Off camera flash baby portraits

urbanaries · September 3, 2007

Using a little of what I learned at Shay's wedding bootcamp...since infants (this one's 12 weeks) eyes aren't fully developed for a while, direct flash can be very jarring to them in a portrait session. But I learned that while off camera flash is "hard" light, it illuminates a larger area, and is farther away from the subject, which is much less noticeable. I asked the mom if she minded I try, and to tell me if she thought it was too much for the little girl. Neither noticed the whole session!

So, here are a few samples of the outcome. These were with 580EX on a lightstand, triggered with an ST-E2. I tried to shoot in manual and meter with my camera. For best results meter with a lightmeter and use a flash that goes fully manual. I used FEC to get desired results.

FEEDBACK DEFINITELY APPRECIATED!!!

1. In full shade, sun behind me, off camera flash 2 inches from the ground, camera left. This is an example of where the hard light of the bare flash could produce a low contrast effect, since it was far enough away from the subject.

2. Basically same setup...sun camera right, flash camera left. Had a little trouble exposing her skin without blowing out the pale dress entirely. It was picking up some sun's rays. But the flash evened the dopples out, which was nice!

3. You can see the wide, soft shadows from the flash on her left shoulder and head.

4. Indoors, this shot would be impossible without flash. I tried it when she was 5 days old with natural light and it was just too much dynamic range to overcome.

5. I used Daves Diffused Glow action on this one. There's an extra "patch" of white above her dress i need to look into, but once i fix/clone that out of the original file, I think I'll like how this one turned out.

So what do you guys think? was it worth the expiriment?

pathfinder · September 3, 2007

Lynne, very interesting post.

I am not sure I understand why off camera flash has to be hard ( sharply edged shadows ) light.

Bounce your off camera flash off a white wall and create a giant north window light - soft, diffused, less distressing to the wee one.

What - no wall?? Out of doors?? How about bouncing the flash off a 42 inch white Impact reflector held by a light stand.

No reflector?? How about shooting the flash through a white sheet held up by a rope between two trees, light stands whatever. This should give a nice, large white window of light also.

And lastly, how about a 42 inch white "shoot through" umbrella - bring this in close - just a foot or tow away from the subject, but WOW, the light will be baby soft, diffuse, and less disturbing than direct flash.

Your use of flash is getting better and better, Lynne.

The baby on the window sill is very attractive, but I am always frightened that the child will roll off the edge and fall on the floor. Just a thought.

urbanaries · September 3, 2007

Hi Pathfinder! You make some great points. Looking back, I think I was trying to keep things as simple as possible. Next time I'll whip out the umbrella, I guess I was thinking the closer the light was to the subject, the more jarring it would be to her eyes?

One question I have, can you speak more indepth from my examples of where the "hard" light is a problem?

I was able to bounce the flash off a vaulted white ceiling in the indoors shots. The mom was just barely off camera to spot the baby. The sill cushion was very cushy and she wouldn't easily roll over without a warning. I've never had any remotely close calls, and the parents don't ever seem to be bothered?

Cuties02q · September 3, 2007

Nice shots Lynne...I really like #2 & #5 best. That pillow is soo pretty what a great idea

Scott_Quier · September 3, 2007

Lynne,

I don't thing you need to change much, if anything, in your outdoor shots. The flash is having to compete with power of the sun. That mute the "hard shadow" potential until it is almost not an issue. I certainly don't see any evidence of a hard shadow problem.

I really like the light (and the shot too) in the first indoor photo. That is really nice. The photo is very dramatic and, for me, is the best of the group. For me though, I get a feeling of unbalance - like the baby is not positioned correctly in the photo. I don't know what I would change, but there it is...

urbanaries wrote:

Hi Pathfinder! You make some great points. Looking back, I think I was trying to keep things as simple as possible. Next time I'll whip out the umbrella, I guess I was thinking the closer the light was to the subject, the more jarring it would be to her eyes?

One question I have, can you speak more indepth from my examples of where the "hard" light is a problem?

I was able to bounce the flash off a vaulted white ceiling in the indoors shots. The mom was just barely off camera to spot the baby. The sill cushion was very cushy and she wouldn't easily roll over without a warning. I've never had any remotely close calls, and the parents don't ever seem to be bothered?

urbanaries · September 3, 2007

Scott_Quier wrote:

Lynne,

I don't thing you need to change much, if anything, in your outdoor shots. The flash is having to compete with power of the sun. That mute the "hard shadow" potential until it is almost not an issue. I certainly don't see any evidence of a hard shadow problem.

I really like the light (and the shot too) in the first indoor photo. That is really nice. The photo is very dramatic and, for me, is the best of the group. For me though, I get a feeling of unbalance - like the baby is not positioned correctly in the photo. I don't know what I would change, but there it is...

Great feedback, Scott! I'm glad you like the lighting. I am not sure I completely grasp the situation at hand. The flash did add some light (#2 was f2.8 1/160 at ISO200), but I am not savvy enough to determine whether the flash eclipsed the sun (:D) to become the key light, or if it was just fill. A true lightmeter would have helped. As it were, I shot in Av to force the 580ex to act as fill.

Regarding the indoors shot, you are very observant. I liked the symmetry of the windows and draperies. Yet, with baby + gown length centered, her head was in the middle of a beam. I wanted the light to give her a nice profile, so I moved her head into a window, thus throwing the symmetry off. Do you think I should crop some of the right side off to make it more purposeful?

photogmomma · September 3, 2007

1. I love the lighting in this one! I think it's soft and very flattering to the baby!

2. I'm wondering if the fill was above the baby more (maybe softened as Pathfinder suggested, but I'm not seeing harshness). The think I don't like as much (and trust me, this is picky!) is that the baby's face is illuminated from the left and right, but leaves the middle darker.... Just a thought! But I love the pillow!!! what a neat way to shoot the baby outside.

3. Ditto with lighting as above, but you can start to see some harsher shadows in the skirt in this one. (Didn't notice until PF mentioned the harshness, though.) I might opt to expose for the face a little more at the expense of the skirt/dress. Her expression is hilarious! I LOVE it!

4. OMG! Spectacular. If you could magically redo, I'd move the baby to the left so the head is at the 1/3 point. But still a wonderful shot - LOVE the lighting!

5. Wow again! Just gorgeous! Agree about the patch of white, but it's not horrid and easily fixed!

What a wonderful set! It's nice to hear what you're learning from Shay as I try to figure out how to apply it for next weekend!!

saurora · September 4, 2007

Lynne these are super! I think you did a great job and I'm sure your flash work will improve shortly. #4 is absolutely wonderful!!! The position of the baby seems fine to me. If you moved her up, the window casing would be directly behind her head and not as attractive. This is my favorite of the set. I like the use of the satin pillow outdoors...looks super in the grass!

Scott_Quier · September 4, 2007

urbanaries wrote:

Regarding the indoors shot, you are very observant. I liked the symmetry of the windows and draperies. Yet, with baby + gown length centered, her head was in the middle of a beam. I wanted the light to give her a nice profile, so I moved her head into a window, thus throwing the symmetry off. Do you think I should crop some of the right side off to make it more purposeful?

Given the requirement to shoot the baby in the gown, I don't think there is a better placement in the window casement. If you move him/her to the left, you have the problem, like Susan indicated, of the window casing growing out of the baby's head. Move the baby even more and you have even worse problems.

It's the gown that is throwing things off. It's just so long it looks wrong when compared to the size of the baby's head.

Van Isle · September 4, 2007

Nice shots, and informative for a new flash shooter like myself.

I really really like 4 and 5, great colour and range, but I find them a little disturbing. Ghostly baby in a white gown thing is kinda spooky. If mom likes them, OK. But still.

And that "white patch" is just the reflection of the gown, non? Re-shoot! j/k

VI

urbanaries · September 4, 2007

photogmomma wrote:

1. I love the lighting in this one! I think it's soft and very flattering to the baby!

Cool! I really liked this one too, for her expression and those crazy sky catchlights!

2. I'm wondering if the fill was above the baby more (maybe softened as Pathfinder suggested, but I'm not seeing harshness). The think I don't like as much (and trust me, this is picky!) is that the baby's face is illuminated from the left and right, but leaves the middle darker.... Just a thought! But I love the pillow!!! what a neat way to shoot the baby outside.

thanks for the input...I wasn't quite sure how to place the light with someone on the ground as opposed to standing vertical. Shay wasn't there to tell me!

4. OMG! Spectacular. 5. Wow again! Just gorgeous! Agree about the patch of white, but it's not horrid and easily fixed!

Thanks Andi for all your input! maybe i'll process the shot where she was exactly centered so you guys can tell me if I'm nuts for moving her!

Lynne these are super! I think you did a great job and I'm sure your flash work will improve shortly. #4 is absolutely wonderful!!! The position of the baby seems fine to me. If you moved her up, the window casing would be directly behind her head and not as attractive. This is my favorite of the set. I like the use of the satin pillow outdoors...looks super in the grass!

Thanks Susan! this age is awkward to shoot, so I tried to think outside the box a bit! I am glad you like the window shots, too! I just wish there were two windows and not three, then I could get her centered right! It didn't look good at all with a big beam growing out of her head. :cry

Nice shots Lynne...I really like #2 & #5 best. That pillow is soo pretty what a great idea

Thanks Stephenie! It was a euro pillow from my bed...courtesy of Target!

I thought it played nicely off the green grass and dress.

Van Isle wrote:

Nice shots, and informative for a new flash shooter like myself.

I really really like 4 and 5, great colour and range, but I find them a little disturbing. Ghostly baby in a white gown thing is kinda spooky. If mom likes them, OK. But still.VI

Thanks for the feedback! It is interesting to hear everyone's reactions to 4 and 5....I guess I don't find anything disturbing about a christening gown? The baby was to be baptized this weekend, hence the request...

schmoo · September 4, 2007

Lynne I love these photos! The parents should be thrilled. Your style was also so unique and juicy, but I can certainly tell you've picked up a few tips from Shay in terms of lighting. To my untrained eye I didn't think it could be better but these are wonderful. The light is subtle and clear and I at least don't see any problems with it being too harsh anywhere.

Like Van Isle I'm still very new to lighting so I'm learning a lot from this thread.

I love the colors, love the gown. I didn't know it was a christening - with the big windows I thought it was some kind of baby princess costume.

SloYerRoll · September 4, 2007

Lynn,
You really have progressed so much with your shooting. I'm very excited for you!
The only small thing I would add is to gel your strobes (whether shooting direct, though an umbrella.. whatever..)
While there is a certain artistic aspect to having an imbalance in lighting temputure. I don't feel that baby portraits need any more impact when you shoot as well as you do.

PM me if you want to east tips on balancing your strobes tempurature to sunlight. Since it's way OT here.

All the best,
-Jon

jeffreaux2 · September 4, 2007

These are awesome. I think the lighting looks fine in all of them, but agree that the shot on the ground may have been improved by raising the flash a tad. But hey what do I know? I FINALLY got a flash last Friday, and have been doing some serious experimentation with it......and can't wait to get another....second flash. Does this mean I can no longer call myself a natural light photographer?

photogmomma · September 4, 2007

SloYerRoll wrote:

Lynn,
You really have progressed so much with your shooting. I'm very excited for you!
The only small thing I would add is to gel your strobes (whether shooting direct, though an umbrella.. whatever..)
While there is a certain artistic aspect to having an imbalance in lighting temputure. I don't feel that baby portraits need any more impact when you shoot as well as you do.

PM me if you want to east tips on balancing your strobes tempurature to sunlight. Since it's way OT here.

All the best,
-Jon

Actually (I hope Lynne doesn't mind me saying this!), but I'd LOVE for you to explain this here! I just ordered some equipment and would love to know how to get thigns set up correctly. Thanks!!

Scott_Quier · September 4, 2007

photogmomma wrote:

Actually (I hope Lynne doesn't mind me saying this!), but I'd LOVE for you to explain this here! I just ordered some equipment and would love to know how to get thigns set up correctly. Thanks!!

I second the motion!

jeffreaux2 · September 4, 2007

Scott_Quier wrote:

I second the motion!

Third...I am waiting for gels to arrive.

Would it be better to start a new thread so it can be a sticky thread in the tips section later?

Thiago Sigrist · September 5, 2007

Hi Lynne!

Lovely flash shots!

I'm not much of a flash(y) guy, but I think you did great here, in all pics!

Actually #4 is my fave, it's awesome because it looks so natural, it's so hard to tell you used flash at a first glance! Then you stop to think a little bit and figure this shot is actually impossible without artificial lighting, as you said!

Thus, it's a very "flash" shot, and you managed to make it look like it wasn't even lit with flash. IMHO that's a real accomplishment when it comes to flash!

Oh, and one thing I thought about this picture: if I was taking a picture of the same scene, since I don't use flash, I'd probably try it with my old film camera, since from my experience, color negative film is quite a bit more highlight-resistant compared to digital.

I still remember the thrill when I took an indoors shot with windows and actually being able to see what was out there!

But I digress too much...

What's important is your shots are great, and your flash technique is getting pretty awesome! Congrats Lynne!

Thanks for the nice post!
Take care!

