Direct vs bounce flash
Discussion
When dumped in at the deep end a year or so ago by my wife's kind invitation to a friend of hers for me to do her wedding photography, one of the things I learned pretty quickly about flash (I was a total novice at it) was that bouncing flash was often a good plan if a fairly low white ceiling was present. Over the hols I took a couple of shots that really show the differences (below). The fist is direct flash, the second bounced, both using the "P" setting on an EOS20D (so flash as the prime light source, not fill, in both cases) with a 580EZ flash. Both are JPEGS as they came out of the camera (both look better given an "auto contrast" in photoshop but this is just as an example). I far prefer the look of the bounce flash, which looks more like a naturally lit scene with fill flash, than a direct flash-lit scene.
One thing I bought but never got the nack of using (I just got underexposed images) was a flash diffuser - what the hell am I supposed to do with it?
One thing I bought but never got the nack of using (I just got underexposed images) was a flash diffuser - what the hell am I supposed to do with it?
I always find that increasing the flash compensation by about +1 stop helps a lot too. I have the same kit as you, and set a custom function on the flash to alter the flash comp. by rotating the wheel on the back of the flash. I take a pic with the flash head pointing at the ceiling, and the diffuser out, plus the little white card too, check the histogram, then add/subtract flash comp. until there's 'stuff' in all 5 boxes on the photo review.
LB
(aware this probably does nothing to answer your question
)
examples of some of my efforts here from BTaP 2006:
www.justinfielder.com/joust/main.php?g2_view=core%3AShowItem&g2_itemId=7134&g2_page=1
LB
(aware this probably does nothing to answer your question
) examples of some of my efforts here from BTaP 2006:
www.justinfielder.com/joust/main.php?g2_view=core%3AShowItem&g2_itemId=7134&g2_page=1
Edited by luca brazzi on Wednesday 3rd January 15:51
I thought the EX series were supposed to be fully automatic to give the 'right' exposure (Within their capacity) no matter what. Not so?
I have a ancient Metz Mecablitz with high output but totally manual operation. Full twist and bounce head. 'Twas always interesting to see what was going to come out in the 35mm days ....
The basis of operation was to set a compatible ISO value for the film (or do some mental 'adjustments') and then estimate the distance to subject. Easy if shooting direct - just use a tape or focus and read the value. Close would be good enough usually.
For bounce you need to work out the distance via the bounce surface. Then turn the dial accordingly and the exposure should be OK. There was another mark on the dial if using the diffuser (which does just that and should provide a softer illumination or perhaps also wider illumination more noticable when bouncing). However the diffuser reduces output so range is reduced and you need to compensate accordingly. The Metz diffuser loses about a stop iirc.
Within the controls parameters of distance dial, ISO setting and f-stop marks, with or without diffuser, you had the adjustments available for the exposure (shutter sync speed being fixed on the cameras I had back then (and still have). So if you were relatively close and well within the flash range (about 60ft for mine at the extreme using its max 400ASA setting) you could either set the distance and read off the aperture to set (manually of course) or fix the aperture and adjust the distance or, with care, frig around with the ISO if both aperture and flash output had to be left as they were. All you were doing was fooling the internal exposure sensing computer (or whatever is in there !)
If you shoot at extremes of capability - night rally shots for example - the game was work out how open you needed the lens to be to get the range required. It was especial fun using the flash disconnected from the camera and setting a long exposure, or more often the Bulb setting and a remote manual pneumatic release, and then firing the flash at full power (button provided for this purpose) at some point during the exposure.
But I digress.
A year or so ago ago I observed a couple of Pro Photographers shooting a Rally using some fairly small flash units on their Nikon kit and longish lenses but with Stofen diffusers (I think) in place. It was a dull day but not that dull considering where they were in relation to the subject and the speed of the lenses they were using. I guess it just brightened the shots somewhat, even at about 100 + feet from the subject.
Back to bounce - one thing to watch out for is the light bounce surface that is not white. Further exposure compensation may be required if the flash unit does not provide the adjustment automatically. And you may get a slight colour cast to deal with as well.
Finally the one thing I have never had but would have liked is a front fill light to use when bouncing the flash, especially when bouncing from above. It would help to reduce the shadows that can be so easily introduced using bounce from above.
Hmm. I feel a need to load some film ...
Does any of this waffle relate to the workings of a modern flash?
I have a ancient Metz Mecablitz with high output but totally manual operation. Full twist and bounce head. 'Twas always interesting to see what was going to come out in the 35mm days ....
