I need a flash!

Elaine · October 8, 2007

Yesterday I had a family shoot. It was a very overcast and dreary afternoon, and I came away having learned a couple things.

1) I used a coffee filter to set custom white balance and I was quite pleased with that result. I will use that again!

2) I need an external flash! As much as I'd like to be a completely natural light photographer, on days like yesterday, I'm not sure how to really get stellar results without one. I'd still like to try my best with natural light, but...unless someone convinces me I do NOT need one, I think I'd better look into it. I just won $400 from a contest, but the thing is, I'd like to switch systems and upgrade to the Canon 40D...but I can't do it quite yet. Do I spend my money on a flash for my current system or save the money to go towards a new system? Hmmm...

Anyway, here are a few shots. I actually only got a few...I need to take lessons from Andi who comes back with 75+ keepers from a session! :huh With families, I tend to be happy to get just one strong photo! I hope I can improve that rate. I'm not very good at directing people yet...why can't they just come up with the creative poses themselves and let me snap away? LOL!

C&C please...before I share them with the family!

I was so paranoid about getting a nice 8x10 crop that I was zoomed tooooo far out, so I had to crop more than I desired, and with a 6mp camera, that didn't turn out optimally for the image. Live and learn! I did use some internal flash here, but not enough!

I didn't get this one set up quite right, and the kids don't have the best expressions, but I liked the setting!

Big brother to the cute girl I shared earlier ("favorite from today...").

Red and green...ready for Christmas! I used internal flash here too. I wish I would have thought to have her turn her body more so her shoulders wouldn't be so square on, but I think it's hard for her to find an unflattering pose!

Scott_Quier · October 8, 2007

WB is off in first and last, the middle two appear to be much better. I'm thinking your light changed on you as you moved around to different locations. I've attached an example that I think is closer to "true" (before on left, my edit on the right). Notice that her sweater, the girls socks, and the boy's white bands are all closer to being white.

I like the composition of the #2. Parents are always behind the kids and this one tells that story well. I agree, the kids' expression could have been better.

Big Brother - maybe just a little centered. Give him some room to the right?

Last one - I agree, she's a pretty lady. He looks comfortable. I'm not sure she is. I think what gives me that impression is the position of her hands and arms. It looks like she is straining to protect her modesty by keeping the front slit of her skit from splaying open. You do have a nice, though subtle, "S" curve going on with her though. That would be been strengthened a bit had her head been tilted just "that" much toward him.

Scott_Quier · October 8, 2007

Elaine wrote:

2) I need an external flash! As much as I'd like to be a completely natural light photographer, on days like yesterday, I'm not sure how to really get stellar results without one. I'd still like to try my best with natural light, but...unless someone convinces me I do NOT need one, I think I'd better look into it. I just won $400 from a contest, but the thing is, I'd like to switch systems and upgrade to the Canon 40D...but I can't do it quite yet. Do I spend my money on a flash for my current system or save the money to go towards a new system? Hmmm...

There are a couple of options if you can't, right now, spring for going the way you want. A quick search at B&H provided me with this list (here). There appear to be a number of low-cost, effective alternatives there.

Another alternative is the Sigma DG Super for Minolta (here). I have one of these for Canon. It's pretty nice. Ziggy seems to swear by them.

What would I do? I would find a cost-effective dedicated flash that could also be triggered remotely so that you can do some off-camera flash work as well. On-camera lighting is nice and relatively simple, but off-camera lighting rocks.

Going with a cost-effective solution will minimize your investment in a system that you want to move away from and, if you get a flash that can be remotely triggered, you can use that flash with your next system.

Elaine · October 8, 2007

Thanks, Scott! I knew I could count on you for some flash info!

Thanks for pointing out the WB issues. I actually had it more accurate to begin with, but after looking at them for so long, I convinced myself they needed to be warmed up, and I went too far.
With the boy's shot, I can't move around the crop as I took it on an angle and then decided I wasn't too sure about the angle. To straighten it out, I had to fabricate the bottom right corner of this shot. I noticed the center thing, but

maybe I should go back to the angle.
Yes, I can see that one might think she's a bit uncomfortable. I really wish I had seen her better through the lens and asked her to tilt her head. But, she is a kind of formal person, so she looks like herself to me. We've been friends for 16 years, BTW!

These points were not meant to dispute your points; they were meant to explain my own process. I TRULY appreciate you sharing your critique and before and after. Now I have more ammo to work with next time!

I'm off to investigate your flash links...

Elaine · October 8, 2007

On the last shot, can you tell me which way the color is leaning? I mean, if the WB is off, which direction did it go? I'm having a hard time really seeing this one right, I think because of all the green in the background. Her sweater is not white white either, it's more ivory. Their skin tones look nicely warm to me, but I really don't trust me eyes!

jeffreaux2 · October 8, 2007

I Can't wait til you upgrade your equipment!!! I really like all of these. Scott made some good points, and I thing the brother definately could have benifited from some space to the right. As far as the WB, great job!! I actually like the warmth, and think some thing part way between what you and Scott provided might be just about right for my tastes. Excellent job. I think you did a pretty good job with the on camera flash, and I think it balanced out about right in that first shot.

Scott_Quier · October 8, 2007

Elaine wrote:

On the last shot, can you tell me which way the color is leaning? I mean, if the WB is off, which direction did it go? I'm having a hard time really seeing this one right, I think because of all the green in the background. Her sweater is not white white either, it's more ivory. Their skin tones look nicely warm to me, but I really don't trust me eyes!

I'm seeing a slight green cast to the skin and I was using the sweater as a white point. Just because I was seeing it doesn't mean that it's actually there. And, if her sweater was not white but a little ivory, then I would like to take back what I said about the WB.

Elaine · October 8, 2007

jeffreaux2 wrote:

I Can't wait til you upgrade your equipment!!!

Me too! I'm trying not to have the attitude of "If I only had such and such, I could take better pictures." But... a few more MP allows for better cropping, higher ISO allows for better low light, and when the sun is gone another light source can do wonders! So, I'm trying to work with what I've got, but I've gotten pickier!

jeffreaux2 wrote:

I really like all of these. Scott made some good points, and I thing the brother definately could have benifited from some space to the right. As far as the WB, great job!! I actually like the warmth, and think some thing part way between what you and Scott provided might be just about right for my tastes. Excellent job. I think you did a pretty good job with the on camera flash, and I think it balanced out about right in that first shot.

Thank you very much! I scootched (is that a word?) the boy over to the left a bit more, so I think it's better, but not fantastic. And I toned down the warmth in the family shot a bit, but not quite as much as Scott showed. The original is underexposed, so it might look balanced OK now, but it took a bit of work.

Anyway, thanks for the

!

Here's the gallery:
http://e-heasley.smugmug.com/gallery/3603381#204967538

Elaine · October 8, 2007

Scott_Quier wrote:

I'm seeing a slight green cast to the skin and I was using the sweater as a white point. Just because I was seeing it doesn't mean that it's actually there. And, if her sweater was not white but a little ivory, then I would like to take back what I said about the WB.

I kept seeing it too, so I kept tweaking and tweaking and worried I had gone overboard! I think it's just because of all the green in the picture (I hope!).

Icebear · October 8, 2007

I think I know you from somewhere!!

Elaine wrote:

so I kept tweaking and tweaking and worried I had gone overboard!

You've definitely got the disease! And I quote " Does anyone else feel like they're in the this-picture-I-took-has-potential-so-I'll-mess-with-it-'till-I-come-up-with-something-satisfying business??? "

Sorry. Just too perfect a straight line!

Elaine · October 8, 2007

Icebear wrote:

You've definitely got the disease! And I quote " Does anyone else feel like they're in the this-picture-I-took-has-potential-so-I'll-mess-with-it-'till-I-come-up-with-something-satisfying business??? "

Sorry. Just too perfect a straight line!

Hah! You found me out!

Actually, I was referring to more than just "tweaking" in that other post...more like rescuing or salvaging!

Kevin G · October 8, 2007

WHy would you want to stay away from flash and only be a natural light photographer when lighting can make almost any picture 10x better?

You don't need a $400 flash and I would look at getting more than one. There is a ton of info on this site - http://strobist.blogspot.com

You can get three $85 flashes and create portraits that are magazine quality.

p.s. - I don't have my off camera flashes yet because I'm budgeting so don't look at my work for examples. But check out the strobist flickr group and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

DavidS · October 8, 2007

Nice set. A couple of them may not be perfect, but you captured some great stuff. I am struggling with a few of the same issues. Families are tuff.

photogmomma · October 8, 2007

Let's see... Overall, VERY nicely done! I think my trick to getting a lot of keepers is that i concentrate on the kids and generally have them doing something that they normally would and I just shoot. For families, I try to do at least 3 different poses with all of them.

I'm not a big fan of standing poses - not because they can't look good, but rather because they're harder. It's hard getting an interesting pose. Either their heads are too far apart OR they are too close to being in a line. You were really lucky to have a family that looked awesome standing!

For posing families - mainly 4 or 5 people in the family - I try to get a triangle pose of heads or bodies. In other words, I try to get everyone staggered so that they look like a triangle - usually head of the family (father or mother) at the top, but not always. Seated is pretty easy to do that, but not always. ETA: Triangle 1, triangle 2, triangle 3 (looser and maybe I should have switch boy/girl in this shot).

For women, and I'm not very good at this - ask Lynne - I try to work to make them look good first. I think of it this way, women are hardest on themselves and if they don't look good (or feel they don't) in a photo, they probably won't want it. Conversely, if they DO look good, they are more likely to buy it - even if every one else is posed as well. At least, that's what I've found.

I try to find locations that afford several different places to sit/stand. Parents standing behind the children who are sitting on a or interacting with a wall/branch/ledge. Bench of some sort - use the arms to even out heads, if necessary. Sitting on the ground. If they're game, lay them on their bellies - or at least the dad - and have one of the children sit on his back (this link shows something more studio-like and is not my favorite, but might spark ideas). Sometimes you do a pose and it sucks, but you may see another similar one that works. But look for the triangle of bodies and heads and you'll be surprised how much of a difference that makes!

I also *try* to take it slow. My first inclination is to HURRY through everything. "I'm taking up too much of their time! YIKES!" But remember that they're getting something high quality from you (these are all wonderful shots much better than even many professionals!) and they don't always know what they should expect - by going slowly, thinking through things you'll come upon new ideas. And they'll be fine if it takes 45 minutes instead of 30. Or 2 hours instead of 1. Whatever....

On to your photos. While the WB is off a bit, it's certainly not horrible at all. I'd say the first and the last are slightly warm so if you're using LR, just back that down slightly.

1 - VERY nice! I'm sorry you were zoomed too far back - as a former 6MP camera owner, I know exactly what you're talking about! But this is a wonderful standing pose that could be cropped even closer, if need be. You may want to darken the far end of the path as that keeps pulling my eye, but that's a nit pick!

2 - Almost very nice... Try doing it with a much longer zoom - 200-300mm and get really far away. That way the parents are closer in size to the children proportionally, but are still out of focus. Makes for a very nice photo! I still really like it, though, and think this might work really well in B&W or sepia! ETA: Here is an example of that - I had the son about 20 feet in front of the parents - they're both in focus (well, almost) in this case, but you can see how the perspective *really* changes by zooming. I was about 75 feet from the parents! http://www.tippiepics.com/gallery/2129922#110253856

3 - What a cutie! I think this could have benefitted from a flash, but you could (and I never do -

!) get a piece of foam core from Michael's or Hobby Lobby and have one of the parents reflect light back onto his left (our right) side to even things up a bit. Cheap and easy!

4 - Nice, but I'd like to see more interaction between them. Maybe even her sitting on his lap or them turned opposite directions, but facing each other (him sitting to the left, facing his body right, her sitting right body facing left), him at least having his arm around her.

I always tell people that if it FEELS uncomfortable or unnatural, it looks that way. And that's about 99% true. Rather than say "Okay, you sit here, face this way, you sit here, face this way", I'll tell them, "Go sit on that stump and do it in a way that you'd normally sit and talk or watch your kids". Although they may need more direction, after 2-3 poses, they get the feel and will do something more naturally and look better.