-- thiago

urbanaries · September 6, 2007

SloYerRoll wrote:

Lynn,
You really have progressed so much with your shooting. I'm very excited for you!
The only small thing I would add is to gel your strobes (whether shooting direct, though an umbrella.. whatever..)
While there is a certain artistic aspect to having an imbalance in lighting temputure. I don't feel that baby portraits need any more impact when you shoot as well as you do.

PM me if you want to east tips on balancing your strobes tempurature to sunlight. Since it's way OT here.

All the best,
-Jon

hi Jon! thanks for the wonderful comments. I truly appreciate your feedback!

I do have a set of gels, but after expirimenting with them some, I abandoned using them. Outdoors I don't worry too much about gelling, because aren't the strobes balanced to daylight? In the shade there's a difference, yes, but without a spectrophotometer I have trouble indoors making a bigger mess of the lighting balance than there was to begin with. And, the light loss just wasn't worth it. But, I am positive there must be a more accurate and/or easier way to gel properly.

Any tips or tricks would be MOST helpful, either in this thread or another!

Thanks Jon!
lynne

urbanaries · September 6, 2007

Thiago Sigrist wrote:

Hi Lynne!

Lovely flash shots!

I'm not much of a flash(y) guy, but I think you did great here, in all pics!

Actually #4 is my fave, it's awesome because it looks so natural, it's so hard to tell you used flash at a first glance! Then you stop to think a little bit and figure this shot is actually impossible without artificial lighting, as you said!

Thus, it's a very "flash" shot, and you managed to make it look like it wasn't even lit with flash. IMHO that's a real accomplishment when it comes to flash!

Oh, and one thing I thought about this picture: if I was taking a picture of the same scene, since I don't use flash, I'd probably try it with my old film camera, since from my experience, color negative film is quite a bit more highlight-resistant compared to digital.

I still remember the thrill when I took an indoors shot with windows and actually being able to see what was out there!

But I digress too much...

What's important is your shots are great, and your flash technique is getting pretty awesome! Congrats Lynne!

Thanks for the nice post!
Take care!

-- thiago

hi Thiago!
Thanks for your comments, I'm truly humbled by your vote of confidence!

I haven't always been a fan of flash either, but when it does work right i have much more freedom to move about and let my subjects do the same. It has been a learning curve and I'm still not over the hump yet!

I do agree digital is less tolerant than film with exposure. I love seeing your film shots when you post here!

Keep shooting that beautiful lady of yours!
Lynne

jeffreaux2 · September 6, 2007

Lynne

I read a pretty decent article last week about grey cards. It would be cumbersome at times, but the overall idea makes sense. Since you shoot raw anyway(don't you?) ......

Take a photo with the grey card in the picture.....lay it dow next to the child's face......then remove the card and shoot all the photos you want in that spot. If you move to a different location repeat above.

Now when you bring your shots into your RAW converter, use the picker took and set the WB using the photo of the grey card......from the grey card itself. Then apply the same WB settings to all the photos from that location. Seems easy enough to me, and the fun of it is that you aren'y concerned at all with WB while you are shooting.

It wouldn't work at a fast paced event, but it wouldn't be hard to run around before a wedding and take photos of the grey cards in different locations where you think you will have problems....keeping a list of file#s/locations to reference to later.
I plan to try try this next opportunity I have.

Sure wish my camera bag was 18% grey!!!!
Are any bag manufacturers listening?

This method will take into account any and all light sources in a scene.....sun,shade, flash etc.

Anyway...again very nice photos....I now have my flash, and am wondering how I got by so long without it!!!

pathfinder · September 6, 2007

urbanaries wrote:

Hi Pathfinder! You make some great points. Looking back, I think I was trying to keep things as simple as possible. Next time I'll whip out the umbrella, I guess I was thinking the closer the light was to the subject, the more jarring it would be to her eyes?

One question I have, can you speak more indepth from my examples of where the "hard" light is a problem?

I was able to bounce the flash off a vaulted white ceiling in the indoors shots. The mom was just barely off camera to spot the baby. The sill cushion was very cushy and she wouldn't easily roll over without a warning. I've never had any remotely close calls, and the parents don't ever seem to be bothered?

Lynne, I do not want to be mis-understood. I think your images are very good, and the use of flash was a definite improvement over what available light would have done in these settings.

