How would you take such a picture ?


Status
Not open for further replies.

marcwang

New Member
Jan 9, 2003
1,112
0
0
East Singapore
www.pbase.com
#1
This picture is underexposed. How would you take this picture ? Note that the subject (me) is close to the wall, and I would prefer to have very little shadow.
Lighting Condition: 1/20s @ f2.8 @ ISO400.

THe room was cramp. Therefore subject distance short, 2m max.



I used vertical bounce flashed, but the image was underexposed.
 

Apr 7, 2002
339
0
0
east
skyetan.multiply.com
#2
Well looks like there wasn't much of an option for you right?
Using a Bounce light you would have eliminated most of the shadow. I have noticed however that in flashlight photography, it would be better if one were to overexpose his of her film by 1 stop.

I can't guarantee that it works for your shot as I believe that different type of camera equipments and films have different characteristics, and thus gives varied results. To fully understand the chracteristic of your camera and film, you would preferbably like to conduct various exposure tests (with clear records) to comprehend what works best for your equipment.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#3
marcwang said:
This picture is underexposed. How would you take this picture ? Note that the subject (me) is close to the wall, and I would prefer to have very little shadow.
Lighting Condition: 1/20s @ f2.8 @ ISO400.

THe room was cramp. Therefore subject distance short, 2m max.

I used vertical bounce flashed, but the image was underexposed.
How high was the ceiling?

Did you use a bouncecard with your flash? Bounced flash should always be used with a bouncecard for frontal fill to avoid shadows caused by top down lighting. This is especially so when the working distance is really close.

In this situation, using a bouncecard would have ensured that the subject will not be underexposed. However with such a close working distance, the reflectivity of the material used to bounce shd be reduced such that the balance of bounce flash and frontal fill results in a pleasing result.
 

Apr 7, 2002
339
0
0
east
skyetan.multiply.com
#4
Zerstorer said:
How high was the ceiling?

Did you use a bouncecard with your flash? Bounced flash should always be used with a bouncecard for frontal fill to avoid shadows caused by top down lighting. This is especially so when the working distance is really close.

In this situation, using a bouncecard would have ensured that the subject will not be underexposed. However with such a close working distance, the reflectivity of the material used to bounce shd be reduced such that the balance of bounce flash and frontal fill results in a pleasing result.
Yep, a bounceard is definately important. It make a great difference to the shot.
 

tert

New Member
Apr 18, 2003
317
0
0
41
Melbourne
Visit site
#5
Zerstorer said:
How high was the ceiling?
Did you use a bouncecard with your flash? Bounced flash should always be used with a bouncecard for frontal fill to avoid shadows caused by top down lighting. This is especially so when the working distance is really close.
IMHO, i believe the problem does not lie with the lack of use of a bounce card. In actual fact, the use of a card out accetuate the shadows; the bounce card is still a point source (just a bigger point).

Did you use FE lock? You are wearing white shirt and standing in front of a white wall. The meter from the flash could have thought the scene as middle grey and hence underexposed your picture. If able, use the FE lock on your face before you shoot.


I would agree with the suggestion to boost the flash output by 1/2 stop if you're shooting film. Just in case...

Hope it helps...

Cheers.
 

StreetShooter

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
4,634
0
0
Katong
streetshooter.clubsnap.org
#6
marcwang said:
This picture is underexposed. How would you take this picture ? Note that the subject (me) is close to the wall, and I would prefer to have very little shadow.
Lighting Condition: 1/20s @ f2.8 @ ISO400.

THe room was cramp. Therefore subject distance short, 2m max.



I used vertical bounce flashed, but the image was underexposed.
I would not say the picture is underexposed. In fact, if anything it's a bit overexposed (unless you did some curves adjustment or something). A simple adjustment of the curve DOWNWARDS reveals details lost in the original overexposed picture:



What I would do is swivel my flash backwards to bounce off the corner between the wall and the ceiling BEHIND me. That will give the effect of a massive softbox, and diffuse any shadows. It will also make the shadows fall behind and below your head, so that they are not visible in the shot. I would also sacrifice some space even though it's cramped, and make the subject move a little forward, away from the wall.
 

marcwang

New Member
Jan 9, 2003
1,112
0
0
East Singapore
www.pbase.com
#8
I believe it is under expose, because its one of those terribly fuzzy, unsharp photos that the labs try to correct. The hair area is very grainy, which I would think is a trait of underexposure ? Not sure.
My flash head was upwards, and I would think the bounce angle did not allow enough light to fall on the subject. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
How to tell if its overexposed or under ? I shot at f3.3 with 1/60 shutter.
The camera metered the scene at 1/10 @ f2.8 @ ISO 400. I was using T-max400CN. Do u think the flash was adequate in illuminating the subject at a distance of 1.5 meters(not 2) with a ceiling of 2.2meters(approx) ? It was facing ... hmm... almost vertical, like 80 deg.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom