RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
Hi all, >How do you achieve the darkness in the background? Short lens? I shot it with my K 135/3.5 pre focused at a point just shy of a doorway. Beyond the doorway was a (dark) corridor. I used an off camera flash that I bounced off the ceiling - and the whole thing was timed for when he ran through the doorway. As you can imagine, there were lots of duds before I got this one. Thanks for sharing yours Dag, great shot. It's a technique I've never heard (or read) of and am now itching to try. Simon -Original Message- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 15 September 2003 4:38 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ? On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Simon King wrote: > [*Nudity warning*] http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/pages/prebath.htm How do you achieve the darkness in the background? Short lens? Kostas
Re: RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
> Those are f/4 or 5.6 with a smaller digital sensor. > > tv Those pictures are really nice, and inspiring. Pictures aside, technically I have found the answer to my original question. Let me thank you all who have commented and given me advice ! >From what I've seen so far, I don't really need IS, what I really needed was digital. I came torn between depth of field and capturing ambient light. Both issues can be solved with a digital camera, the former with a smaller sensor size and the latter with higher ISO speed. I am already using ISO 800 film and I can't go any higher unless I go digital. IS can prevent my hand from shaking, but it couldn't prevent people from moving, however.
RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
> -Original Message- > From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, tom wrote: > > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-370.htm > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm > > The DOF in these pictures is beyond my belief, probably > because I am a > lesser photographer[1] using lesser equipment. Those are f/4 or 5.6 with a smaller digital sensor. tv
RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, tom wrote: > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-370.htm > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm The DOF in these pictures is beyond my belief, probably because I am a lesser photographer[1] using lesser equipment. > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/dillman/adil-0398.htm Wow, some light (and again the DOF)... Kostas [1] And I use the term loosely :-)
Re: Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
> Fra: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I did something similar here: > > http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=10891 > > > > Guess the aperture the other photographer is going to use, set the shutter on "B" > > and keep the shutter open until the other photographer has taken the picture. If > > the other photographers timing is good you get a good picture :-) > > > > And the green cast? I guess that comes from the street lights. The pictures was taken in Napoli three years ago. > > > Great photo, I am amazed today. Thanks! DagT
Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I did something similar here: >http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=10891 > >Guess the aperture the other photographer is going to use, set the shutter >on "B" and keep the shutter open until the other photographer has taken the >picture. If the other photographers timing is good you get a good picture :-) Har! I love the idea of using another photographer's flash for part of your exposure! (Great way to minimize the amount of equipment you carry ) That's a wonderful photo, too. This thread is certainly bringing some great shots out of the closet. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I did something similar here: > http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=10891 > > Guess the aperture the other photographer is going to use, set the shutter on "B" > and keep the shutter open until the other photographer has taken the picture. If > the other photographers timing is good you get a good picture :-) And the green cast? Great photo, I am amazed today. K
Re: Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
> Fra: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Mark Roberts wrote: > > > >> Come with us now back to those thrilling days of yesteryear - > >> specifically my high school Jr. Prom. I used the technique Tom describes > >> above with a K1000, K55/2.0 and cheap Vivitar flash and got this: > >> http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7b900101.jpg > > > >Excellent picture, with a lot to say to/about the foreground couple. > >Am I right that there was plenty of ambient light? > > Man, I have no idea - that was in 1978 and I don't remember. I do > remember that I had the shutter set on "B". I just opened the shutter, > tripped the flash and than closed the shutter. Exposure was between 1 > and 2 seconds. I don't remember the aperture, though. I did something similar here: http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=10891 Guess the aperture the other photographer is going to use, set the shutter on "B" and keep the shutter open until the other photographer has taken the picture. If the other photographers timing is good you get a good picture :-) DagT
Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> Come with us now back to those thrilling days of yesteryear - >> specifically my high school Jr. Prom. I used the technique Tom describes >> above with a K1000, K55/2.0 and cheap Vivitar flash and got this: >> http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7b900101.jpg > >Excellent picture, with a lot to say to/about the foreground couple. >Am I right that there was plenty of ambient light? Man, I have no idea - that was in 1978 and I don't remember. I do remember that I had the shutter set on "B". I just opened the shutter, tripped the flash and than closed the shutter. Exposure was between 1 and 2 seconds. I don't remember the aperture, though. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I found it was a really useful way of trying to convey movement in the first >steps of my son... >http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/pages/walking.htm That's not only a great shot, it's a great example of pre-visualizing an idea and using a special technique to convey it. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Mark Roberts wrote: > Come with us now back to those thrilling days of yesteryear - > specifically my high school Jr. Prom. I used the technique Tom describes > above with a K1000, K55/2.0 and cheap Vivitar flash and got this: > http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7b900101.jpg Excellent picture, with a lot to say to/about the foreground couple. Am I right that there was plenty of ambient light? Kostas
RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Simon King wrote: > [*Nudity warning*] http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/pages/prebath.htm How do you achieve the darkness in the background? Short lens? Kostas
RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
I found it was a really useful way of trying to convey movement in the first steps of my son... http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/pages/walking.htm Sometimes I miss the fact that he needed to be held like that - at least you know where he was. Now he's off like a shot... [*Nudity warning*] http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/pages/prebath.htm :-) Simon PS - Mark, great shot mark. -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 15 September 2003 2:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ? "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ambient exposure set manually at 1/8 sec and f/4.5 at approx. 26mm. >Flash bounced off ceiling to expose foreground subjects properly. > >The flash froze the subjects, but the long shutter speed introduced >"trailing", and opened up and blurred the background. I don't think I >was consciously trying to move the camera, but that's a fun technique >too. Ah, don't need no high tech equipment to do that! Come with us now back to those thrilling days of yesteryear - specifically my high school Jr. Prom. I used the technique Tom describes above with a K1000, K55/2.0 and cheap Vivitar flash and got this: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7b900101.jpg (I've posted a link to this picture before and people commented on the awfulness of the clothing. Take it from me, not only was this the 1970s but these were high school students choosing the outfits! You should be very glad the photo is on Ilford HP-5 so you can't see the colors!) >> -Original Message- >> From: William Kane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>I'd be interested in knowing the technique with which >> you took those >> two photos. I can't figure it out with my own sloth-like brain. >> >> IL Bill >> >> tom wrote: >> >> >>-Original Message- >> >>From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm >> >>> >> >>> >> >>Where did that highlight come from on the guy of right hand side? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >He was wearing funny glasses. >> > >> >Actually, it's a Damned Exit Sign, bane of wedding photographers >> >everywhere. Try this one: >> > >> >http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-417.htm >> > >> >tv >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
"tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ambient exposure set manually at 1/8 sec and f/4.5 at approx. 26mm. >Flash bounced off ceiling to expose foreground subjects properly. > >The flash froze the subjects, but the long shutter speed introduced >"trailing", and opened up and blurred the background. I don't think I >was consciously trying to move the camera, but that's a fun technique >too. Ah, don't need no high tech equipment to do that! Come with us now back to those thrilling days of yesteryear - specifically my high school Jr. Prom. I used the technique Tom describes above with a K1000, K55/2.0 and cheap Vivitar flash and got this: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7b900101.jpg (I've posted a link to this picture before and people commented on the awfulness of the clothing. Take it from me, not only was this the 1970s but these were high school students choosing the outfits! You should be very glad the photo is on Ilford HP-5 so you can't see the colors!) >> -Original Message- >> From: William Kane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>I'd be interested in knowing the technique with which >> you took those >> two photos. I can't figure it out with my own sloth-like brain. >> >> IL Bill >> >> tom wrote: >> >> >>-Original Message- >> >>From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm >> >>> >> >>> >> >>Where did that highlight come from on the guy of right hand side? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >He was wearing funny glasses. >> > >> >Actually, it's a Damned Exit Sign, bane of wedding photographers >> >everywhere. Try this one: >> > >> >http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-417.htm >> > >> >tv >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
Ambient exposure set manually at 1/8 sec and f/4.5 at approx. 26mm. Flash bounced off ceiling to expose foreground subjects properly. The flash froze the subjects, but the long shutter speed introduced "trailing", and opened up and blurred the background. I don't think I was consciously trying to move the camera, but that's a fun technique too. tv > -Original Message- > From: William Kane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 9:34 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ? > > > tv, > >I'd be interested in knowing the technique with which > you took those > two photos. I can't figure it out with my own sloth-like brain. > > IL Bill > > tom wrote: > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm > >>> > >>> > >>Where did that highlight come from on the guy of right hand side? > >> > >> > > > >He was wearing funny glasses. > > > >Actually, it's a Damned Exit Sign, bane of wedding photographers > >everywhere. Try this one: > > > >http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-417.htm > > > >tv > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
tv, I'd be interested in knowing the technique with which you took those two photos. I can't figure it out with my own sloth-like brain. IL Bill tom wrote: -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm Where did that highlight come from on the guy of right hand side? He was wearing funny glasses. Actually, it's a Damned Exit Sign, bane of wedding photographers everywhere. Try this one: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-417.htm tv
Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
Bo-Ming, You might want to try the contrast control function with one 360FGZ wireless unit, if you need that uniform lighting in depth. Also, I don't know what camera you are using, but note that MZ-S and later bodies do a much better job of flash metering with their P-TTL mode. Former MZ/Z either overexposed the foreground or underexposed the background, depending on the subject position in the frame. Finally, I doubt the IS will make any difference at f45 and above 1/15. It just won't compensate for the people movements. You might as well try a tripod setup to judge the outcome. Servus, Alin Bo-Ming wrote: BMT> I am tempted to buy a used Canon 28-135 IS and borrow a Canon but before BMT> I do so I wish to hear your opinions whether this is a stupid idea. BMT> I have been doing bounce flash indoors a lot using a shoe-mounted flash. BMT> I started out with f/5.6 at 1/30 on ISO 800 film rated at 400 or 500, BMT> and got nicely illuminated pictures. Ambient light is only 1 or 2 stops BMT> below flash light. However, there was once I get blurred images. I BMT> wasn't sure whether it was my handshake or people moving, but it is not BMT> possible to handhold a 45mm lens at 1/30 and expect sharp results. So I BMT> switched to 1/60 last time. There was also not enough depth of field BMT> sometimes so I used f/8. My flash can still output that much power. My BMT> images came back not very satisfactorily. While the near objects are BMT> still nicely illuminated, the far objects are completely dark. I used to BMT> get at least some detail off the far objects. BMT> As you can see, I am torn between a handholdable shutter speed, depth of BMT> field, and ambient lighting. Would an IS lens take the first one out, so BMT> that I can use an even slower shutter speed such as 1/15 and capture BMT> ambient light while keeping the aperture small for depth of field ? BMT> Obviously this can only help my hand shake but not people moving. BMT> Or, should I "just do it" and use 1/15 since the far objects are out of BMT> focus and the near objects are mostly illuminated by flash at a speed of BMT> around 1/500 ? This might result in a sharp image with a blurry trail, BMT> though, if the flash light does not greatly outshine the ambient light, BMT> which seems to defeat the original purpose of capturing ambient light BMT> using a slow shutter speed. BMT> Any comments ? I don't want to go Canon because of IS... I didn't BMT> realize there is any use for IS/VR until now.
bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
I am tempted to buy a used Canon 28-135 IS and borrow a Canon but before I do so I wish to hear your opinions whether this is a stupid idea. I have been doing bounce flash indoors a lot using a shoe-mounted flash. I started out with f/5.6 at 1/30 on ISO 800 film rated at 400 or 500, and got nicely illuminated pictures. Ambient light is only 1 or 2 stops below flash light. However, there was once I get blurred images. I wasn't sure whether it was my handshake or people moving, but it is not possible to handhold a 45mm lens at 1/30 and expect sharp results. So I switched to 1/60 last time. There was also not enough depth of field sometimes so I used f/8. My flash can still output that much power. My images came back not very satisfactorily. While the near objects are still nicely illuminated, the far objects are completely dark. I used to get at least some detail off the far objects. As you can see, I am torn between a handholdable shutter speed, depth of field, and ambient lighting. Would an IS lens take the first one out, so that I can use an even slower shutter speed such as 1/15 and capture ambient light while keeping the aperture small for depth of field ? Obviously this can only help my hand shake but not people moving. Or, should I "just do it" and use 1/15 since the far objects are out of focus and the near objects are mostly illuminated by flash at a speed of around 1/500 ? This might result in a sharp image with a blurry trail, though, if the flash light does not greatly outshine the ambient light, which seems to defeat the original purpose of capturing ambient light using a slow shutter speed. Any comments ? I don't want to go Canon because of IS... I didn't realize there is any use for IS/VR until now.
RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
> -Original Message- > From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm > > Where did that highlight come from on the guy of right hand side? He was wearing funny glasses. Actually, it's a Damned Exit Sign, bane of wedding photographers everywhere. Try this one: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-417.htm tv
