Still trying to get indoor flash right

[Philth]

Hey everyone. Please help me out. Just really trying to get indoor flash portraits right. Looking forward to your feedback!

EXIF data:
D5100
18-55 kit lens
Yongnuo 468 II flash on TTL, flash at 90* bounce with card up
ISO 800
f5.3
1/60
Auto White Balance

Images are edited via Aperture using basic processing. I tinkered with the white balance and exposure a bit, and that's about it.

​

 

[Mfrankfort]

If your going to use a lens like that, your going to want to dial up the aperture a bit. They aren't at a even plane depth wise, and I think being closer, the 5.6 might be a bit shallow. He's not totally in focus from what I see. Lighting itself looks pretty good to me. Nice catchlight, and nice soft light without the shadows. Might want to try a different background though. ;-)

 

[WayneF]

It's pretty good, but IMO, exposure is a little hot. Faces just should not be that bright/white. Brightest highlights on skin are near 250. It ought never exceed about 240, or slightly less. In Raw now, I would back off about 1/2 stop, actually I'd do -2/3 stop if printing it on paper. Can do that in the camera with Flash Compensation.

But IMO, main exposure problem it is a little too much bounce card, too much fill, because I am thinking that the camera is pretty close to the subject. You can only pull the bounce card out about half way (leave some for the bounce to light). But also the perspective (nose size, etc) will be better if camera is not so close. For people, always stand back 6 to 8 feet (then zoom in as desired).

The bounce really lighted the distant room well.

 

[Mfrankfort]

And don't forget to set the 603's to TTL. j/k. Inside joke. What Wayne said. If you have the room/lens, try a big longer focal length. Helps out with portraits. (Cue 50mm argument)

 

[Philth]

Awesome. Thank you. I did shoot another couple from about 8 feet away and they came out WAAAAY underexposed. everything was the same. With that being said, is this an instance where I want to tilt the flash head down to 45* or bump up the flash compensation?

This is, right now at least, the single most frustrating thing because I hate to take second shots because I needed to make an adjustment with the camera. :-/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Philth]

And don't forget to set the 603's to TTL. j/k. Inside joke. What Wayne said. If you have the room/lens, try a big longer focal length. Helps out with portraits. (Cue 50mm argument)

I do have a 35mm f1.8 lens (50mm effectively on my D5100, right?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WayneF]

Awesome. Thank you. I did shoot another couple from about 8 feet away and they came out WAAAAY underexposed. everything was the same. With that being said, is this an instance where I want to tilt the flash head down to 45* or bump up the flash compensation?

This is, right now at least, the single most frustrating thing because I hate to take second shots because I needed to make an adjustment with the camera. :-/

Well, the big advantage of digital is that we can see what we are doing immediately, and we have a second chance while we are there. And advantage of DSLR is that it has controls like Flash Compensation to tweak that second try. The camera computer is too dumb to always get it right, which is why they always send a human photographer along too.

No, eight feet does not need 45 degrees. Too much risk of direct forward spill when you do that. Near (almost) straight up is about right, except for extreme distances.

8 feet is not why it was underexposed (assuming similar ISO and aperture, etc, so that the flash had capability to do it). It is what is in front of the camera that affects it. Scenes vary. You can use +EV Flash Compensation to fix it, then and there. Go back and look at it now, and it likely has lots of white or light colors in it (close walls, etc). Reflected light meters like in the camera (which are dumb too) only know to just try to make everything come out in the middle.

Reflected Meters: If the scene is mostly white, it will be underexposed everytime so it comes out middle gray. If the scene is mostly black (or dark colors), it will overexposed everytime so it comes out middle gray. Everything comes out averaging middle gray. That is simply all reflected light meters can do. See How light meters work And photographers learn to deal with it.

 

[Philth]

Well, the big advantage of digital is that we can see what we are doing immediately, and we have a second chance while we are there. And advantage of DSLR is that it has controls like Flash Compensation to tweak that second try. The camera computer is too dumb to always get it right, which is why they always send a human photographer along too.

No, eight feet does not need 45 degrees. Too much risk of direct forward spill when you do that. Near (almost) straight up is about right, except for extreme distances.

