Perhaps you need some color filters for your flashes to simulate that
yellow/orange/red light at the beginning or end of the day... although I
suspect you can do the same with color temp in ACR when you process the
raw files... but then you should be able to do the same with daylight,
perhaps even more effectively with a more complete spectrum. All
supposition on my part. I've never tried to do the same.
Dr. Flash
On 2/22/2014 12:38 AM, DZDub wrote:
> Yes, I appreciated your looking and commenting. You missed the point about
> repeatability, but I probably mislead you by using that word. I can't
> recreate/repeat the photo settings I made precisely because I moved the
> flash all over the room, trying things. Also I have a flash meter. I
> didn't use it. In fact, I had the flash on auto. In fact, I adjusted
> exposure by changing ISO instead of stop. All I was trying to do was
> experiment with bounced mainlight and a bare bulb in various places around
> the room. If can find a combination I like, I might concentrate on
> repeatability. The combination that interests me the most produced the
> result that people seemed to like the least, though the conclusion I am
> drawing is that really well-done flash ought to draw you to the subject and
> not otherwise be noticed so much in itself.
>
> Good, natural light excites me. On a good day, there are just few minutes
> of it at the beginning of the day and again at the end. It would be very
> satisfying if I could get my flashes to do the same thing. I'm not saying
> it can't be done because I have seen it done, but I haven't done it yet
> myself.
>
> Joel W.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Chuck Norcutt <
> chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I did but apparently missed a few words. But I hope you got something
>> out of the rest of it, particularly the need for measurement for
>> repeatability.
>>
>> Dr. Flash
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/21/2014 2:25 PM, DZDub wrote:
>>> Ah, you didn't read the original note concerning the background.
>>>
>>> Joel W.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Chuck Norcutt <
>>> chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, I don't find it harsh at all. I think your flash work was perfectly
>>>> fine but your choice of background should be re-examined. You've ended
>>>> up with two subjects with one competing with the other.
>>>>
>>>> Just getting the background out of focus isn't always enough. Clone out
>>>> the bright bits in the background and you'll see a significant
>>>> improvement. One of my earliest photography lessons is that the
>>>> brightest part of the photo automatically becomes what attracts the eye.
>>>> The bright bits attract the eye and then become the subject whether you
>>>> wanted that or not.
>>>>
>>>> As to flash being not repeatable it's only because you're not measuring
>>>> it. You can easily measure the ambient light with your camera's meter
>>>> or any other meter. Measuring flash requires a flash meter... something
>>>> that can measure a bright 1/50,000 second burst. Get yourself a flash
>>>> meter that can simultaneously measure both flash and ambient and report
>>>> the percentage contributed by flash and you'll be good to go for
>>>> repeatability. But if you're using multiple lights measure each light
>>>> independently (to know the balance between them) and then measure the
>>>> total light for the final exposure.
>>>>
>>>> Without the flash meter, if you're experimenting and find something you
>>>> like then record the distances and angles, flash power and type of
>>>> diffuser along with the camera exposure info. Only then will you be
>>>> able to repeat it.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. No-Competing-Bright-Bits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2014 10:53 AM, DZDub wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Chris Trask <christrask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I probably shot a dozen or so variations each of three different
>>>>>>> settings/subjects. The current discussion of flash sent me back to
>>>> have
>>>>>>> another look with fresh eyes at the ones I thought were the most
>>>>>> successful:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=11470
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts? I would appreciate your criticism. The thing that is
>>>>>>> frustrating for me is that there was so much experimentation involved
>>>> that
>>>>>>> I have no basis for repeatability at this point. I would just have
>> to
>>>> go
>>>>>>> at it again. Plus, the bare bulb is a bit unpredictable and very
>>>>>> dependent
>>>>>>> on the room, distance, height. So many factors!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Orchid 2 and Orchid 3 are very good, especially the latter as
>> the
>>>>>> light amount of shadow highlights the texture of the flowers. The
>>>>>> backlighting of Orchid 1 highlights the veining of the petals, but
>> some
>>>>>> minor fill flash projected from the lower left or bottom would
>> overcome
>>>> the
>>>>>> harsh graduation of the shadows and bring out the textures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Chris. Do others find it harsh? I often like direct sun
>>>> creating
>>>>> shadows of this kind on flowers outdoors:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://jfwilcox.jalbum.net/April%20Flowers/#IMG_0396_editedw.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Joel W.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