Wow. Hope that wasn't too much information!

!

pathfinder · October 8, 2007

Kevin G wrote:

WHy would you want to stay away from flash and only be a natural light photographer when lighting can make almost any picture 10x better?

You don't need a $400 flash and I would look at getting more than one. There is a ton of info on this site - http://strobist.blogspot.com

You can get three $85 flashes and create portraits that are magazine quality.

p.s. - I don't have my off camera flashes yet because I'm budgeting so don't look at my work for examples. But check out the strobist flickr group and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Elaine,
I agree with Kevin.

If you are going to promote yourself as a professional photographer you need professional tools which includes a good OFF CAMERA capable flash, and something to trigger it with.

The quality of your images will grow by leaps and bounds with that simple measure. People will be astounded and think you must have a very expensive camera. But it is good light that creates the images. And with flash, kids won't be blurred from movement either.

Whenever folks are on grass in the shade, I expect the images will tend toward the cool side, and they may even be strongly green - check wedding dress shots in the grass sometimes.

I appreciate your desire to use natural light, Elaine, but good lighting can improve natural light dramatically. A simple off camera flash is a great start. The strobist kit with a radio trigger, stand, flash, gels and umbrella is only ~ $215. You cannnot buy anything else for that price that will improve the quality of your images so much, Elaine. And you will find you do a LOT LESS fiddling in Photoshop after the fact. I even posted a thread with exposure settings for the 285HV and the EOS 550ex here

This image is just a rusty old pipe fitting, shot at noon in bright sunlight, but I lit it with a flash from the right with a 1/4 CT gel and it looks like nice soft warm light from late afternoon. Took me no time and no post processing to do this.

Elaine · October 9, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

Elaine,
I agree with Kevin.

If you are going to promote yourself as a professional photographer you need professional tools which includes a good OFF CAMERA capable flash, and something to trigger it with.

The quality of your images will grow by leaps and bounds with that simple measure. People will be astounded and think you must have a very expensive camera. But it is good light that creates the images. And with flash, kids won't be blurred from movement either.

Whenever folks are on grass in the shade, I expect the images will tend toward the cool side, and they may even be strongly green - check wedding dress shots in the grass sometimes.

I appreciate your desire to use natural light, Elaine, but good lighting can improve natural light dramatically. A simple off camera flash is a great start. The strobist kit with a radio trigger, stand, flash, gels and umbrella is only ~ $215. You cannnot buy anything else for that price that will improve the quality of your images so much, Elaine. And you will find you do a LOT LESS fiddling in Photoshop after the fact. I even posted a thread with exposure settings for the 285HV and the EOS 550ex here

This image is just a rusty old pipe fitting, shot at noon in bright sunlight, but I lit it with a flash from the right with a 1/4 CT gel and it looks like nice soft warm light from late afternoon. Took me no time and no post processing to do this.

All righty...you did see that the title of my thread is "I need a flash," right?

I have become more and more aware, especially after this shoot (where I did employ my camera's flash) that I do indeed need to invest in more equipment and time learning. I do get that. I wish I was better at reading natural light as well, but maybe that will come with more experienced flash use, too. I just don't know enough about that area yet, so I will begin studying. As I've stated before, I'm hoping to jump camera systems (from Minolta to Canon, probably), so I'm hesitant to spend money on anything right now, before a new camera is in my hand. It's very hard to wait!!!

Thanks for all the tips and the example shot!

pathfinder · October 9, 2007

A strobist kit will work with your Minolta, or with a new Canon or Nikon, or even a Canon G9 point and shoot. That is the point really, Elaine. - it will work with any camera that can shoot in Manual mode, and can trigger an external flash. Much cheaper than a new lens or a new camera too.

I am not trying to step on a sore toe here, I saw the title of your thread,

, but you seem to be hesitating, and I am sure you will find that the ability to add flash to your images will improve the perception of professional quality images. This will lead to more paying work, and more satisfaction.

What's not to like?

Adding one external flash, with maybe a reflector, will pay real dividends and is not hard at all. These images were all shot with one simple flash in manual mode and one simple reflecting surface by a poor amateur photographer that I know rather well. Shay says start with one flash off camera and learn to use it well before adding more lights. Shay's a pretty smart cookie,and I agree with him.

