Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Flashes
Some basic questions on the SB-700
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 230190" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>Isn't that a lot better than on-camera direct flash? I like them, and my opinion is that these are better pictures, good pictures. Like, Duh? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p> Not a problem, but the main light could be a little higher, does not seem very high. 8 feet away under a 8 foot ceiling is is surely limited, but it could be closer, and the subject could be seated (both makes the light higher). </p><p></p><p>The neck shadow is "natural", it should not surprise anyone, no one notices. Slightly stronger fill could lighten it. Original point was just that bare direct flash is not that bad, if off-camera. So another option could be to bounce the light on ceiling, above that high and wide point, softer, but still from that direction. But the really big deal is that putting the main light in a <strong>close white reflected</strong> umbrella would essentially eliminate it... Gradient shading would remain, but it would be extremely soft, just a gradient. </p><p>Hint: That should be your next step <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> An umbrella is like bounce, needs more power, but not as much more as ceiling bounce. The umbrella should be high and wide, but close, as close as possible to be soft as possible, which greatly helps power, and soft helps the picture. Close meaning with the light stand just barely out of the picture frame. Close is a big deal. Umbrella advantages over bounce is it is close, and can be moved and aimed at will. </p><p></p><p>We use umbrellas for fill lights too, but with much less advantage, because the direct bare frontal light is even (flat), lighting exactly what the lens sees, so nothing for it make shadows under.</p><p></p><p>I was curious about the details of origin of your -1.3EV compensation statement? How the number is determined? It could be done with Commander TTL of course, but I am assuming SU-4 remote and both lights being manual flash mode. Are you able to meter them? Metering is always good.</p><p></p><p>Rear curtain is unnecessary, but no problem at all. It is for slow shutter speeds which cause motion blur of the continuous ambient light, inapplicable here, but not a problem. The flash merely has to fire sometime when the shutter is open.</p><p></p><p>White balance - any neutral color card can work, white or gray or even black. White works best. Gray is fine, except the inks have to be carefully controlled to actually be neutral, and 18% cards control reflectance, not color. No claims made about color. But the gray card will be pretty close, and acceptable, but there is just no assurance it was controlled. There are "digital" gray cards, much lighter color than 18% (closer to white) that are color controlled for white balance (and pricey). Even black can work, but there is very little percentage difference in the three RGB color channels if very dark. White is better. </p><p></p><p>The only caution, don'put the white card too close to the lights. You DO NOT want it to be clipped at 255, it becomes meaningless then. But we don't want our portraits clipped either, and holding the white card in front of chest is likely not higher than 200, which is just fine, ideal. But yes, you could put an 18% card much closer to the lights before clipping it.</p><p></p><p>White is best is an opinion, many do use the gray card. But clicking that spot tells the software "I declare this spot to be neutral, make it be neutral". Neutral means equal RGB numbers in the color of that spot. Then it manipulates colors to make that spot actually have equal RGB components, which is neutral, no color cast there. Same change applied overall gives proper color, to correct the color of the light on the scene. Which works because we know our spot is actually neutral. Clicking a very light spot (white) will have higher numbers with greater channel differences, easier to detect and balance. Just saying, 1% difference at 200 is a color difference of 2 to be corrected. 1% at 100 is 1. 1% of 40 is not much in integers, but it can help serious cases, more than 1%. And a good white card is only $5. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 230190, member: 12496"] Isn't that a lot better than on-camera direct flash? I like them, and my opinion is that these are better pictures, good pictures. Like, Duh? :) Not a problem, but the main light could be a little higher, does not seem very high. 8 feet away under a 8 foot ceiling is is surely limited, but it could be closer, and the subject could be seated (both makes the light higher). The neck shadow is "natural", it should not surprise anyone, no one notices. Slightly stronger fill could lighten it. Original point was just that bare direct flash is not that bad, if off-camera. So another option could be to bounce the light on ceiling, above that high and wide point, softer, but still from that direction. But the really big deal is that putting the main light in a [B]close white reflected[/B] umbrella would essentially eliminate it... Gradient shading would remain, but it would be extremely soft, just a gradient. Hint: That should be your next step :) An umbrella is like bounce, needs more power, but not as much more as ceiling bounce. The umbrella should be high and wide, but close, as close as possible to be soft as possible, which greatly helps power, and soft helps the picture. Close meaning with the light stand just barely out of the picture frame. Close is a big deal. Umbrella advantages over bounce is it is close, and can be moved and aimed at will. We use umbrellas for fill lights too, but with much less advantage, because the direct bare frontal light is even (flat), lighting exactly what the lens sees, so nothing for it make shadows under. I was curious about the details of origin of your -1.3EV compensation statement? How the number is determined? It could be done with Commander TTL of course, but I am assuming SU-4 remote and both lights being manual flash mode. Are you able to meter them? Metering is always good. Rear curtain is unnecessary, but no problem at all. It is for slow shutter speeds which cause motion blur of the continuous ambient light, inapplicable here, but not a problem. The flash merely has to fire sometime when the shutter is open. White balance - any neutral color card can work, white or gray or even black. White works best. Gray is fine, except the inks have to be carefully controlled to actually be neutral, and 18% cards control reflectance, not color. No claims made about color. But the gray card will be pretty close, and acceptable, but there is just no assurance it was controlled. There are "digital" gray cards, much lighter color than 18% (closer to white) that are color controlled for white balance (and pricey). Even black can work, but there is very little percentage difference in the three RGB color channels if very dark. White is better. The only caution, don'put the white card too close to the lights. You DO NOT want it to be clipped at 255, it becomes meaningless then. But we don't want our portraits clipped either, and holding the white card in front of chest is likely not higher than 200, which is just fine, ideal. But yes, you could put an 18% card much closer to the lights before clipping it. White is best is an opinion, many do use the gray card. But clicking that spot tells the software "I declare this spot to be neutral, make it be neutral". Neutral means equal RGB numbers in the color of that spot. Then it manipulates colors to make that spot actually have equal RGB components, which is neutral, no color cast there. Same change applied overall gives proper color, to correct the color of the light on the scene. Which works because we know our spot is actually neutral. Clicking a very light spot (white) will have higher numbers with greater channel differences, easier to detect and balance. Just saying, 1% difference at 200 is a color difference of 2 to be corrected. 1% at 100 is 1. 1% of 40 is not much in integers, but it can help serious cases, more than 1%. And a good white card is only $5. :) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Flashes
Some basic questions on the SB-700
Top
