Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Revet" data-source="post: 229557" data-attributes="member: 17612">Pretty cool Gaff!!&nbsp; I also like that section on freezing things with the flash also.&nbsp; It makes so much sense.&nbsp; Use the flash as your main or only light source will freeze the motion, so turn that ambient down using near max sync speed and we should be good to go with a nice frozen image of something in motion.&nbsp; I too will await Wayne's response on the above pictures because I would have thought the first one should be crisp if you had no ambient lighting the flowers (I think that's what they are).&nbsp; I'm curious about the exposure in pictures 2 and 3, you went down 2 stops (one in shutter speed and one in ISO), but the exposure looks the same.&nbsp; We know that shutter speed doesn't affect the flash exposure but ISO should have.&nbsp; Was the flash still at 1/16 power for the 3rd picture or did it increase to compensate for the one stop reduction in the ISO??&nbsp; Also note that at that low power, you did get a blue tinge to the photo as mentioned in Wayne's presentation.OK I just read the bounce section.&nbsp; Great presentation!!&nbsp; It will change how I take photo's.&nbsp; Here is a question I have which may not interest other photographers, but may interest other tecky Geeks like myself. Going back to physics,&nbsp; When light hits an object, some light is absorbed, some reflected, and some might pass through pending the material it is hitting.&nbsp; In any case, the reflected light loses energy (not speed because the speed of light is a constant).&nbsp; You have made it quite clear that we are losing power with bounce which to me would be the amplitude of the light wave.&nbsp; How about frequency?&nbsp; A lower frequency light wave (ie. more red) also has less energy.&nbsp; Does this happen when we bounce or do we mostly just lose amplitude??</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Revet, post: 229557, member: 17612"] Pretty cool Gaff!! I also like that section on freezing things with the flash also. It makes so much sense. Use the flash as your main or only light source will freeze the motion, so turn that ambient down using near max sync speed and we should be good to go with a nice frozen image of something in motion. I too will await Wayne's response on the above pictures because I would have thought the first one should be crisp if you had no ambient lighting the flowers (I think that's what they are). I'm curious about the exposure in pictures 2 and 3, you went down 2 stops (one in shutter speed and one in ISO), but the exposure looks the same. We know that shutter speed doesn't affect the flash exposure but ISO should have. Was the flash still at 1/16 power for the 3rd picture or did it increase to compensate for the one stop reduction in the ISO?? Also note that at that low power, you did get a blue tinge to the photo as mentioned in Wayne's presentation. OK I just read the bounce section. Great presentation!! It will change how I take photo's. Here is a question I have which may not interest other photographers, but may interest other tecky Geeks like myself. Going back to physics, When light hits an object, some light is absorbed, some reflected, and some might pass through pending the material it is hitting. In any case, the reflected light loses energy (not speed because the speed of light is a constant). You have made it quite clear that we are losing power with bounce which to me would be the amplitude of the light wave. How about frequency? A lower frequency light wave (ie. more red) also has less energy. Does this happen when we bounce or do we mostly just lose amplitude?? [/QUOTE]

Verification