Elaine · October 9, 2007

Kevin G wrote:

WHy would you want to stay away from flash and only be a natural light photographer when lighting can make almost any picture 10x better?

You don't need a $400 flash and I would look at getting more than one. There is a ton of info on this site - http://strobist.blogspot.com

You can get three $85 flashes and create portraits that are magazine quality.

p.s. - I don't have my off camera flashes yet because I'm budgeting so don't look at my work for examples. But check out the strobist flickr group and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Natural light appeals to me because of its look (when it's done well) and because it is simple and inexpensive!

I am certainly not against flash use and would love to become proficient in that area. I recognize my own need for it and budgeting is what has kept me out of it so far, so I can relate!

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying I wanted a $400 flash, I just said that I had that amount saved right now and I was considering a flash or continuing to save for my new camera system. Thanks for the link!

Elaine · October 9, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

A strobist kit will work with your Minolta, or with a new Canon or Nikon, or even a Canon G9 point and shoot. That is the point really, Elaine. - it will work with any camera that can shoot in Manual mode, and can trigger an external flash. Much cheaper than a new lens or a new camera too.

I am not trying to step on a sore toe here, I saw the title of your thread, , but you seem to be hesitating, and I am sure you will find that the ability to add flash to your images will improve the perception of professional quality images. This will lead to more paying work, and more satisfaction. What's not to like?

Well, to be honest, I know so little about the area of flash that Scott's post earlier in this thread was the first I knew about the possibility of a remote flash system that could work with any camera system!

I know...

I need to get on the ball! The only part not to like is waiting for my new knowledge to kick-in to become second nature. But I know it will be worth it. Thanks again!

Elaine · October 9, 2007

photogmomma wrote:

Wow. Hope that wasn't too much information! !

Thanks a TON, Andi! I appreciate all the tips, links and reminders about posing. I have to remind myself not to hurry either. I have not built up much confidence in the directing of people yet, and when there are little kids involved, I feel like I have to hurry and grab some shots before their good humor is gone! I also think it's difficult when you're working with folks who may expect a more traditional look or pose and so you feel like they are just waiting for you to tell them what to do or how to stand. Sometimes they will be even more uncomfortable with just being told to be themselves. I think it will just take practice. I'm hoping to get a practice session with this same family...maybe I'll come away with better shots from that one, just because it's "practice!"
I agree...the shot of the boy certainly needed some fill. I think this is the only shot I didn't at least try some flash. (I didn't with the shots of the girl in the gallery either...the rock wall did a nice job reflecting, I think.) You know, I have one of those foam core boards and I've not remembered to try it! I was going to have an assitant for this shoot, but she ended up sick and I thought the family may have been uncomfortable with that anyway. But I could always use a parent!
I do wish the pic of mom and dad was a little more organic somehow, but I also think it represents them well, so I'm not too unhappy with it.

Thank you for taking the time to write out all this info!!!!!! I do think my photography has improved over the last year I've been here, because of you and the others who have responded to my threads and shared your own great info and experiences.

LiquidAir · October 9, 2007

Elaine wrote:

Well, to be honest, I know so little about the area of flash that Scott's post earlier in this thread was the first I knew about the possibility of a remote flash system that could work with any camera system! I know... I need to get on the ball! The only part not to like is waiting for my new knowledge to kick-in to become second nature. But I know it will be worth it. Thanks again!

There are a number of options for remote flash that don't depend on the camera system. However the price you pay (in most cases--the only exception I can think of is the Quantum system) is that you lose TTL flash metering. Flash exposure control is going to be completely manual which, in many cases, is the right answer anyhow. The only time I uses metered flash is when shooting candids. I use manual flash power settings for all my posed shots.

If you are thinking of shifting to the Canon system at some point, you can pick up a Canon 580EX now and trigger it from your current camera with radio remotes. Then when you switch systems, you can pick up an ST-E2 to get metered wireless. Personally I used both the ST-E2 and radio triggers depending on the circumstances. The ST-E2 is great for shooting candids indoors and works fine for most indoor portrait work, but outdoors I find the IR system isn't reliable enough so I switch to radio triggers.

Elaine · October 9, 2007

LiquidAir wrote:

There are a number of options for remote flash that don't depend on the camera system. However the price you pay (in most cases--the only exception I can think of is the Quantum system) is that you lose TTL flash metering. Flash exposure control is going to be completely manual which, in many cases, is the right answer anyhow. The only time I uses metered flash is when shooting candids. I use manual flash power settings for all my posed shots.

If you are thinking of shifting to the Canon system at some point, you can pick up a Canon 580EX now and trigger it from your current camera with radio remotes. Then when you switch systems, you can pick up an ST-E2 to get metered wireless. Personally I used both the ST-E2 and radio triggers depending on the circumstances. The ST-E2 is great for shooting candids indoors and works fine for most indoor portrait work, but outdoors I find the IR system isn't reliable enough so I switch to radio triggers.

Thanks for more info and ideas! I am definitely not a studio type shooter, and I prefer my sessions to be a bit more free-form (following kids around outside, moving around to many different locations), so I normally shoot aperture priority, just for the speed of it. The idea of hauling an off-camera flash around with me that would need to be manually adjusted as well sounds like a lot of missed shots to me! For posed family shots, I can see this as workable and helpful, but it seems like my method of shooting would also need/benefit from an on-camera flash with some sort of diffuser.

Am I missing something here? As I said, I know notta in this area!

Travis · October 9, 2007

photogmomma wrote:

I also *try* to take it slow. My first inclination is to HURRY through everything. "I'm taking up too much of their time! YIKES!" But remember that they're getting something high quality from you (these are all wonderful shots much better than even many professionals!) and they don't always know what they should expect - by going slowly, thinking through things you'll come upon new ideas. And they'll be fine if it takes 45 minutes instead of 30. Or 2 hours instead of 1. Whatever....

Dead on the mark Andi! I think most people tend minimize their tendency to feel rushed when doing portraits. I noticed in myself during my last portrait shoot. It almost sounded like a panicked voice in the back of my head saying "hurry, hurry, hurry".

Then later during PP, the hangover thought was "geez, if I had just taken another minute and tried...." We are so used to everything moving fast in our lives that we forget it is often necessary to slow down in order to get something right. Great point!

LiquidAir · October 9, 2007

Elaine wrote:

Thanks for more info and ideas! I am definitely not a studio type shooter, and I prefer my sessions to be a bit more free-form (following kids around outside, moving around to many different locations), so I normally shoot aperture priority, just for the speed of it. The idea of hauling an off-camera flash around with me that would need to be manually adjusted as well sounds like a lot of missed shots to me! For posed family shots, I can see this as workable and helpful, but it seems like my method of shooting would also need/benefit from an on-camera flash with some sort of diffuser. Am I missing something here? As I said, I know notta in this area!

If you are shooting unpredicatable moving subjects you will have a tough time using off camera strobe without an assistant. I will sometimes shoot with the strobe in my left hand and the camera in the right, but that is tricky at best. Here is a recent example of something I shot that way:

In this case, the camera is actually in my left hand and the strobe in my right cross lighting the sun as fill.

However, if you can take a few moments to choose the location, you can get a lot of mileage out of an off camera strobe. For really quick setups, the easiest thing to do is pick a place in the shade with moderate contrast and a dark background. Then you set up the snooted strobe as a rim light. Watch this quick YouTube video for what is possible with this technique:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqMI72jsXRQ

The setup is pretty simple. The brightest shade you are likely to find is around ISO 100, 1/125 at f/5.6, so I use that as my reference exposure. I have calibrated my flash setup with a light meter so I know what power setting to use to get that exposure at a distance of 8 feet. Then I measure the ambient light where I am going to be shooting and for every stop darker than my reference exposure, I drop the power on my flash by a stop and adjust the camera settings appropriately, always keeping the shutter speed at 1/125. As we move around, I try to always keep the strobe 8 feet from my subject and I am golden. For small variations in the ambient light, I can adjust the shutter speed to compensate but if the ambient changes dramatically I have change the flash power.

I need a flash!

Comments