A few comments about hard light ( light with sharp, deep shadow boundaries ) and soft light ( light with gradual soft shadow boundaries that seem to wrap around a subject and not have deep, dark shadows )

Hard light is light from a source that appears small, relative to what it is shining on. A penlight, in a collimated beam, would be hard used very closeup to a subject. A laser pointer is the ultimate hardlight, as is an arc light beam.

The sun ( altho very large ) appears as a small point source of hardlight because it is so far away.

A soft box appears very large because it is used so much closer to the subject and approximates size of the subject - Think umbrella versus head and shoulders. 20x30 inch softbox three feet from a subject.

SO moving a battery powered speed-lite further from the subject does not make it less of a hard light source. It may not be apparent that it is a hard light when used as fill, but it is a hard light. Bouncing or diffusing a speedlite can easily convert it to a soft light however. ( Incidentally - moving the flash further from the infant does not lessen the amount of the light illuminating the infant, if the exposure remains the same, does it?)

In your third image I saw sharp shadow boundaries on her dress in the center. I have highlighted them in orange. Soft shadows are highlighted in blue.

Do you feel this image is improved by these sharp edged shadows? Or do you think this is not important at all, and I am just old and cranky, wasting your creative time about nothing?:D

I would have liked to see her eyes just a little better too.

My comment about the risk of the baby falling off the windowsill, tells more abut my anxieties perhaps.

pathfinder · September 6, 2007

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Lynne

I read a pretty decent article last week about grey cards. It would be cumbersome at times, but the overall idea makes sense. Since you shoot raw anyway(don't you?) ......

Take a photo with the grey card in the picture.....lay it dow next to the child's face......then remove the card and shoot all the photos you want in that spot. If you move to a different location repeat above.

Now when you bring your shots into your RAW converter, use the picker took and set the WB using the photo of the grey card......from the grey card itself. Then apply the same WB settings to all the photos from that location. Seems easy enough to me, and the fun of it is that you aren'y concerned at all with WB while you are shooting.

It wouldn't work at a fast paced event, but it wouldn't be hard to run around before a wedding and take photos of the grey cards in different locations where you think you will have problems....keeping a list of file#s/locations to reference to later.
I plan to try try this next opportunity I have.

Sure wish my camera bag was 18% grey!!!!
Are any bag manufacturers listening?

This method will take into account any and all light sources in a scene.....sun,shade, flash etc.

Anyway...again very nice photos....I now have my flash, and am wondering how I got by so long without it!!!

There are some bags that are lined with gray, with that in mind.

You have to be careful assuming that an 18% gray card, designed for reflective light metering, may not be TRULY neutral at all.

Andrew Rodney has written at some length about this - that the 18% gray cards are not truly color neutral.

The other fact is that the white balance eye dropper in the Raw Convertor favors using a neutral color much closer to white than neutral gray. Some folks choose to use a MacBeth color checker chart and use the white tone just below full white.

Another device is pure white target as found here.

This can be used to calibrate a camera profile for the RAW converter as well.

SloYerRoll · September 6, 2007

urbanaries wrote:

I don't worry too much about gelling, because aren't the strobes balanced to daylight?

Strobes are balanced a white white. I'm not sure of the exact color. But take a seflie w/ half of your face exposed by the sun then expose your shadow side w/ a strobe. You'll see the difference is night and day in reference to color temperature

urbanaries wrote:

In the shade there's a difference, yes,

Why is there a difference of color temperature in the shade? The color temperate is the same in the shade as it is direct sunlight. What you are seeing in the shade is the reflection or direct light off of whatever the ground happens to be. So if your in the shade by a pool, the color temperature is going to get hotter (yes, I meant hotter. Think about putting a metal knife in a propane stove. First it gets red hot, then orange hot then blue hot). This seems backwards, but it's following the physics definition of temperature and color.

urbanaries wrote:

But, I am positive there must be a more accurate and/or easier way to gel properly.

Yes, practice. Certain climates are going to have different color temperatures from the sun so it's impossible to tell you what to do where you live. The exposure is always the same, but the temperature can vary. My recommendation would be:

Go outside later in the afternoon on an "average" day for your area (make sure its before 5:00pm)
put your strobe on a lightstand or whatever so it hits your face and the strobe is facing the sun
Dial in your exposure so you have a decent balance for the light. (your not taking a portrait, your just seeing what color temps are so who cares how the angle is for the lighting? No one )
Squeeze of a shot. (you should see half your face lit by the sun and half you face lit by the strobe)
place a 1/4 or 1/2 CTO gel on your strobe then shoot again (1/4 or 1/2 os how many stops of light the gel absorbs when the strobe is shining through it.)
double up your gel then shoot again
If you have a rosco sample pack, try different shades using the same method to see what gel works best for you.
This whole process either requires notes or you to remember what order you took the shots and what gels where used when.....

