only:
> http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=29631309&size=o
>--
>- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
>------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks to the people that responded. It'll take a while to digest the answers.

That's a nice B&W stage shot. I assume it's desaturated from a color
shot. Does that make the best of the image noise in a high ISO number
on an available lite shot?

Here's one of my shots. It's good but shot at desperatly show shutter
speed. I'd like a stop or two faster shutter and a a little more
light to fill in the shadows (just a little) get less noise.

I need to take a zillion shots to get one where and the musician and I
hold still for the same 30th of a sec. Note the musicians right hand.

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg


FWIW I'm shooting raw.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

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

In message <dck3un$jd5$1@panix5.panix.com>,
adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>Thanks to the people that responded. It'll take a while to digest the answers.

>That's a nice B&W stage shot. I assume it's desaturated from a color
>shot. Does that make the best of the image noise in a high ISO number
>on an available lite shot?

>Here's one of my shots. It's good but shot at desperatly show shutter
>speed. I'd like a stop or two faster shutter and a a little more
>light to fill in the shadows (just a little) get less noise.

>I need to take a zillion shots to get one where and the musician and I
>hold still for the same 30th of a sec. Note the musicians right hand.

>http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg

>FWIW I'm shooting raw.

I gave up a long time ago, trying to keep ISO low.

What I usually do for hand-held and/or moving subjects in low light is
set the camera to ISO 1600, Tv-priority mode or manual, with the shutter
speed set to one that will freeze camera blur and subject blur. In
Tv-priority mode, I usually set the EC to +1, so that if there is enough
light for the camera to do this, I get a nice "better than native ISO
800" ISO 800 exposure index. If the light is too low, I will get an
under-exposed image, and it will be noisier, but not blurry. Manual
mode is for when the lens' quality or DOF is not suitable wide open
(which is what often happens in low-light, Tv-priority situations).

When you under-expose, it is essential that if you are using ACR, that
you set "Shadows" to zero, if you want your shadows; otherwise, they are
clipped away.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

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

In article <dcml9o$ap0$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com>,
DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <q5ack2t89b.fsf@kaksi.ifi.uio.no>,
>Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) writes:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>> Here's one of my shots. It's good but shot at desperatly show shutter
>>> speed. I'd like a stop or two faster shutter and a a little more
>>> light to fill in the shadows (just a little) get less noise.
>>>
>>> I need to take a zillion shots to get one where and the musician and I
>>> hold still for the same 30th of a sec. Note the musicians right hand.
>>> http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg
>>
>>Nice shot. I think the blur from the musician moving his hand
>>adds to the ambience.
>
> I agree. You would expect a busy hand on that resonator guitar.
>The microphone is almost as much of an antique as the resonator guitar.
>Is that a metal bodied resonator guitar?
>
>> The white-balance is off, however. If the
>>stage lighting was too complex for correct w-b, you might consider
>>converting to B&W.
>
> I think that the direct light from the spotlight over his
>shoulder with the green or blue gel overwhelmed the auto white balance
>of your camera. I would suggesting manually selecting a white balance
>-- make a good guess if you can't take a gray card shot under the same
>lighting conditions for a custom white balance.
>
> Actually -- with the instrument and the microphone, B&W would
>look perfectly "period". :-) Only the microphones on the instrument are
>a bit wrong.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.


Here are the rest of the shots from the same show. It was an old-time
& Jugfest night. I was switching between the on-camera flash and no
flash on the 300d with the 28-135 zoom. The flash shots are *much*
better and still have an available light look IMO.

http://www.6gen.com/JUGS/

I love b&w photography but haven't played with digital b&w.

CRW_8083 is one of my favoriet club shots of all time. The sign says
Brooklyn Jug Band.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

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

In article <hi9te11hlkqj1m9gitul2d4h9jivvcn1v1@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>In message <dck3un$jd5$1@panix5.panix.com>,
>adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>Thanks to the people that responded. It'll take a while to digest the answers.
>
>>That's a nice B&W stage shot. I assume it's desaturated from a color
>>shot. Does that make the best of the image noise in a high ISO number
>>on an available lite shot?
>
>>Here's one of my shots. It's good but shot at desperatly show shutter
>>speed. I'd like a stop or two faster shutter and a a little more
>>light to fill in the shadows (just a little) get less noise.
>
>>I need to take a zillion shots to get one where and the musician and I
>>hold still for the same 30th of a sec. Note the musicians right hand.
>
>>http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg
>
>>FWIW I'm shooting raw.
>
>I gave up a long time ago, trying to keep ISO low.
>
>What I usually do for hand-held and/or moving subjects in low light is
>set the camera to ISO 1600, Tv-priority mode or manual, with the shutter
>speed set to one that will freeze camera blur and subject blur. In
>Tv-priority mode, I usually set the EC to +1, so that if there is enough
>light for the camera to do this, I get a nice "better than native ISO
>800" ISO 800 exposure index. If the light is too low, I will get an
>under-exposed image, and it will be noisier, but not blurry. Manual
>mode is for when the lens' quality or DOF is not suitable wide open
>(which is what often happens in low-light, Tv-priority situations).
>
>When you under-expose, it is essential that if you are using ACR, that
>you set "Shadows" to zero, if you want your shadows; otherwise, they are
>clipped away.

I'm drawing a blank on what "ACR" stands for and have not heard of
setting shadows to zero which I can sort of understand but have never
seen instructions for, in camera. I can do it in photoshop
but it can be a PITA.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.