8 feet is not why it was underexposed (assuming similar ISO and aperture, etc, so that the flash had capability to do it). It is what is in front of the camera that affects it. Scenes vary. You can use +EV Flash Compensation to fix it, then and there. Go back and look at it now, and it likely has lots of white or light colors in it (walls, etc). Reflected light meters like in the camera (which are dumb too) only know to just try to make everything come out in the middle.

Reflected Meters: If the scene is mostly white, it will be underexposed everytime so it comes out middle gray. If the scene is mostly black (or dark colors), it will overexposed everytime so it comes out middle gray. Everything comes out averaging middle gray. That is simply all reflected light meters can do. See How light meters work And photographers learn to deal with it.

That's an interesting read. I did have metering set to Matrix. Not sure if it would have helped to have it on center-weighted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WayneF]

That's an interesting read. I did have metering set to Matrix. Not sure if it would have helped to have it on center-weighted.

Probably not. I am a strong fan of Center metering myself (your subject above was in the center), but normally there is negligible difference. Esp with flash, which the camera always meters in the center, no matter what metering mode you set. The metering modes are for ambient light (continuous light).

The problem is the light meter has no human brain and no human experience, and cannot recognize the scene and know what it means. It only sees a blob of light, with no idea what it is or how it should be. It cannot know if the subject is dim and white, or bright and black, it is just a blob of light. So all it can do is to expose to place it in the middle. And middle is often right, but not always, and any non-average scene will confuse it. Simply the only way reflected meters can work. When we realize that, then we know what to do.

 

[Philth]

Been reading some more. Of the lenses I have, I'd be far better off using a 55-200 or my 35 f/1.8 on my camera for portraits (to reduce distortion). Would that be a true statement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WayneF]

For portraits, to improve perspective, use the lens focal length that lets you stand back 6 or 8 feet from them. Zoom in to get the view that you want.

Classically, this is about 70mm DX or 105 mm FX for a head and shoulders view (this forces you to stand back). But for a waist up or full length or group shot, a wider lens will be necessary (or else you have to move far back). Standing back a bit is the thing though, for perspective, to not make noses look larger than they are.

The only importance of a "normal" lens - 30 or 35mm for DX (or 50 mm for FX) - is that this lens more or less duplicates the normal view that the human eye thinks it saw there, width wise. Records the scene as you remember seeing it. But you may prefer a wider or more narrow view to show what you want to show.

Portraits will have more depth of field (sharper) at f/5.6 or f/8 than at f/1.8.

 

[rocketman122]

as a wedding photog, I do hundreds of these basic boring pictures all the time every event. there are events where people dont want to stand and look to the lens and want me to capture them as they are. the picture is fine. its not art. its just a regular picture. not trying to make you feel bad. its just a regular snapshot. dont think too hard about it. I hate these type of pictures because it doesnt challenge me.

I did a weddings yesterday and the kind of people there, were the ones that like to stand and look to the camera. I do what my client wants but there's no challenge creatively/artistically. dont worry about it, its just fine. just lower the exposure a bit. sharpen his eyes a bit and youre good to go. maybe crop a bit off the left side if you want it more centered.

you might even consider bouncing 45º back behind you. or use it in s2 mode off camera and hold it in your hand and have the optic sensor where it can see your on camera flash and use it for a nice even effect. meaning use your camera flash as it is straight on. play with the FEC though to get it right so it doesnt burn too much. and you can use the 468II on a flash base and just place it on a table near bye with the eye facing the flash and fire it off that way for fill and a nice soft light blanket.

yesterday at the wedding, the part where the guests come in, I had a huge ceiling and hate to use flash straight on and knew my flash is not strong enough to light them properly since I prefer moving back a bit and shooting at 50mm or more when its a group of people. so what I did was take another flash with me in my hand. both flashes were pointed up and was enough to light them properly and get some background fill as well.

personally, I would highly recommend you buy yourself a slave set. something like the commlite G430. $25 shipped through ebay. it has a ttl pass through hot shoe. very reliable. better than depending on the off camera flash to see the camera flash being fired and you can place the off camera flash anywhere (almost) and have it fire. I did a birthday shoot for my GF's daughter. I placed the flash on the fridge. bounced it off the corner. used my on camera SB800 bounced up with card and the pictures came out nice and soft. very easy to do.

but youre overthinking. its fine. dont sweat it. you should see what I get on the dance floor. the lighting is horrible. red, blue green faces from the lighting there. its horrible but thats the situation I have to deal with. you did fine! :encouragement: