Settings for Presentation Shots

canon400d

Tonight I have been asked to take some shots of a presentation where a cheque will be handed over to a childrens ward at the hospital. I have never done anything like this before and I am terrified they don't turn out well. I will be using 40D and 17-55 with 580 flash. What would be the best settings and any other advice regarding composition would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
Bob

Scott_Quier

What I would do (in order of priority) is:

• Manual Mode, ISO 200 (maybe 400), f/3.5 (ish). If the lighting is flourscent, shutter speed in USA would be about 1/60. I don't know the frequency of electricity in Scotland, but if it's 50Hz, then you need a shutter speed of 1/50s (or a multiple of that, 1/25, 1/100, etc).
  
  
• Flash mounted on camera. If you intend to shoot with camera in portrait orientation, a flash bracket would be a good idea. Point that flash at the ceiling, attaching a white card to the back of the flash using an elastic band - this will throw some fill light forward to open up shadows on faces, etc.
  
  
• Gel the flash to match the color of the ambient light. If lights in the hospital are flourscent, something like
  • Rosco #3304
  • Rosco #3315 or
  • Rosco #3316
  
  If they are tungsten, then you are looking at something like
  • Rosco #3407- Full CTO (Converts 6500K to 3200K)
  • Rosco #3411- 3/4 CTO (Converts 5500K to 3200K)
  • Rosco #3408- 1/2 CTO (Converts 5500K to 3800K)
  • Rosco #3409- 1/4 CTO (Converts 5500K to 4500K)
  
  
  The density of the gel will be determined by how green/orange the lighting is compared to that of the flash.

canon400d

Scott_Quier wrote:

What I would do (in order of priority) is:

• Manual Mode, ISO 200 (maybe 400), f/3.5 (ish). If the lighting is flourscent, shutter speed in USA would be about 1/60. I don't know the frequency of electricity in Scotland, but if it's 50Hz, then you need a shutter speed of 1/50s (or a multiple of that, 1/25, 1/100, etc).
• Flash mounted on camera. If you intend to shoot with camera in portrait orientation, a flash bracket would be a good idea. Point that flash at the ceiling, attaching a white card to the back of the flash using an elastic band - this will throw some fill light forward to open up shadows on faces, etc.
• Gel the flash to match the color of the ambient light. If lights in the hospital are flourscent, something like
  • Rosco #3304
  • Rosco #3315 or
  • Rosco #3316
  If they are tungsten, then you are looking at something like
  • Rosco #3407- Full CTO (Converts 6500K to 3200K)
  • Rosco #3411- 3/4 CTO (Converts 5500K to 3200K)
  • Rosco #3408- 1/2 CTO (Converts 5500K to 3800K)
  • Rosco #3409- 1/4 CTO (Converts 5500K to 4500K)
  
  The density of the gel will be determined by how green/orange the lighting is compared to that of the flash.

Thanks ever so much Scott that is excellent the nerves are starting to subside.
Regards
Bob

Scott_Quier

I forgot to add ....

Take a test shot or two and chimp. Adjust your FEC to get the light you need/want.

Nikonic1

This thread is the perfect reason this place is so cool. Awesome advice Scott...I learned something new too. Thanks

canon400d

Nikonic1 wrote:

This thread is the perfect reason this place is so cool. Awesome advice Scott...I learned something new too. Thanks

Thanks once again Scott you really have given me the confidence I was so lacking.
Regards
Bob

canon400d

canon400d wrote:

Thanks once again Scott you really have given me the confidence I was so lacking.
Regards
Bob

Hi Scott, just to let you know I did exactly as you advised and the images turned out a treat and the presenters were thrilled with the result of the images for the local newspapers. I just cannot thank you enough as I appreciate it so much and you have given me the confidence I need for my next shoot.
Regards
Bob

Scott_Quier

canon400d wrote:

Hi Scott, just to let you know I did exactly as you advised and the images turned out a treat and the presenters were thrilled with the result of the images for the local newspapers. I just cannot thank you enough as I appreciate it so much and you have given me the confidence I need for my next shoot.
Regards
Bob

I'm very pleased it worked out for you. I didn't have a lot of doubt, but you never know .... the setting could have been different from what I imagined.

I provided my answers (gave you a couple of fish) because time was short. Now to blow a huge hole in your confidence (and teach you to fish) .... Can you explain, at least to yourself, the reason behind each point of the advice I offered you:

• Why ISO 200 (or 400) and not 100 or 800? Why full stop settings rather than 1/3 over 200?
  
  
• Why f/3.5 (or there abouts) rather than f/2.8 or f/5.6?
  
  
• Why the shutter speed so slow ... 1/50 or 1/60 rather than 1/200?
  
  
• Why point the flash at the ceiling rather than at a 45° toward your models? Would angling the flash have worked? (Hint: This is a trick question)
  
  
• What's the point behind gelling the flash? What are the considerations when you don't?

If not, let me know (PM) and I'll give you a run down. But, please think about it all. It's the only way to internalize it and make it yours.

Oh, and BTW, I would love to see a couple of them if you can post without getting into trouble.

canon400d

Scott_Quier wrote:

I'm very pleased it worked out for you. I didn't have a lot of doubt, but you never know .... the setting could have been different from what I imagined.

I provided my answers (gave you a couple of fish) because time was short. Now to blow a huge hole in your confidence (and teach you to fish) .... Can you explain, at least to yourself, the reason behind each point of the advice I offered you:

• Why ISO 200 (or 400) and not 100 or 800? Why full stop settings rather than 1/3 over 200?
• Why f/3.5 (or there abouts) rather than f/2.8 or f/5.6?
• Why the shutter speed so slow ... 1/50 or 1/60 rather than 1/200?
• Why point the flash at the ceiling rather than at a 45° toward your models? Would angling the flash have worked? (Hint: This is a trick question)
• What's the point behind gelling the flash? What are the considerations when you don't?

If not, let me know (PM) and I'll give you a run down. But, please think about it all. It's the only way to internalize it and make it yours.

Oh, and BTW, I would love to see a couple of them if you can post without getting into trouble.

Hi Scott,
I think I need to know the correct answers to those questions. I have a wee bit of idea but I am sure I wouldn't be able to answer them correctly.
Regards
Bob

Scott_Quier

canon400d wrote:

Hi Scott,
I think I need to know the correct answers to those questions. I have a wee bit of idea but I am sure I wouldn't be able to answer them correctly.
Regards
Bob

OK, let's take them in order:

Scott_Quier wrote:

• Why ISO 200 (or 400) and not 100 or 800? Why full stop settings rather than 1/3 over 200?
  When shooting with flash, ISO, in combination with shutter speed, controls the extent to which ambient light contributes to the exposure. If one were to shoot at 800, there would be no need for flash but then you would have shadows in the eye sockets from the over-head lighting and your shots may turn out noisier than desired (depends on how well you nail the exposure). At ISO 100, the backgrounds (that not lit by the flash) would render quite dark - like shooting a subject in a cave - not so nice. ISO 200 (or 400) is a nice compromise. Your subject would be nicely lit by the flash and the background would be a bit darker without going totally black.
  
  
• Why f/3.5 (or there abouts) rather than f/2.8 or f/5.6?
  The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is a very nice lens and quite sharp from f/2.8 through about f/11. However, it is noticably sharper when stopped down just a touch - hense the f/3.5. Now, why not stop down 2 stops and set the aperture to f/5.6? Well, why make the flash work harder than it has to? An aperture of f/3.5 of f/4 is a very nice compromise between these two "extremes".
  
  Now, someone is going to ask about aperture and how it relates to DOF. My thinking was that you were going to be shooting people standing next to each other so DOF is not a major concern. Had you been shooting groups and rows of people DOF would have been more significant and would have required a bit smaller aperture for appropriate DOF.
  
  
• Why the shutter speed so slow ... 1/50 or 1/60 rather than 1/200?
  Part of the answer to this question is found in the first answer - the extent to which ambient light contributes to exposure when using flash is related to both the ISO and the shutter speed. The faster the shutter, the less ambient will contribute and the more it will look like you were shooting in a cave. A shutter speed of 1/50 (or 1/60, depending on power frequency in your locale) is fast enough to stop the small motions of people just standing or walking slowly while, at the same time, slow enough to allow ambient light to illuminate your backgrounds.
  