The basis of operation was to set a compatible ISO value for the film (or do some mental 'adjustments') and then estimate the distance to subject. Easy if shooting direct - just use a tape or focus and read the value. Close would be good enough usually.
For bounce you need to work out the distance via the bounce surface. Then turn the dial accordingly and the exposure should be OK. There was another mark on the dial if using the diffuser (which does just that and should provide a softer illumination or perhaps also wider illumination more noticable when bouncing). However the diffuser reduces output so range is reduced and you need to compensate accordingly. The Metz diffuser loses about a stop iirc.
Within the controls parameters of distance dial, ISO setting and f-stop marks, with or without diffuser, you had the adjustments available for the exposure (shutter sync speed being fixed on the cameras I had back then (and still have). So if you were relatively close and well within the flash range (about 60ft for mine at the extreme using its max 400ASA setting) you could either set the distance and read off the aperture to set (manually of course) or fix the aperture and adjust the distance or, with care, frig around with the ISO if both aperture and flash output had to be left as they were. All you were doing was fooling the internal exposure sensing computer (or whatever is in there !)
If you shoot at extremes of capability - night rally shots for example - the game was work out how open you needed the lens to be to get the range required. It was especial fun using the flash disconnected from the camera and setting a long exposure, or more often the Bulb setting and a remote manual pneumatic release, and then firing the flash at full power (button provided for this purpose) at some point during the exposure.
But I digress.
A year or so ago ago I observed a couple of Pro Photographers shooting a Rally using some fairly small flash units on their Nikon kit and longish lenses but with Stofen diffusers (I think) in place. It was a dull day but not that dull considering where they were in relation to the subject and the speed of the lenses they were using. I guess it just brightened the shots somewhat, even at about 100 + feet from the subject.
Back to bounce - one thing to watch out for is the light bounce surface that is not white. Further exposure compensation may be required if the flash unit does not provide the adjustment automatically. And you may get a slight colour cast to deal with as well.
Finally the one thing I have never had but would have liked is a front fill light to use when bouncing the flash, especially when bouncing from above. It would help to reduce the shadows that can be so easily introduced using bounce from above.
Hmm. I feel a need to load some film ...
Does any of this waffle relate to the workings of a modern flash?
The 580EX is supposed to be totally automatic and designed for a DSLR exactly like my 20D, passing white balance and exposure info to the camera. In practice, when using flash direct as the main light source (as in the first pic above) it's often quite out - never enough to not be able to easily sort from the RAW or just with an auto-contrast in photoshop, but it's not as foolproof as Canon make out. In theory bounce flash should be less accurately exposed as the zoom is on a fixed setting but in practice I find it far more reliable even at long range, as long as you get the bounce angle right and don't bounce too much light behind the subject. For the shot above the flash was pointing straight up as the range was short and the camera pointing down slightly.
jwyatt said:
The 580EX is supposed to be totally automatic and designed for a DSLR exactly like my 20D, passing white balance and exposure info to the camera. In practice, when using flash direct as the main light source (as in the first pic above) it's often quite out - never enough to not be able to easily sort from the RAW or just with an auto-contrast in photoshop, but it's not as foolproof as Canon make out.
I think the programmers will have elected to use the "most popular" appearance settings - as they do with the compacts based on the subject matter chosen when using a pre-defined picture style (as these things seem to be called these days).
They can't play with much to adjust the levels when you are shooting RAW (obviously) so the best they can offer is is to try not to over-expose on any white highlights reflected back at the camera directly. I think the direct shot you have posted pretty much achieves that. Was that with or without the diffuser?
The white toy eggs, being closer to the camera than the primary subject and lighter, may well have had greater influence on the results than you might expect. But I'm guessing. It might be interesting to set up an experiment to see if I am close. A similar composition but move the white components around to see what the results are.
The bounce arrangement means there is no direct flash back to the camera so no (or very muuch reduced) white pinpoints and thus a more consistent overall light - partly diffused of course.
The downside is more flash output and so shorter battery charge life but that is probably a factor with low importance.
luca brazzi said:
examples of some of my efforts here from BTaP 2006:
www.justinfielder.com/joust/main.php?g2_view=core%3AShowItem&g2_itemId=7134&g2_page=1
Yes, you've captured the moment quite well.
www.justinfielder.com/joust/main.php?g2_itemId=7235&g2_enterAlbum=0
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff