Flash Question

jbakerphoto

Alright so I am second shooting a wedding in April for the first time. Woohoo. So back in November I went to a friends wedding and at the reception I noticed there was not a photographer at the time so I got the camera out with my sigma 70-200 2.8 and flash with a scooped bbc and practiced a bit to see if I got a good exposure and what not in a very dark venue. Photographer did show up eventually and I ended up leaveing early so they got some extra coverage...
: )

Anyways I noticed that even with the Scooped BBC I am getting shadows. Are these acceptable in the professional realm? Do I need to work on them? Do I need to do something else? Flash Bracket?

They are basically SOOC. Its a long story...... So here they are.
1.)



2.)



3.)

Qarik

a client I may not notice all that much but as a photographer I notice and they are distracting imo. a BBC works in pinch but I don't think it is quite as good as some other solutions.

heatherfeather

The reason why you are getting those shadows is that you are using it in portrait orientation rather than landscape. To prevent that you would need a flash bracket to raise the flash above your focal plane. The light, when at portrait orientation, is coming from the side so it causes nasty flash shadows to the side of your subject. Do some test shots and you'll see what I mean.

Hope that came across clearly.

jeffreaux2

If the ceiling was a light or better yet white in color and no more than 20 ft high.....just bounce it.

KyleMc569

Save some money and get a high end flash bracket like the Really Right Stuff Wedding Pro. You will eliminate the side shadows in portrait oriented shots. An extra benefit is people will treat you like a pro when they see the contraption on your camera. This gives you more confidence and makes you feel more like a pro, too.

jbakerphoto

Qarik wrote:

a client I may not notice all that much but as a photographer I notice and they are distracting imo. a BBC works in pinch but I don't think it is quite as good as some other solutions.

Got ya....Thanks for replying....

heatherfeather wrote:

The reason why you are getting those shadows is that you are using it in portrait orientation rather than landscape. To prevent that you would need a flash bracket to raise the flash above your focal plane. The light, when at portrait orientation, is coming from the side so it causes nasty flash shadows to the side of your subject. Do some test shots and you'll see what I mean.

Hope that came across clearly.

It was my understanding that when you are in portrait if you point the flash with the bbc straight up it will not give you shawdows....Think I proved my self wrong. Maybe the scoop has something to do with it.

jeffreaux2 wrote:

If the ceiling was a light or better yet white in color and no more than 20 ft high.....just bounce it.

I think that place might have higher then 20ft. I was also snipping from 20-40 ft away. Its going to be an outdoor wedding. Here are some terrible pictures from my brother in laws wedding in november 2007 in the same room. dgrin does good things for you that is for sure. Thanks for replying Jeff.

KyleMc569 wrote:

Save some money and get a high end flash bracket like the Really Right Stuff Wedding Pro. You will eliminate the side shadows in portrait oriented shots. An extra benefit is people will treat you like a pro when they see the contraption on your camera. This gives you more confidence and makes you feel more like a pro, too.

I will look into a flash bracket. I know the photographer that i am working with is going to be using one. Maybe she has an extra one.

Ed911

heatherfeather wrote:

The reason why you are getting those shadows is that you are using it in portrait orientation rather than landscape. To prevent that you would need a flash bracket to raise the flash above your focal plane. The light, when at portrait orientation, is coming from the side so it causes nasty flash shadows to the side of your subject. Do some test shots and you'll see what I mean.

Hope that came across clearly.

I agree with Heather.

Since you asked to be judged on a pro level....none of these are acceptable SOOC. Posting SOOC and asking for CC is like turning in a half finished test and asking the teacher if you passed.

Picture One: Soft...the guy giving the rub is out of focus...and you know about the shadow.

Picture Two: A little soft around her mouth, noisy...look in the shadows and at the top of the picture, and on her arm. (Also, if you ever want her to like this picture, you will need to PP that roll on her back. I can't imagine that she would show this photo to her girlfriends and say, wow isn't this an album keeper.) And, try not to take pictures of the backs of people, unless you can see a substantial amount of their face as in intimate portraiture. An ear wearing a black suit just doesn't look good.

Picture Three: Soft...noisy...very pixelated above their heads.

I think you are a little under exposed in these pictures...leading to some of the problems above...

Hope this helps point you in the right direction.

Scott_Quier

heatherfeather wrote:

The reason why you are getting those shadows is that you are using it in portrait orientation rather than landscape. To prevent that you would need a flash bracket to raise the flash above your focal plane. The light, when at portrait orientation, is coming from the side so it causes nasty flash shadows to the side of your subject. Do some test shots and you'll see what I mean.

Hope that came across clearly.

Disclaimer: The following sounds like I think I know it all ... I don't! This just my opinion based on my experiences and is probably worth less than it cost you to read it.

I'm an engineer - so sue me, but in my not so humble opinion, nobody nailed the reason for the shadows though Heather came closest. The flash bracket is needed to get the flash above the lens not the focal plane (it's really really hard to get "above" the focal plane unless the camera is pointed up or down ).

The flash bracket is used when you are using on-camera flash (the 580EX, etc as opposed to on-board flash - that thing that is a part of your camera) to keep the lens always under the flash. In this relative orientation, any shadows (like from heads, etc) are cast on the background and are (usually) not visible to the camera because the object casting the shadow is blocking the camera's "view" of the that shadow.

As for the comment about the Really Right Stuff Wedding Pro flash bracket .... um ... well, RRS makes some very good stuff, but this isn't one of them. It fails to keep the flash orientation constant as the camera orientation changes under it. This is a prime consideration if you are bouncing the flash rather than pointing it at your subject. Their "B" series brackets seem to be a better bet. My favorite bracket is the Newton Di100FR2 Flash Rotator bracket because it's light, folds down flat, and keeps the flash orientation a constant while rotating the camera under it (BTW - I have no relationship with Newton Brackets or the inventor aside from being a very pleased customer).

The Better Bounce Card (BBC) works quite well when used in the right situations; it is not the solution to all lighting problems! The BBC is designed to throw some spill light back at your subject while the majority of your flash output is bounced off the ceiling and back down to them. Without the BBC, bouncing light off a ceiling can produce dark (raccoon) eyes in your subject as their eyes are shaded from the flash by their brow. The BBC takes what would otherwise be wasted light and throws it back at the subject(s), under their eye brow(s) to fill that shadow. But, it doesn't work in all situations. The ceiling can't be too high; Jeff mentioned 20' and I would think that's a good rule of thumb. The subjects can't be too far from the flash as the light would reflect off the ceiling and come down somewhere between the camera position and the subject - thus not lighting them.

Where the ceiling is too high (or non-exisitant), check out the light scoop. This will work where you have useable ceilings as well, but I find it a bit cumbersome so tend not to use it when I don't need it. And, it still won't work where you are trying to shoot from across the room!

As for the photos, you asked if they are "acceptable" in the professional realm. As someone else has already stated, clients may (or may not) be happy with them, but no professional photographer will be and for the reasons outlined by Ed911. Were these mine, the first three would never see the light of day. The other two ... well the one of the bride and groom(?) isn't too bad - it's a little flashy (as in too much flash) but it's not an example of a cave shot; too much flash, too fast a shutter - rendering the subject well (or over) lit and the rest of the room pitch black.

jbakerphoto

Ed911 wrote:

I agree with Heather.

Since you asked to be judged on a pro level....none of these are acceptable SOOC. Posting SOOC and asking for CC is like turning in a half finished test and asking the teacher if you passed.

Picture One: Soft...the guy giving the rub is out of focus...and you know about the shadow.

Picture Two: A little soft around her mouth, noisy...look in the shadows and at the top of the picture, and on her arm. (Also, if you ever want her to like this picture, you will need to PP that roll on her back. I can't imagine that she would show this photo to her girlfriends and say, wow isn't this an album keeper.) And, try not to take pictures of the backs of people, unless you can see a substantial amount of their face as in intimate portraiture. An ear wearing a black suit just doesn't look good.

Picture Three: Soft...noisy...very pixelated above their heads.

I think you are a little under exposed in these pictures...leading to some of the problems above...

Hope this helps point you in the right direction.

hmmm....Ed and Scott thanks for commenting.

Guess I am going to explain the long story. Basically, I forgot my mem card and I borrowed the sister of the grooms who is my wifes best friend since childhood. (I've known her since 4th grade) So basically when we left the wedding she kept the card and the pictures. I finally noticed that she had them posted on myspace and since I noticed the shadows I figured I would see what I need to do to get going in the right direction with my flash before I actually do this in april. That my friend is why they are SOOC. Also when you are trying to figure out stuff and get to the root cause of the problem, what good is a doctored image going to do me.....

Now you bring up a good point. In all three of them they are a bit soft. About 75-85 % of the time I put the center dot on the eyes of someone and recompose. I have noticed some softness from this lense. I know I was shooting at 2.8. Do you think it is because
a.) underexposed
b.) User error - dof issue....
c.) Lense needs to be calibrated or a 50D needs to show up at my door magically so it can be calibrated.

As for underexposure. Are you suppose to just overexpose in general at night or dark places? Camera never seems to do it right. I was either shooting in Av or M. I suppose that snipping did not help with the exposure. Lucky for me I now have a tamron 17-50 2.8 and I can get close now....

Scott I did modify the bbc to have a scoop at the top....

I think that is about it...Thanks for replying....

Scott_Quier

unclejon wrote:

hmmm....Ed and Scott thanks for commenting.

Guess I am going to explain the long story. Basically, I forgot my mem card and I borrowed the sister of the grooms who is my wifes best friend since childhood. (I've known her since 4th grade) So basically when we left the wedding she kept the card and the pictures. I finally noticed that she had them posted on myspace and since I noticed the shadows I figured I would see what I need to do to get going in the right direction with my flash before I actually do this in april. That my friend is why they are SOOC. Also when you are trying to figure out stuff and get to the root cause of the problem, what good is a doctored image going to do me.....

Good point!

unclejon wrote:

Now you bring up a good point. In all three of them they are a bit soft. About 75-85 % of the time I put the center dot on the eyes of someone and recompose. I have noticed some softness from this lense. I know I was shooting at 2.8. Do you think it is because
a.) underexposed
b.) User error - dof issue....
c.) Lense needs to be calibrated or a 50D needs to show up at my door magically so it can be calibrated.

Focus-recompose never a good idea at close distance. Especially with a short DOF.

I've read differing stories about the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 - some (urbanaries is one) love it, others say it has issues. Sigma lenses, in general, have focusing issues. Do some google searches for more on that.

Upgrading a camera body for a feature you need is never a bad idea My issue has alway been, "Where's the money going to come from?"

unclejon wrote:

As for underexposure. Are you suppose to just overexpose in general at night or dark places? Camera never seems to do it right. I was either shooting in Av or M. I suppose that snipping did not help with the exposure. Lucky for me I now have a tamron 17-50 2.8 and I can get close now....

Under/over exposure doesn't happen often if you pay attention to the histogram. Never believe the picture on your LCD when it comes to judging the exposure. Even the histogram isn't 100% but it's the best we have at the moment.

unclejon wrote:

Scott I did modify the bbc to have a scoop at the top....

I think that is about it...Thanks for replying....

You're welcome!

mmmatt

Scott_Quier wrote:

Good point!
Focus-recompose never a good idea at close distance. Especially with a short DOF.

I sat through a seminar with Dennis Reggie a month ago and he shoots primarily fast primes and preaches the shoot and recompose method. Also side-wall bounce techniques which are the shiznit in my book but REQUIRE some clean high-iso or a well lit room. Dennis is one of the Canon "Explorers of Light" and is a $50k per booking wedding photog.

He likes the 85 f1.2, the 50 f1.2, the 70-200 f2.8is and a few others. He shoots most everything at low dof with a full frame 1Ds mkiii or 5d mkii and according to him he doesn't have any problems with the focus and recompose method except with processions and whatnot. He especially recommends it for anyone not using a 1D/1Ds. With any other canon body he says the focus points outside of the center are not accurate enough.

I was using my 135 f2 at f2 the other day on my 5d shooting head and shoulder crops and I will agree with scott there, but a 135 f2 @ 10' away is a razor thin dof. My 24-70 f2.8 L works fine that way wide open at 70mm. I will say I sometimes have focus issues using my outside focus points in lower light and it is especially true with my 70-200 f4 where I don't have the aperture size to help the focus points out. The full size of the aperture gets used full open when focusing regardless of any camera settings btw.

So, like anything else in wedding photography, nothing is best all the time. I am now using the shoot and recompose method more though after hearing what he had to say. For focus and recompose to work, you need to have the camera in "single shot" mode so it doesn't refocus.

Matt

Ed911

Sigma Lenses...
Just a quick word about the Sigma 70-200mm APO older version. I have a copy that is really sharp...I mean razor sharp on my D300's. But, you have to know how to use it. If you don't keep the shutter speed up...you will get softness do to shake that exhibits itself as OOF in your images. Where I have had high enough shutter speed or stabilized the lens on a tripod...very good results.

I think you can't beat the stabilized 70-200's from Canon or Nikon for ease of use and consistent image quality. Nikon's 70-200 VR is my next lens.

mmmatt

Ed911 wrote:

Just a quick word about the Sigma 70-200mm APO older version. I have a copy that is really sharp...I mean razor sharp on my D300's. But, you have to know how to use it. If you don't keep the shutter speed up...you will get softness do to shake that exhibits itself as OOF in your images. Where I have had high enough shutter speed or stabilized the lens on a tripod...very good results.

I think you can't beat the stabilized 70-200's from Canon or Nikon for ease of use and consistent image quality. Nikon's 70-200 VR is my next lens.

One important factor using non-canon zoom lenses on canon bodies is that the lens doesn't translate subject distance to the flash for ETTLII metering. This is only a concern if you are shooting direct flash though as the 580 will default to ttl metering as soon as you move the flash head. I believe this is across the board but I know it applies to both the tammy and sig 70-200 f2.8 lenses. I've heard great things about both lenses in terms of image quality. There is plenty of info on the net about both. If I remember right the sig was rated with better focusing and the tammy with sharper optics. Both however are regarded as great lenses for the buck.

FWIW I'm going to upgrading my canon 70-200 f4L (non-is) to a 2.8L is soon. PM me if you are interested.

Matt

zoomer

As others have stated the flash shadow is not the worst of your problems here.
These are underexposed and shot with too slow a shutterspeed so are blurry.
Compound that with if they were shot at 2.8 with a lens that is not sharp at 2.8 you could not win.
A flash bracket will get your flash above your camera and whether you turn it portrait or landscape the flash can be moved above the camera to get rid of that shadow, easy fix. No the flash shadow is not acceptable.
On the positive side you realized there were issues with these shots and asked for help. All of these issues are easily fixed ...
Good luck with your future shoots.

catspaw

Scott_Quier wrote:

As for the comment about the Really Right Stuff Wedding Pro flash bracket .... um ... well, RRS makes some very good stuff, but this isn't one of them. It fails to keep the flash orientation constant as the camera orientation changes under it. This is a prime consideration if you are bouncing the flash rather than pointing it at your subject. Their "B" series brackets seem to be a better bet. My favorite bracket is the Newton Di100FR2 Flash Rotator bracket because it's light, folds down flat, and keeps the flash orientation a constant while rotating the camera under it (BTW - I have no relationship with Newton Brackets or the inventor aside from being a very pleased customer).

Excuse me if I'm confused here, but the RSS is lightweight, folds flat and swings out to change orientation --- it shows all of that in the link you posted. So I'm not sure what your issues are with it??

Scott_Quier

catspaw wrote:

Excuse me if I'm confused here, but the RSS is lightweight, folds flat and swings out to change orientation --- it shows all of that in the link you posted. So I'm not sure what your issues are with it??

It works just fine as long as the head is pointed at your subject. OK, now, put the camera in landscape orientation and point the head to the ceiling for ceiling bounce. Take a shot. Whoops, we need the camera in portrait orientation. Where's the light emitting end of the flash pointed???? ..... At a wall.

As you rotate things around the flash goes from being vertical to laying on it's side. That flash needs to remain vertical.

Here it is, directly from their site....

catspaw

Roger that. I hadn't thought about the effects (or rather limitations) of it sitting sideways. opps! so for the simplicity of set up, it is limiting. The other bracket you linked to just seems so complex in comparison. I'm sure there's others out there ... still learning.

jbakerphoto

So much to digest.....

My laptop power cord decided to finally bite the dust so I lost my laptop for almost a day. We are back up now.

I am still trying to figure out the histogram. I sorta get the idea of it but maybe not.... I know I have read alot of post on it though...

I traded my Canon 70-200 F4 L for the Sigma this past fall. I needed the 2.8 for football and sports and stuff. It was sorta a deal with the devil. I've made my money back on it so it isnt that bad and I guess it has given me ops that the canon F4 would not have allowed. But man was that F4 nice and sharp....Would definitly like to end up with the canon version of the 70-200 2.8 eventually. I am going to do some tests with the sigma to see if I need to send it in or if it is user error.

I was checkin out gadget infinitly and they have this flash bracket (AkA ... Poverty Newton.... ).







and here is a link

http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=16962&cat=279&page=1

Much Much Much cheaper. and it looks like it does the same thing as the newton. interesting none the less. I am sorta wondering how my big ole hands are going to do with it....

Dont know if that covers everybody or not. Its alot to digest that is for sure. Thanks for replying again.

mmmatt

unclejon wrote:

So much to digest.....

My laptop power cord decided to finally bite the dust so I lost my laptop for almost a day. We are back up now.

I am still trying to figure out the histogram. I sorta get the idea of it but maybe not.... I know I have read alot of post on it though...

I traded my Canon 70-200 F4 L for the Sigma this past fall. I needed the 2.8 for football and sports and stuff. It was sorta a deal with the devil. I've made my money back on it so it isnt that bad and I guess it has given me ops that the canon F4 would not have allowed. But man was that F4 nice and sharp....Would definitly like to end up with the canon version of the 70-200 2.8 eventually. I am going to do some tests with the sigma to see if I need to send it in or if it is user error.

I was checkin out gadget infinitly and they have this flash bracket (AkA ... Poverty Newton.... ).







and here is a link

http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=16962&cat=279&page=1

Much Much Much cheaper. and it looks like it does the same thing as the newton. interesting none the less. I am sorta wondering how my big ole hands are going to do with it....

Dont know if that covers everybody or not. Its alot to digest that is for sure. Thanks for replying again.

I have 3 brackets... this one (or one like it) that I bought on e-bay for about $30. The design/function is cool, but the flash is not any higher then when on the shoe so it doesn't work well IMHO. It is also really tight around the lens and takes a little getting used to when zooming larger diameter lenses. This is the same design as the stoboframe vh 2000. I also have the stoboframe pro-t which is a really well built bracket but moves the flash when in portrait orientation like the rrs bracket above. Logic tells me however, that for portrait orientation using direct flash, you get better coverage that way but I don't know that to be true... it is just my logic. My favorite is the stroboframe camera flip which keeps the flash stationary and rotates the camera. This is great for ceiling bounce or direct flash, allows you to shoot with your camera turned at any angle and works well with bounce cards or any type of difuser that needs to remain in a fixed position. Build quality is only fair, but mine has been hanging in there pretty good, so for the price (about $75) it is pretty good value in my book.

Hope that helps some.

Matt

jbakerphoto

mmmatt wrote:

I have 3 brackets... this one (or one like it) that I bought on e-bay for about $30. The design/function is cool, but the flash is not any higher then when on the shoe so it doesn't work well IMHO. It is also really tight around the lens and takes a little getting used to when zooming larger diameter lenses. This is the same design as the stoboframe vh 2000. I also have the stoboframe pro-t which is a really well built bracket but moves the flash when in portrait orientation like the rrs bracket above. Logic tells me however, that for portrait orientation using direct flash, you get better coverage that way but I don't know that to be true... it is just my logic. My favorite is the stroboframe camera flip which keeps the flash stationary and rotates the camera. This is great for ceiling bounce or direct flash, allows you to shoot with your camera turned at any angle and works well with bounce cards or any type of difuser that needs to remain in a fixed position. Build quality is only fair, but mine has been hanging in there pretty good, so for the price (about $75) it is pretty good value in my book.

Hope that helps some.

Matt

That definitly helps matt. I think i am going to go with the stroboframe camera flip. I have found one on ebay for about 35 shipped....so that is probaly the way to go. Hopefully it will cure my ill's...At least some of them....

Anybody...Would it be a bad idea to go with the ebay version of the ettl cord?

FedererPhoto

Another great, and relatively cheap option is to get that flash off the camera....

Put it on a stand (or, if it works for you, on the top of the DJ's speakers, if they are higher than the height of a person) and pop it off remotely from your camera. You'll get shadows, but they won't be (as) objectionable.... and in many ways, they will ADD to the photograph.

Almost ALL of my work is lit via simple remote speedlights... it's fabulous. (including my most recent of at a suprise birthday party on my Wedding Photography Blog ... in the next few days I'll put up some from a reception that was off-camera-flash heavy... hopefully it'll be helpful to you - I've got some that include the flashes in the image)

jbakerphoto

FedererPhoto wrote:

Another great, and relatively cheap option is to get that flash off the camera....

Put it on a stand (or, if it works for you, on the top of the DJ's speakers, if they are higher than the height of a person) and pop it off remotely from your camera. You'll get shadows, but they won't be (as) objectionable.... and in many ways, they will ADD to the photograph.

Almost ALL of my work is lit via simple remote speedlights... it's fabulous. (including my most recent of at a suprise birthday party on my Wedding Photography Blog ... in the next few days I'll put up some from a reception that was off-camera-flash heavy... hopefully it'll be helpful to you - I've got some that include the flashes in the image)

Joe that is a great Idea and your photos are great. I actually have been thinking about doing something along those lines or doing Jeff's light on a stick. But I want to be safe with my first wedding as well. Might do a combo of all of the above.

I guess one of my faverite photographers that does the off camera stuff is Sol Tamargo and Matt Adcock at FlashFlavor.com. They are Awesome and definitly inspire me to play just a little bit.

BTW I got to the shot of the guy going under the dress for the garter. What a fantastic shot. I had to laugh.

Thanks for commenting.

FedererPhoto

unclejon wrote:

I actually have been thinking about doing something along those lines or doing Jeff's light on a stick.

I've never had a lot of luck with 'light on a stick' - likely because I can't operate my camera well with one hand. (D3+lens+SB-900+misc is like 10 pounds, include sweaty hands and it's hard to work it without supporting with my other hand)

What I am currently experiementing a lot with is roughly the same idea, however... I put my remote flash on the hot shoe of my assistants camera. They shoot straight-ambient.

This allows me to assume they are always in a good position for nice lighting (based on the lens and instruction I give them... I know they will be shooting from a cool angle... which means the light from their hot-shoe will be coming from a cool angle) and it removes the complication of ME needing to exactly position things. And if I want an 'exact' position, I can always just tell them to hold their camera at a certain location.


The image your reference was actually shot just that way (although I'm happy with the shot, I wish I would have hit focus on her face (which I did for the frame right before (and right after) ) ... you can clearly see my assistant in the shot (she's the one with the flash going off, not the others piling in for that angle). I told her (shoot tight on the groom with an 85f1.4 from the other side, I'll get reaction of bride shots) ... knowing where she needed to be to accomplish what I said gave the shot a bit of 'pizzaz' that straight flash simply wouldn't have done.. (on this one, I also had a Sb800 sitting camera right, to the right of the DJ stand, on a 12 foot light stand)



Ditto on this shot... (5 before it in my current portfolio). Rim lighting and the big flash-splash added to what would otherwise have been a relatively boringly-lit shot.



Normally I avoid inclduing them in the shot... but these two easily-accesible examples illustrate it best.

mmmatt

unclejon wrote:

Anybody...Would it be a bad idea to go with the ebay version of the ettl cord?

I have one ebay job and one canon. The ebay one sometimes gets finicky. Buy 2 and you should be OK. You should have 2 anyways JIC.

Matt

mmmatt

One thing I forgot about the stroboframe cameraflip bracket... the nuts are garbage. They lose tension in a couple hours of use and eventually strip out. First thing you do if you get this bracket, is go out and buy 8 or 10 "10-32 lock nut with nylon insert" at your local hardware store. They cost about a dime each and will save you some heartache when the stock nuts start slipping.

i just happen to find my sparew while digging through my photo junk drawer and it made me remember this thread.

Matt

Blurmore

FedererPhoto wrote:

I've never had a lot of luck with 'light on a stick' - likely because I can't operate my camera well with one hand. (D3+lens+SB-900+misc is like 10 pounds, include sweaty hands and it's hard to work it without supporting with my other hand)

What I am currently experiementing a lot with is roughly the same idea, however... I put my remote flash on the hot shoe of my assistants camera. They shoot straight-ambient.

This allows me to assume they are always in a good position for nice lighting (based on the lens and instruction I give them... I know they will be shooting from a cool angle... which means the light from their hot-shoe will be coming from a cool angle) and it removes the complication of ME needing to exactly position things. And if I want an 'exact' position, I can always just tell them to hold their camera at a certain location.


The image your reference was actually shot just that way (although I'm happy with the shot, I wish I would have hit focus on her face (which I did for the frame right before (and right after) ) ... you can clearly see my assistant in the shot (she's the one with the flash going off, not the others piling in for that angle). I told her (shoot tight on the groom with an 85f1.4 from the other side, I'll get reaction of bride shots) ... knowing where she needed to be to accomplish what I said gave the shot a bit of 'pizzaz' that straight flash simply wouldn't have done.. (on this one, I also had a Sb800 sitting camera right, to the right of the DJ stand, on a 12 foot light stand)



Ditto on this shot... (5 before it in my current portfolio). Rim lighting and the big flash-splash added to what would otherwise have been a relatively boringly-lit shot.

Normally I avoid inclduing them in the shot... but these two easily-accesible examples illustrate it best.

I have a question.

I have offered the flash on my camera up as a slave for another photographer, and had them do the same for me...my question is how do you have a flash on and mounted on the assistant's (walking lightstand) camera without them firing it? Is it on a cold shoe on a bracket? In Nikon land will having the flash in slave make it so the flash doesn't fire?? I'd be interested in trying this with my Canon but I believe the canon will fire it if it is on the hot shoe even if it is in slave. BTW those 2 shots are great, not my processing preference (a bit contrasty/too saturated) but great shots.

Art Scott

mmmatt wrote:

One thing I forgot about the stroboframe cameraflip bracket... the nuts are garbage. They lose tension in a couple hours of use and eventually strip out. First thing you do if you get this bracket, is go out and buy 8 or 10 "10-32 lock nut with nylon insert" at your local hardware store. They cost about a dime each and will save you some heartache when the stock nuts start slipping.

i just happen to find my sparew while digging through my photo junk drawer and it made me remember this thread.

Matt

i findit funnny that your think the nuts on the StroboFrames are crap.....sorry but I have 2 both are old and still working like crazy.....the only thing I have ahd to replace is on the RL2000 there were silicone washers and after the first 10yrs I replaced them.....not because they were worn out......but because they weren't white any longer and I was afraid the grime embeded in them would hurt the system as a whole.........

There will be a bad copy of anything that is man made, but each bad copy there will be at least 100-1k copies that work perfectly...........:D

tenoverthenose

Blurmore wrote:

I have a question.

I have offered the flash on my camera up as a slave for another photographer, and had them do the same for me...my question is how do you have a flash on and mounted on the assistant's (walking lightstand) camera without them firing it? Is it on a cold shoe on a bracket? In Nikon land will having the flash in slave make it so the flash doesn't fire?? I'd be interested in trying this with my Canon but I believe the canon will fire it if it is on the hot shoe even if it is in slave. BTW those 2 shots are great, not my processing preference (a bit contrasty/too saturated) but great shots.

With a Canon flash, you just put it on the camera and put the flash in slave mode. So long as there is line of site, it will fire. It will also fire when you press the shutter on your camera however. If you only want it to fire as a slave, you will need to mount it so that the pins are not connected to the cameras hot shoe (off camera bracket, cold shoe adapter, etc.).

Good luck!

Blurmore

tenoverthenose wrote:

With a Canon flash, you just put it on the camera and put the flash in slave mode. So long as there is line of site, it will fire. It will also fire when you press the shutter on your camera however. If you only want it to fire as a slave, you will need to mount it so that the pins are not connected to the cameras hot shoe (off camera bracket, cold shoe adapter, etc.).

Good luck!

Yeah...thanks I knew this. Was wondering how Federer did it and had his assistants shoot ambient (not fire the flash).

mmmatt

Art Scott wrote:

i findit funnny that your think the nuts on the StroboFrames are crap.....sorry but I have 2 both are old and still working like crazy.....the only thing I have ahd to replace is on the RL2000 there were silicone washers and after the first 10yrs I replaced them.....not because they were worn out......but because they weren't white any longer and I was afraid the grime embeded in them would hurt the system as a whole.........

There will be a bad copy of anything that is man made, but each bad copy there will be at least 100-1k copies that work perfectly...........:D

The nuts on my older pro-t are fine, on the newer camera-flip they were plastic and garbage. I carried around a 10mm socket driver in my rear pocket the last couple times I used the camera flip before replacing the nuts. I would take my hand off the bracket to zoom and the bracket would rotate. Finally I replaced all the nuts and I never touch them now. Older or different models of stoboframes may use different nuts or because of the moving parts on the cameraflip it may stress the nuts more... just my personal experience and a $1.00 fix for it!

Matt

FedererPhoto

Blurmore wrote:

Yeah...thanks I knew this. Was wondering how Federer did it and had his assistants shoot ambient (not fire the flash).

tenoverthenose got it right. A flash (at least the SB800 and some Canon flashes) in camera B's hot shoe won't fire for a camera B shutter-click when the flash is in slave mode.... but it will fire for camera A, if camera A has the commander (either via an onboard flash or a commander-capable flash in it's hotshoe).

Effectively, putting the remote speedlight in commander mode turns camera-B's hot-shoe into a cold-shoe.

I've never seen anyone else do it, but I gave it a shot and found it's amazingly handy and now do it almost all the time.