  
• Why point the flash at the ceiling rather than at a 45° toward your models? Would angling the flash have worked? (Hint: This is a trick question)
  Without proper diffusion, a direct flash will
  
  • Generate quite harsh lighting,
  • Cause high-contrast shadows, and
  • Depending on how close the flash is to your subject, very rapid light fall-off over distance
  Bouncing the flash off the ceiling causes the ceiling to be come a huge light diffuser and thus counters all the above problems. However, this technique increases the eye-socket shadows so a white card attached to the back of the flash will cause some light to be pushed forward to fill those shadows.
  
  Will tilting the flash toward the subjects work? Sure, but it can get fiddly depending on your distance from your subjects. Tilting the flash can be the option of choice if you have low ceilings (explaining/visualizing this scenario is left as an exercise for the student). If you are working under 9' or 10' ceilings, straight up with a card attached will solve most problems that can be solved by a camera mounted flash.
  
  
• What's the point behind gelling the flash? What are the considerations when you don't?
  The color of the light from your flash is, nominally, 5500°K. The color of the light from industrial flourscent lighting is anybody's guess. The same can be said of tungsten light, where the color is a function of the power rating of the light bulb (higher power lights are not quite so orange/warm - check it out sometime with a tunsten light controlled by a varible switch). Getting a good WB in an image illuminated by lights of two or more colors is difficult, at best and I'm sure this is why some photos get converted to B&W . When you shoot with your flash(es) gelled to deliver light of approximately the same color as the ambient and you shoot a neutral target for WB purposes, setting the WB in post processing becomes a simple task.

divamum

Bob, please do share the results!

Can the rest of us play? I'm still working out fill/bounce/event flash, so... can we share our thoughts on the answers (since I think that in some of them there's more than one answer )? I'll only post them here if it's ok with you guys....

Scott_Quier wrote:

• Why ISO 200 (or 400) and not 100 or 800? Why full stop settings rather than 1/3 over 200?
• Why f/3.5 (or there abouts) rather than f/2.8 or f/5.6?
• Why the shutter speed so slow ... 1/50 or 1/60 rather than 1/200?
• Why point the flash at the ceiling rather than at a 45° toward your models? Would angling the flash have worked? (Hint: This is a trick question)
• What's the point behind gelling the flash? What are the considerations when you don't?

(And Scott -you're a great teacher!!!!!!!!! Wtg )

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

Bob, please do share the results!

Can the rest of us play? I'm still working out fill/bounce/event flash, so... can we share our thoughts on the answers (since I think that in some of them there's more than one answer )? I'll only post them here if it's ok with you guys....



(And Scott -you're a great teacher!!!!!!!!! Wtg )

I would think so - that's the purpose of the Techniques forum, to share answers. Besides, I would love to read other's answers as it's bound to reduce my level of ignorance.

As for being a great teacher ... That's what I would have done with my life if only the American society would reward teacher in keeping with their value and responsibilities. (oops, was that a political statement?)

divamum

Scott_Quier wrote:

I would think so - that's the purpose of the Techniques forum, to share answers. Besides, I would love to read other's answers as it's bound to reduce my level of ignorance.

As for being a great teacher ... That's what I would have done with my life if only the American society would reward teacher in keeping with their value and responsibilities. (oops, was that a political statement?)

You and I must have been typing at the same time so I see you've answered... but I didn't read them yet! Here's my take (and I very much doubt I can offer anything you don't know already! )

My answers in bold

• Why ISO 200 (or 400) and not 100 or 800? Why full stop settings rather than 1/3 over 200?
  
  low enough to keep the grain down, but high enough not to make the flash work toooo hard to compensate when it's doing it's ettl fill thang. Could be adjusted either way depending on specific circmustances, but 200/400 good starting points that cover most situations.
  
  
• Why f/3.5 (or there abouts) rather than f/2.8 or f/5.6?
  
  Hmm. I'm slightly stumped on this one. Obviously, 3.5 is going to give you (just) enough dof to get eyes etc in focus and let the background be blurred enough not to distract, but still keep some detail in the bg scene. I personally tend towards f4 for that when shooting ~50mm, so I guess for a wider angle 3.5 would be about right. Why not 5.6, however? Is that for lighting, or DOF reasons?
  
  
• Why the shutter speed so slow ... 1/50 or 1/60 rather than 1/200?
  
  BRING ON that ambient contribution! With a 1/200 shutter speed, you lose all the ambient and get flash-o-rama.
  
  
• Why point the flash at the ceiling rather than at a 45° toward your models? Would angling the flash have worked? (Hint: This is a trick question)
  
  BOUNCE!!!! Soften that light. And yes, angling might have worked.... all depends on what's around to bounce off, how high the ceilings are and where ambient light is coming from. I'm currently a big fan these days of bouncing up, behind and slightly to the side over my shoulder if there's a useful, neutral-coloured surface behind me to use (thank you planetneil). But whatever is available is the "best" direction - anything to turn the flash into a larger, softer light source by using the surroundings as a locational softbox.
  
  
• What's the point behind gelling the flash? What are the considerations when you don't?
  
  Balancing up colour temps between flash, artificial ambient and natural ambient. Sometimes it's impossible to get them all playing nice, but a gel can help simplify the task when you process.

How'd I do on the pop quiz? ::scuttles off to read the answers::

canon400d

Scott_Quier wrote:

OK, let's take them in order:

Oh Scott, that is so wonderful you really have no idea how much I appreciate the answers to those questions. I will be perfectly honest with you I was absolutely miles away with my theories. Thanks once again for all your kind help which I truly appreciate and I am sure others will do too.
Regards
Bob

dbveto

canon400d wrote:

Oh Scott, that is so wonderful you really have no idea how much I appreciate the answers to those questions. I will be perfectly honest with you I was absolutely miles away with my theories. Thanks once again for all your kind help which I truly appreciate and I am sure others will do too.
Regards
Bob

To add to this discussion canon400d could you describe what the actual lighting was like? I just shot an Awards banquet and even though the client was ecstatic with what I gave them, I was not happy with all of them.

canon400d

dbveto wrote:

To add to this discussion canon400d could you describe what the actual lighting was like? I just shot an Awards banquet and even though the client was ecstatic with what I gave them, I was not happy with all of them.

When I took the shots they were taken in the entrance to the childrens ward of the hospital. This was the typical lighting that is on all day and night in hospitals. There were no specific lights like fluorescent or tungsten if you understand.
Rergards
Bob

BradfordBenn

Thanks for this info, it is helping me to understand some of the decisions I am getting lucky and unlucky with.

canon400d

BradfordBenn wrote:

Thanks for this info, it is helping me to understand some of the decisions I am getting lucky and unlucky with.

No problem Brad but it is Scott to thank for all of the kind help he has given.
Regards
Bob

D'Buggs

canon400d wrote:

..... There were no specific lights like fluorescent or tungsten if you understand.
Rergards
Bob

Nope. Don't get that - If the light is there at night, it needs to come from SOMEWHERE. I bet an artificial source is in play.

Enlighten me, please.

canon400d

D'Buggs wrote:

Nope. Don't get that - If the light is there at night, it needs to come from SOMEWHERE. I bet an artificial source is in play.

Enlighten me, please.[/quote

Hi D'Buggs. Yes obviously the lights has to come from somewhere but where I was in the hallway of the childrens ward there no flourescent or tungsten lights and certainly no indication as to where the light was coming from. If you have visited a hospital you will probably be aware of the type of lighting that is used. Tell me how you would describe hospital lighting. I shoot raw and used AWB and use CS4 so it didn't create any problem.
Regards
Bob

pathfinder

Most indirect lighting in public buildings is some variety of fluorescent, I suspect, Bob, unless it is daylight and daylight is being directed within the building as well. As you say, it is usually a mixed bag, as far as color is concerned. Tungsten lighting is gradually being used less and less indoors.

D'Buggs

I'd bet a surgical procedure that its flourescent.....

I haven't paid attention too light in hospitals; The last time I was in one, I barely remember being discharged.

canon400d

D'Buggs wrote:

I'd bet a surgical procedure that its flourescent.....

I haven't paid attention too light in hospitals; The last time I was in one, I barely remember being discharged.

Hi Pathfinder, I am quite sure you and D'Buggs are correct and the lighting was flourescent. Once again I can only reiterate that Scott should take all the credit for all the advice and information he provided in this thread. As a result this is what gives this forum a five star rating and giving people like me the confidence which I truly appreciate.
Regards
Bob