This is just a quick way to figure out how to compensate for color temp. Once you have done this. You have a benchmark to work w/.

Next time you shoot on an average day. You KNOW you need a "double 1/4 CTO gel" {example} to balance for daylight.
On a cloudy day, you might try a CTO and a BLUE gel combo to cool down the strobes temp a bit. The possibilities are close to endless.

This will get you at least in the right direction to "color correcting" your shots.

One reason this is so vital is that no matter how good of a wizard you are in post. You can never change the temp of one light source to match another. The natural gradients are just to fine and it will look like it went through a post blender.

I'll still come up w/ some things to show the 123's and ABC of speedlights.
I'm still learning though and I want to make sure I give all credit where it is due too!

-Jon

SloYerRoll · September 6, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

Another device is pure white target as found here.

So those things really work? I've been reading on them but all I've found is hype. Seems like a great way to set your white point though!

Is there a home grown version that works close enough so I don't have to drop 75 on this? I don't mind it later if I can justify it. But I don't NEED it now.

Thanks,
Jon

SloYerRoll · September 6, 2007

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Would it be better to start a new thread so it can be a sticky thread in the tips section later?

I'll really work on putting some things together. Mabey if I'm lucky, I'll be able to end up in a sticky or the hall of wisdom!
Yea my head is already getting big. I need to stop

SloYerRoll · September 6, 2007

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Take a photo with the grey card in the picture.....lay it dow next to the child's face......then remove the card and shoot all the photos you want in that spot. If you move to a different location repeat above.

Hey Jeff you definately got that right. In addition though, you want to make sure to shoot the grey card (or white) when the clouds roll in and about every 30 minutes if nothing changes. The sun is moving very fast and temps are constantly changing.

EDIT: You don't have to shoot a card every 30minutes. But it's a good practice to get into.

jeffreaux2 · September 6, 2007

SloYerRoll wrote:

So those things really work? I've been reading on them but all I've found is hype. Seems like a great way to set your white point though!

Is there a home grown version that works close enough so I don't have to drop 75 on this? I don't mind it later if I can justify it. But I don't NEED it now.

Thanks,
Jon

I have been using a piece of white cardstock that I keep in my back just to set WB. It lives there. It will get you pretty close, but I have found that pictures still need to be adjusted because they tend to run a tad on the cool side with this method. At least for my tastes. I use this mostly indoors, and it is particularly helpful in high school gymnasiums. I have also been caught without it and used the foamy wrap that my XTi came shipped in. Some sort of envelope/bag....that I held over the lens and pointed at the lights in the gym to take a photo for WB reference. For both of these I am doing this to set a custom WB in camera, and have never just used it as a reference for the RAW converter....and as I said, the photos appear a tad cool to me. I have heard of folks using coffee filters over the lens also, aimed at light source, to set CWB. Keep in mind, that something over the lens and aimed at the light source is only registering the source it is aimed at, and will be a moot point if you then use a flash.

So there....not perfectly accurate, but there are three options and the price cannot be beat!

fehlinger · September 7, 2007

Lynne,

I love 2 & 4! All are great shots, but those two really jumped out at me.

If you haven't already, you should check out Strobist.com if you want to really get the most out of your (small) off camera lights. Its PJ based, but the nuts and bolts work no matter what kind of photography you do.

Nice work, once again!

Shane422 · September 7, 2007

Have you discovered the strobist blog yet www.strobist.com. If off camera flash and balancing with ambient are your interests, I think you'll really like what he has to say. He also talks about gels, sync speed and everything you'd ever want to know about off camera flash.

SloYerRoll · September 13, 2007

photogmomma wrote:

Actually (I hope Lynne doesn't mind me saying this!), but I'd LOVE for you to explain this here! I just ordered some equipment and would love to know how to get thigns set up correctly. Thanks!!

Hey Andi, Scott, Jeff.....

I just finished the first of many tutorials I was talking about.
Once I started this, I realized that there would be many stages to this so it wouldn't slam anyone w/ too much info and make them not want to read it.

Check it out! I'll be adding new posts like this every few days. And after I cover all the how to's. I'll start on basic lighting techniques such as fill flash, color temp correction etc...

Hope this proves informative. I had a great time writing it up!

-Jon

Off camera flash baby portraits

Comments